|
| ||||
|
Venenum in cauda:
"Their Founder repudiated the Romans whom they love, and with whom they are today, reportedly, plotting to change the Statutes of the Society with which he gave it its structure. If the report is true, no wonder the Roman modernists insist on a new structure, open and no longer closed to appropriation by the traitors of Rome and of the Newsociety."
The prelature lives?
:popcorn:
I saw that too was wondering.....what statutes are they trying to change? Maybe it is, as you say, having to do with a prelature. It might indeed have to do with reconciling with Rome without making it look as if they are reconciling, so as to prevent the alienation of some of the priests in the SSPX. Or they may think that they will be somewhat safe in a prelature situation, but the pope is usually in charge in a prelature situation, so that's a problem.
So far, Fr. Pagliarani has done nothing to change the orientation that Bp. Fellay gave the SSPX. They belong, apparently, to the same party.
Which is why Fr. pagliarani defended +Fellay at the 2012 General Chapter, and then succeeded him at the 2018 General Chapter (and surrounded himself by two new "General Counselors:" +Fellay and Schmidberger).https://angeluspress.org/products/time-bombs-vatican-ii
The questions a I would ask +Williamson
1) Is SSPX still a viable organization in fighting modernism and advancing a return to Tradition?
2) Have Fellay & Co. betrayed SSPX faithful partially or fully?
3) Where does the bulk of money come to run the apostolate?
From average donors attached to its chapels?
From real estate and other business investments?
From Jєωιѕн sources?
"For at Vatican II a diabolical plot to destroy the Catholic Church succeeded in persuading the Church’s leading churchmen to replace the true God-centred Faith with a false man-centred parody of that Faith. And these churchmen – two Popes and about 2,000 bishops – went on in turn to persuade a large majority of Catholic souls all over the world to adopt the new humanist religion, because these Popes and bishops seemed to be that Authority..."
So a canonized pope, who created a new mass that produces miracles, is the same pope who succeeded in leading a diabolical plot to destroy the Catholic Church?
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Correct. Would you like me to explain?
Bishop Williamson:QuoteFor a sin to be mortally grave, three things are required: that the sin be in itself, objectively, grave enough to cause the spiritual death of the soul; secondly, that the sinner be aware that his act is mortally sinful; and thirdly that he give his full consent to committing the sinful act. What this means is that if somebody commits what is in fact a mortal sin without his knowing that it is, then the act is objectively sinful, but not subjectively, because of his ignorance. Such was the case of many Catholics after Vatican II.
Therefore the ringleaders of Vatican II who knew exactly what they were doing to destroy the Church were supremely guilty, while any bishops, priests and laity beneath them who were duped – and that was the mass of them – were relatively innocent.
Now the exact degree of guilt or innocence in each single soul that has taken part in that betrayal ever since, is known to God, but common sense is enough to tell that a large proportion of Catholics following the apostasy of Vatican II ever since have been more sinned against than sinning, and here is the common sense reason for ourselves to judge them leniently.
No, that's alright. I understand it already. But, on second thoughts, why not? What do you have?
...since they generally believe the rite flatly invalid (although they still need to explain why, with the essential rite of both the TLM and the Montinian Rite being identical, a sacrament is produced in the former, but not the latter).
Because the intent was changed to be specifically not Catholic when they removed 'the stumbling blocks for the separated brethren' (that is to say, Catholic doctrine/dogmas).
Thank you, MOTS.
What does MOTS mean?
I invite you to read the Ottaviani Intervention. Here's one statement, among countless, from Chapter III, Part I:
1. Ultimate purpose. The ultimate purpose of the Mass is the sacrifice of praise rendered to the Most Holy Trinity. This end conforms to the primary purpose of the Incarnation, explicitly enunciated by Christ Himself: "Coming into the world he saith: sacrifice and oblation thou wouldst not, but a body thou hast fitted me." (9 (http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/ottaviani.htm#9))
In the Novus Ordo, this purpose has disappeared:
Having removed the keystone, the reformers had to put up scaffolding. Having suppressed the real purposes of the Mass, they had to substitute fictitious purposes of their own. This forced them to introduce actions stressing the union between priest and faithful, or among the faithful themselves-----and led to the ridiculous attempt to superimpose offerings for the poor and for the Church on the offering of the host to be immolated.
Because Catholic teaching dictates that Form, Matter and Intent are required, and the intent is now clearly not Catholic - I'll stick with Not Valid.
Miracle
Of
The
Sun
1) Greatly diminished, but not completely useless. The SSPX can still be a stepping stone to the Resistance (i.e., pre-1992 SSPX).Personally, I'm not looking for a pre-1992 SSPX. I'm looking for a restored Roman Catholic Church.
2) Can you please define "partial" and "full" betrayal?The question was badly phrased. Better to ask: Has SSPX leadership betrayed the faithful on any level?
3) Legacies (e.g., Jaidhofer Foundation).Jew money in other words. I think I agree.
If the Montinian Rite is capable of confecting a valid sacrament through the Eucharistic miracle of transubstantiation, as the Hewkonians/Pfeifferians admit, then why not some other Eucharistic miracle?I remember having this discussion about transubstantiation in the seminary when we were studying miracles in apologetics.
Sedevacantists can escape this argument, since they generally believe the rite flatly invalid (although they still need to explain why, with the essential rite of both the TLM and the Montinian Rite being identical, a sacrament is produced in the former, but not the latter).
But the Hewkonians uncritically repeat like a mantra, "If there's a miracle there, it means the rite is pleasing to God."
It never occurs to them how gratuitous and stupid that is, because were it true that a miracle can only mean the rite is pleasing to God, transubstantiation itself being a miracle, they would be forced to conclude the Novis Ordo is pleasing to God!
Or even more absurdly, they would be forced to declare that a valid Satanic Mass -at which would be present the Eucharistic miracle of transubstantiation- is pleasing to God.
But knowing +Lefebvre didn't declare the per se invalidity of that rite, they're stuck in arbitrarity: This miracle doesn't mean the rite is pleasing to God, but that miracle does!
I remember having this discussion about transubstantiation in the seminary when we were studying miracles in apologetics.
In the apologetic sense, a miracle must be an observable fact, a factum sensibile, and so in this sense, transubstantiation is not a miracle. You could say God is just respecting the law that He has established with transubstantiation, but in a true miracle He is acting beyond the established order of nature, the MOTS being a case in point!
So I believe Fr Hewko had a valid concern in this matter, a concern shared at the time by the overwhelming majority of those in the Resistance, even the priests, and I believe the onus was on Bishop Williamson to explain just how God could work such a miracle without somehow giving the divine seal of approval to the NOM and the conciliar establishment.
I was certainly shocked at the time, and I remember a disgruntled and discouraged fellow resistant, who has since returned to the SSPX, remonstrating "we don't need new ideas, we just need to continue in the same line of Mgr Lefebvre!". Most of us felt the same way, it didn't seem opportune. The priests who came our way went into damage control...
But God's ways are not our ways. Bishop Williamson has, I believe, given a plausible explanation and so I withhold judgement. It came at a time when the Resistance was losing many souls to sedevacantism, and I think the good bishop was trying to impress upon us that, in spite of the fact that Tradition is the truth, nonetheless, the great majority of Catholics in the world today find themselves, often through no fault of their own, trapped in the conciliar mess, and God does not abandon His sheep. That is not to say of course that most souls in the conciliar mess are Catholic, that is altogether a different proposition!
The fault of Frs Hewko and Pfeiffer was rather, in my opinion, the inordinate and unjustified nature of their attack. One wonders in hindsight if Fr Hewko would have taken it so far without Fr P's encouragement, and we all know now the alterior motives behind that. What a wonderful thing for Fr Hewko and his followers if he could find the humility to reconcile with Bishop Williamson.
So my observation in the previous post stands: We will dictate arbitrarily to God that He can perform this kind of miracle, but not that kind of miracle?
I thought God had already given us our 'guide to validity' in form, matter, and intent. If any of those is missing, then a sacrament is not valid. Why reject Catholic teaching on sacramental validity?
MOTS, it is the intention of the priest consecrating that is relevant to the validity of the sacrament/sacrifice, not the intention of the revolutionaries involved in the reform.
What are you babbling about form, matter, and intent for??
I’m not sure why you reject all the ecuмenical councils, but you’re wrong to do so.
1) Greatly diminished, but not completely useless. The SSPX can still be a stepping stone to the Resistance (i.e., pre-1992 SSPX).
If the Montinian Rite is capable of confecting a valid sacrament through the Eucharistic miracle of transubstantiation, as the Hewkonians/Pfeifferians admit, then why not some other Eucharistic miracle?
God CAN do whatever He wants. What's at issue is whether God WOULD work an external / observable miracle that could and likely would be construed by many as His endorsement of the NOM.Very well elucidated.
I hold that God would not work such miracles. I looked around for Orthodox accounts of Eucharistic miracles and could find none, even on various Orthodox forums I've checked. That question was asked, and no Orthodox poster ever produced a link to such a miracle. Generally the answer is that the consecration IS a miracle.
And my second hypothesis is that God would not allow demons to tamper with a valid Blessed Sacrament. This too is backed up by the absence of any Orthodox "miracles" that can be proven at least preternatural (i.e. not explainable by natural means, including human fraud).
So based on my two hypothesized premises --
1) God would not work miracles surrounding the NOM lest people should construe it as His endorsement of the NOM
2) God would not allow demons to tamper with valid Sacraments
I conclude that the hosts at NO Masses where such "miracles" that cannot be explained by natural means are not in fact validly consecrated. Of course, one cannot logically extrapolate from there whether ALL NO Masses are invalid, just these particular ones.
In any case, when Bishop Williamson refers people to "miracles that cannot be disputed" (just check the internet, says His Excellency), why does he make no account of the possibility of diabolical or demonic activity? Demons can simulate nearly any type of "miracle".
Why would demons simulate such miracles? Well, we see right there with Bishop Williamson being led on account of said "miracles" to where he's becoming softer on the NOM, concluding not only that it's at least potentially valid (using the miracles as "proof") but even taking the next step in holding that it cannot be totally condemned because it "nourishes" souls.
Not a few Trads here look at these "miracles" and conclude therefrom that the NOM is intrinsically valid, and many conclude that it "can't be all that bad" if God works miracles around it ... precisely the diabolical intent here.
Think about it. If you were the devil and had succeeded in replacing the Catholic Mass with the NOM (dubiously valid, sacrilegious, etc.) what better way to get people who might be on the fence to buy into it than fake some "Eucharistic miracles" tied to the NOM? That would have been my first course of action after succeeding to get the NOM in.
I'm honestly confused about why Bishop Williamson continues to promote all manner of dubious private revelation ... including Garabandal, which has been thoroughly discredited (failed prophecies, seers backing away from endorsing it, etc. ... not to mention diabolical phenomena that took place at the time).
Garabandal was clearly not humanly-explainable (vs. Medjugorje ... which was just plain fraud), but diabolical. Why would the devil perpetrate a Garabandal hoax. Well, the best explanation came from the Dimond Brothers. At the time, the Third Secret was supposed to have been revealed, and the Third Secret deals primarily with a SPIRITUAL chastisement (i.e. Vatican II, the NOM, likely the imposter popes, etc.), but Garabandal and Akita (another favorite of Bishop Williamson) deal almost exclusively with a physical chastisement, fire from the sky and the like.
So while the actual chastisement of the Third Secret was well underway right before the eyes of all, as would be made "clearer" in 1960, and dealing with an "apostasy beginning at the top" (Cardinal Ciappi, who read the Secret), all eyes and minds are redirected to the expectation of some future PHYSICAL chastisement. In addition, the notable silence of Heaven regarding V2, the NOM, etc. can give people the impression that God does not reject this revolution in the Church. Both these speak of "bishop vs. bishop" etc. ... making it seem that the battle is between good factions within the Conciliar Church vs. bad factions, rather than an imposter Church set up to eclipse the True Church founded by Christ.
God CAN do whatever He wants. What's at issue is whether God WOULD…
My issue is not that people don’t believe in this or that (or any) alleged Eucharistic miracle, but that they are arbitrarily dogmatizing their own subjective impressions by mandating a certain interpretation about what it MUST mean or imply if true, despite not having any compelling reason (eg., Church teaching) for doing so, particularly when there are equally compelling narratives and possibilities which contradict it.Do those who believe these are miracles make it clear that others should never assist at the NO?
Is Fr. Hewko really the arbiter and oracle of what and why God can and must do something?
When an argument begins with “If God performed a miracle, it means He is endorsing the Novus Ordo,” and condemns interpretations which say God could intervene to instill the very faith in His real presence which the Montinian rite attacks, then He’d better be able to show some evidence:
Are there good or bad fruits associated with the alleged miracle (eg., How has faith, morals, spiritual life, belief in the real presence, etc. been effected locally)?
But he never attempts to do so, because quite frankly, this is all just another stick to beat +Williamson with. Therefore, God is squished into the narrative, and orthodoxy made to depend upon its acceptance.
One arbitrary opinion is as good as another, and mine is that there’s eminent sense in believing God would manifest such a miracle where one could do the most good for the most souls (whether He actually did or not being another matter).
I hold that God would not work such miracles. I looked around for Orthodox accounts of Eucharistic miracles and could find none, even on various Orthodox forums I've checked. That question was asked, and no Orthodox poster ever produced a link to such a miracle. Generally the answer is that the consecration IS a miracle.I wondered about this. If the NO has "miracles" because it is valid, then why don't the Orthodox liturgies...which we know are certainly valid?
My issue is not that people don’t believe in this or that (or any) alleged Eucharistic miracle, but that they are arbitrarily dogmatizing their own subjective impressions by mandating a certain interpretation about what it MUST mean or imply if true, despite not having any compelling reason (eg., Church teaching) for doing so, particularly when there are equally compelling narratives and possibilities which contradict it.
Do those who believe these are miracles make it clear that others should never assist at the NO?
I wondered about this. If the NO has "miracles" because it is valid, then why don't the Orthodox liturgies...which we know are certainly valid?
But if one quotes the Ottaviani Intervention, cites the Catholic requirements of Form, Matter, and Intent, and the definition of the Bastardo Service as laid out by the canonized pontiff himself, he is accused of 'babbling'???
Only on CathInfo...
No, the problem is that you are ignorant, and don’t know it (as Plenus Ventor explained above).
Enlighten me, please, oh Great One.
Which of the 3 citations didn't you agree with?
Sure the intent is presumed, if it's a Catholic rite, but the Bastardo isn't a Catholic rite. It's basically a Protestant rite with a little Nestorian heresy thrown in for icing on the cake.
And isn't it the new Offertory that's essentially a Jєωιѕн dinner prayer?
Or something like that.
Probably false though.
Why are you still babbling about the rite?
From Archbishop Lefebvre's book for his priests, Spiritual Journey:
"The devil’s action since Vatican II is very revealing. It obliges those who wish to remain Catholic to courageously defend the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Priesthood as Our Lord instituted them."
Not as Bugnini/Paul VI instituted them. We can't lose sight of who 'created' the New Mass.
The rite is defective as the 3 different citations maintain.
Your charity is almost as sharp as your wit. I'm rooting for you. You can do it!
From Archbishop Lefebvre's book for his priests, Spiritual Journey:
"The devil’s action since Vatican II is very revealing. It obliges those who wish to remain Catholic to courageously defend the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Priesthood as Our Lord instituted them."
Not as Bugnini/Paul VI instituted them. We can't lose sight of who 'created' the New Mass.
The Catholic faith is just about extinct, in about 50 years, due to the Bastardo service. Some things speak for themselves. The proof is in the pudding, as they say.
Seems pretty obvious to me that my understanding... is closer to the mark.
So much for my citing Catholic docuмents. Take it easy, Bud.
Docuмents that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.
As the great Vanilla Ice used to say, 'Word to your mother'. Not sure why that popped into my head but there ya go.
Doesn't sound like much has to do with your issue at hand to be honest. No offense, just saying.
This is the entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia regarding miracles:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Miracle (newadvent.org) (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm)
Agreed.
What would you like me to take away from this article?I haven't had the time to find specific quotes from it, but I thought it would be a good place for others to find support for their position on Eucharistic miracles via the Novus Ordo.
Sean, must you feel the need to reply to everything? haha
We all know that God only works miracles in confirmation of the truth, not a confirmation of a falsehood. A miracle in the NO would give legitimacy to the Modernist Conciliar schismatic religion, which Archbishop Lefebvre called a bastard rite.
Completely gratuitous and arbitrary, as explained earlier.So, again, that would necessarily mean that it is proof that the NO rite is Catholic and valid. Why doesn't God perform such miracles in a TLM then....or the Orthodox liturgy for that matter.....if the purpose of the miracle is to confirm the dogma of the Real Presence?
The truth being confirmed is the dogma of the Real Presence.
So, again, that would necessarily mean that it is proof that the NO rite is Catholic and valid. Why doesn't God perform such miracles in a TLM then....or the Orthodox liturgy for that matter.....if the purpose of the miracle is to confirm the dogma of the Real Presence?
Because God (who comes to heal the sick, not the healthy) has no need of reaffirming belief in the Real Presence for souls at the TLM, but at the NOM, where that dogma is under attack.Why would those souls leave the NO then?
Why would those souls leave the NO then?
Has any Trad found Tradition through a NO "miracle"?
You are asking me to speculate:So.....there is no proof that these "miracles" actually do bring people to Tradition. Why do you continue to defend them and Bishop Williamson? Isn't it possible (and much more probable) that you're just too wedded to Bishop Williamson that you can't see clearly?
Perhaps a real belief in the real presence is the beginning of a journey away from the rite which implicitly denies it?
Given the rarity of these alleged miracles, your sample population would be extremely small, and I don't know anyone who has docuмented the lives of people subsequent to their exposure to the alleged miracles.
So.....there is no proof that these "miracles" actually do bring people to Tradition. Why do you continue to defend them and Bishop Williamson? Isn't it possible (and much more probable) that you're just too wedded to Bishop Williamson that you can't see clearly?
Still no proof that these "miracles" have brought anyone to Tradition.
We all know that God only works miracles in confirmation of the truth, not a confirmation of a falsehood. A miracle in the NO would give legitimacy to the Modernist Conciliar schismatic religion, which Archbishop Lefebvre called a bastard rite.Did the Archbishop believe there were NO miracles?
(It appears that turning to the Archbishop earns oneself the name of 'Hewkonian.' But that is simply a distraction. And a poor one at that.)
Did the Archbishop believe there were NO miracles?
Like transubstantiation?:laugh1: No, like the supposed Eucharistic miracles that Bishop Williamson believes are happening in the NO. You know, like the Eucharist turning to actual blood with human blood type?
:laugh1: No, like the supposed Eucharistic miracles that Bishop Williamson believes are happening in the NO. You know, like the Eucharist turning to actual blood with human blood type?
Besides, transubstantiation isn't technically a "miracle".
In principle, he must have: Transubstantiation has a much more direct relationship to the rite of Mass (being the direct cause of the miracle of transubstantiation) than any other type of miracle would.So the Catholic Encyclopedia is wrong?:
I guess changing water into wine at Cana wasn't a miracle either?
Soon, you'll have destroyed the entire Catholic religion to maintain your enterprise.
So the Catholic Encyclopedia is wrong?:
Again, the justification (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm) of the sinner, the Eucharistic Presence (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm), the sacramental (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm) effects, are not miracles for two reasons: they are beyond the grasp of the senses and they have place in the ordinary course of God's supernatural Providence (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12510a.htm).
PS: The Eucharistic Presence and transubstantiation are not the same thing
Incorrect :laugh2:
In another thread on this same topic I made the objection that the claims of Eucharistic miracles in the Novus Ordo church are not credible because they rest on the claims of people who are not credible, which is the Novus Ordo hierarchy in general. We're also trusting them that the lab reports are accurate where they supposedly had these hosts analyzed, and that the lab was not in cahoots with the diocese, or that any of the other countless possible types of fraud did not take place.
I agree with all this
In traditional times, we could trust that a Catholic bishop would not forge a Eucharistic miracle, and therefore any Eucharistic miracle approved by the Church before Vatican II is worthy of belief. That is most certainly not the case today.
I agree with all this.
It's idle to debate the significance of a Eucharistic miracle resulting from a Novus Ordo service when it is not established -- and cannot be established with certainty -- that such a miracle took place at all.
I disagree: The Hewkonians say its impossible, because it would be tantamount to a divine endorsement of the Montinian Rite. quotes St. Thomas backing my position (i.e., The miracle testifies to the Real Presence, not the rite of Mass). In other words, they are arbitrarily precluding that in the abstract (not yet realizing they are contradicting St. Thomas), therefore we are discussing it in the abstract/hypothetical.
That being said, there are strong theological arguments to suppose that there is no valid consecration in the Novus Ordo service. Someone mentioned the "pro omnibus". There's that, there's the modernist-created new rite of ordination with its changed essential form as mentioned already, and there's also the fact that the words of consecration are recited as a historical narrative, not as happening here and now. This is invalid for the same reason that when the priest reads the gospel on Holy Thursday, and reads the words of consecration there, it doesn't consecrate the Eucharist, because he is reading an account of a historical event. A sacramental formula is said as taking place in the present, e.g. "I absolve you of your sins," "I baptize thee," "This is [here and now] My Body." The Novus Ordo calls the words of consecration the "institution narrative", meaning that it's quoting the words as a historical event. This is not how a (valid) sacrament works.
These are primarily sedevacantist considerations, which would not be relevant to a Hewkonian (or Resistance or Lefebvre or SSPX). Therefore, since I'm not persuaded by any of those arguments, they do not hinder my argument (which is again, the same as St. Thomas Aquinas).
Lastly, even if we were to accept that the bread and wine are consecrated in the Novus Ordo (which I don't), a Eucharistic miracle doesn't necessarily mean God is pleased with the rite anyway. I think a majority of Eucharistic miracles took place when a host was desecrated, or when the priest secretly denied transubstantiation, or the host fell on the floor, or the priest carelessly knocked over the chalice, or a witch took a host to use in a black mass, or similar horrors. I'd say if you read the history of Eucharistic miracles, such miracles are more often a sign of God's displeasure than anything else.
I completely agree (againsst the Hewkonians) that the presence of a eucharistic miracle does not indicate a divine endorsement of the Novus Ordo. St. Thomas says these miracles are performed to help the faith of the witness(es), not because He is angry.
I disagree: The Hewkonians say its impossible, because it would be tantamount to a divine endorsement of the Montinian Rite. quotes St. Thomas backing my position (i.e., The miracle testifies to the Real Presence, not the rite of Mass). In other words, they are arbitrarily precluding that in the abstract (not yet realizing they are contradicting St. Thomas), therefore we are discussing it in the abstract/hypothetical.
I don't think I understand your position, since you admitted at the beginning of your post that it is impossible to know if any eucharistic miracles take place in the Novus Ordo service anyway, and yet you are arguing that it is theoretically possible that they could? Is that your position?
I'm saying they definitely do in transubstantiation, and therefore there's no reason why other miracles couldn't as well;
Assuming it is, 1) I'm not sure what the point is of discussing whether some sort of miracle is theoretically possible, when you're not claiming that such a miracle has actually taken place. This is like asking how many demons can dance on the tip of a vax needle. :trollface:
Because the Hewkonians want to pretend its impossible and impious to even suggest it, so as to have a stick to beat +Williamson with.
And 2), I don't think Bp. Williamson's argument had to do with asserting an abstract possibility. I think he argued a posteriori -- "Miracles have taken place at Novus Ordo Masses, therefore ..." and he drew various conclusions from that. So this is a fundamentally different position and argument from yours, if I understand you correctly.
That is his position. But the Hewkonians deny the possibility a priori. Hence, I had to demonstrate that such miracles were in fact posssible, and once they were forced to admit that, they had to cease their calumny campaign by pretending +Williamson's opinion was tantamount to an endorsement of the NOM. They won't, of course, because truth isn't really what they're after, but hopefully the argument helped others.
As for my position that eucharistic miracles have no reference,reflection, or endorsement of any rite of Mass, but rather to increase faith in the Real Presence which is attacked by the Montinian Rite (thereby making eucharistic miracles even more likely in the NOM than in the TLM), it seems St. Thomas Aquinas agrees with me:I think, in fairness, there is more to the argument than this.
Summa Theologiae: III, Q.76, A.8:
"I answer that, Such apparition comes about in two ways, when occasionally in this sacrament (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm) flesh, or blood, or a child, is seen. Sometimes it happens on the part of the beholders, whose eyes are so affected as if they outwardly saw flesh, or blood, or a child, while no change takes place in the sacrament (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm). And this seems to happen when to one person (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm) it is seen under the species (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14210a.htm) of flesh or of a child, while to others it is seen as before under the species (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14210a.htm) of bread; or when to the same individual (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07762a.htm) it appears for an hour under the appearance of flesh or a child, and afterwards under the appearance of bread. Nor is there any deception there, as occurs in the feats of magicians, because such species (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14210a.htm) is divinely formed in the eye in order to represent some truth (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm), namely, for the purpose of showing that Christ's (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) body is truly (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) under this sacrament (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm); just as Christ (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) without deception appeared to the disciples (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05029a.htm) who were going to Emmaus (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05405a.htm). For Augustine (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm) says (De Qq. Evang. ii) that "when our pretense is referred to some significance, it is not a lie (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09469a.htm), but a figure of the truth (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm)." And since in this way no change is made in the sacrament (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm), it is manifest that, when such apparition occurs, Christ (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) does not cease to be under this sacrament (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm).
But it sometimes happens that such apparition comes about not merely by a change wrought in the beholders, but by an appearance which really exists (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm) outwardly. And this indeed is seen to happen when it is beheld by everyone under such an appearance, and it remains so not for an hour, but for a considerable time; and, in this case some think that it is the proper species (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14210a.htm) of Christ's (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) body. Nor does it matter that sometimes Christ's (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) entire body is not seen there, but part of His flesh, or else that it is not seen in youthful guise, but in the semblance of a child, because it lies within the power of a glorified body for it to be seen by a non-glorified eye either entirely or in part, and under its own semblance or in strange guise, as will be said later (Supplement:85:2-3 (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/5085.htm#article2)).
But this seems unlikely. First of all, because Christ's (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) body under its proper species (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14210a.htm) can be seen only in one place, wherein it is definitively contained. Hence since it is seen in its proper species (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14210a.htm), and is adored (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01151a.htm) in heaven (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm), it is not seen under its proper species (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14210a.htm) in this sacrament (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm). Secondly, because a glorified body, which appears at will, disappears when it wills after the apparition; thus it is related (Luke 24:31 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/luk024.htm#verse31)) that our Lord (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) "vanished out of sight" of the disciples (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05029a.htm). But that which appears under the likeness of flesh in this sacrament (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm), continues for a long time; indeed, one reads of its being sometimes enclosed, and, by order of many bishops (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm), preserved in a pyx, which it would be wicked (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm) to think of Christ (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) under His proper semblance.
Consequently, it remains to be said, that, while the dimensions remain the same as before, there is a miraculous (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm) change wrought in the other accidents (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01096c.htm), such as shape, color, and the rest, so that flesh, or blood, or a child, is seen. And, as was said already, this is not deception, because it is done "to represent the truth (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm)," namely, to show by this miraculous (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm) apparition that Christ's (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) body and blood are truly (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) in this sacrament (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm). And thus it is clear that as the dimensions remain, which are the foundation of the other accidents (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01096c.htm), as we shall see later on (III:77:2 (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4077.htm#article2), the body of Christ (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) truly (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) remains in this sacrament (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm).
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4076.htm#article8
Hopefully, this puts an end to this Hewkonian nonsense.
I think, in fairness, there is more to the argument than this.
If God performs these miracles to attest to a truth, He would not do it in such a way that leads the faithful away from the Truth!
I think, in fairness, there is more to the argument than this.
If God performs these miracles to attest to a truth, He would not do it in such a way that leads the faithful away from the Truth!
Now if the NOM represents, as Bishop Williamson says, the major vehicle of the destruction of the Faith of the Conciliar revolution, could such a miracle not attract souls to this destructive influence rather than alerting them to the danger? This is the concern, and this is precisely why so many in the Resistance were in shock when they first read these "Comments".
This is not emotion, but solid Catholic reasoning.
. . .
I think this is one of those issues that we can discuss and have differing opinions about. Too many in the world of Tradition are dogmatic about things that they should not be dogmatic about and this is what results in so many unfortunate divisions - Fr Hewko, in my opinion just took it too far...
"One cannot tolerate that a personal thesis be presented as confirmed and Church-defined dogmas in books, nor that the opposite thesis be accused of heresy. Thus the people of God is troubled, dissentions among theologians are created or augmented, and the bond of charity is broken." - Pope Benedict XIV, Sollicita n25
2 Thessalonians 2
[6] And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. [7] For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. [8] And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, [9] Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, [10] And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: [11] That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity. [12] But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, beloved of God, for that God hath chosen you firstfruits unto salvation, in sanctification of the spirit, and faith of the truth: [13] Whereunto also he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Apocalypse 17
[16] And the ten horns which thou sawest in the beast: these shall hate the harlot, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and shall burn her with fire. [17] For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.
Sure, let's share our thoughts and be opinionated where permitted - and Pax certainly is there - but don't play "pope" and argue certain views agin one's opinion as anathema.
As for my position that eucharistic miracles have no reference,reflection, or endorsement of any rite of Mass, but rather to increase faith in the Real Presence which is attacked by the Montinian Rite (thereby making eucharistic miracles even more likely in the NOM than in the TLM), it seems St. Thomas Aquinas agrees with me:
St. Thomas' opinion has nothing to do with whether God would work miracles in the context of a Mass that's sacriledgious and harmful to souls.
I’ve been trying to make this very point to the Hewkonians for some time:Maybe it's not the first intention, but isn't it exactly what it does? Doesn't a Eucharistic miracle within the NO validate and promote attendance to the NO?
They need to get over their arbitrary fixation that God performs miracles to endorse rites of Mass, and accept the teaching of St. Thomas, that they are performed to instill faith in the Real Presence.
I challenge anyone to produce a citation from any eminent theologian suggesting God performs Eucharistic miracles to endorse rites of Mass.
Maybe it's not the first intention, but isn't it exactly what it does? Doesn't a Eucharistic miracle within the NO validate and promote attendance to the NO?
Perhaps a real belief in the real presence is the beginning of a journey away from the rite which implicitly denies it?
Maybe it's not the first intention, but isn't it exactly what it does? Doesn't a Eucharistic miracle within the NO validate and promote attendance to the NO?
I disagree. If someone in the NO doesn't believe in the Real Presence, a NOM Eucharistic miracle would only attach them to the NOM and not lead them to the Tridentine Mass. On the other hand, it would likely prevent many people from gravitating toward the Tridentine Mass or would likely convince Traditional Catholics that the NOM doesn't displease God and that it's OK to attend it.
For me, if this doesn't apply to NO (and some other) miracles, then it doesn't apply to anything.....Or Matthew 24:24
Matthew 7 [22] Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? [23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.
Or Matthew 24:24Yes of course, that certainly applies. For me, the clincher is "you that work iniquity" which is a blunt and perfect description of NO priests and bishops.
Yes of course, that certainly applies. For me, the clincher is "you that work iniquity" which is a blunt and perfect description of NO priests and bishops.Yes. I like the reference to false christs in 24 since priests are alter Christus.
For me, if this doesn't apply to NO (and some other) miracles, then it doesn't apply to anything.....
Matthew 7 [22] Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? [23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.
This appears to me clearly to be God's purpose: separating those who are of, and love, the truth, who hear Christ's voice (John 18:37), the elect of Matthew 24:24 who are not deceived and among the elect of 2 Th. 2:12-13, from the non-elect deceived by the miracles and signs, those also referred to the passages above.
I should make a distinction. I am talking specifically about rejecting the NO Mass: the position of most or many that it shouldn't be attended, that it is harmful or even inherently evil, etc.
I am not talking about rejecting certain teachings of valid prelates per Galatians 1:8-9, etc.
So, for example, it seems to me that if one holds that there is transubstantiation at an NO Mass offered by what one recognizes as truly Catholic priests, one could not legitimately reject the NO Mass or refuse to attend it.
Disagree: A Satanic Mass could be capable of transubstantiation, but you would not on that account be permitted to attend it.
Two observations:
1) St. Thomas has already stated what the purpose of Eucharistic miracles are (which again has nothing to do with the rite, and everything to do with increasing faith in the Real Presence). By arbitrarily proposing a different purpose, you are effectively attempting to refute him.
2) Most of your response is more directed to the question of authenticity (ie., is it really a miracle or isn’t it), than toward purpose (ie., why does God perform Eucharistic miracles).
The whole purpose of this thread is to show the Hewkonians that their a priori argument (ie., If God performed a Eucharistic miracle at the NOM, it would be an endorsement of the rite, whereas St. Thomas clearly says otherwise).
The question if authenticity is entirely different, and I’m skeptical on that front.
If the NOM is offensive to God and harmful to souls, God would not work a Eucharistic miracle connected to the NOM ... whether or not it is valid ... since it might give the impression that God is pleased with the NOM.
Comments above in red.
They are not miracles of the Real Presence in a Mass that is "offensive and harmful to souls." If they are miracles AND the NO Mass is "offensive and harmful to souls," the NO Mass is a "wonder" of Satan, and there is no Real Presence of Christ there.
Eucharistic miracles have nothing to do with rites of Mass (and in such measure as they would transpire at a NOM, they would help, not harm, souls, as St. Thomas teaches).
There no miracles at Orthodox masses (as Lad noted), and no miracles at Black masses.
The miracle of transubstantiation could exist at both.
Obviously i don't know the depth of God's ways, but logic and reason tells me that having a Eucharistic miracle within the confines of Tradition alone would promote truth of the Eucharist and of the true worship that He so desires. That would make sense to me. Having a Eucharistic miracle in the midst of a false liturgy does not promote that at all.
Comments above in red.
We're not talking about the "miracle" of transubstantiation, but visible signs and wonders seen by the naked eye over and above the consecration of a host. This is a critical distinction that you're missing.
Not so.
I acknowledged a variance in the species of miracles early on (possibly you were not yet part of the conversation).
A miracle is miracle (be it by the agency of men, angel, or God Himself).
My response is that to remain logically consistent, the Hewkonians should do as you have done (i.e., deny the per se validity of the Montinian rite).
But knowing they would be at odds with +Lefebvre (for whom they pretend to be the last faithful followers), they're trapped by contradiction or paralysis:
Either depart from the teaching of Lefebvre on the NOM, or, remain at enmity with St. Thomas Aquinas regarding the purpose of Eucharistic miracles.
What do you mean by "miracle"? You seem to deny that Satan can perform "miracles."Comments in red above
Satan can perform prodigies, but not miracles.
I'm not sure what the "Hewkonian" position is. It seems to be that is it that you would not see visible miraculous signs and wonders at a Mass that was "offensive to God and harmful to souls" where there was the Real Presence. I say they are right in that, and agree.
The Hewkonian contention is that God cannot perform a Eucharistic miracle at the Novus Ordo, because it would imply God's endorsement of the New Mass. I have cited St. Thomas Aquinas to show that they are wrong (i.e., God doesn't perform miracles to endorse a rite of Mass, but to defend belief in the Real Presence).
Maybe I'm not clear on the dispute between the "Hewkonian" position and the Lefebvre position. I didn't find it in this thread when I skimmed through.
There are/were two EC threads running simultaneously for awhile. Anyway, see previous comment.
Was the issue of "miracles" at a Novus Ordo Mass something that Lefebvre ever considered or dealt with?
Not that I am aware of (which makes the Hewkonian position even more arbitrary, in adddition to their error regarding the purpose of Eucharistic miracles, per St. Thomas).
We're not talking about the "miracle" of transubstantiation, but visible signs and wonders seen by the naked eye over and above the consecration of a host. This is a critical distinction that you're missing.
It never occurs to them how gratuitous and stupid that is, because were it true that a miracle can only mean the rite is pleasing to God, transubstantiation itself being a miracle, they would be forced to conclude the Novis Ordo is pleasing to God!
Seems Sean's position is basically two-fold:
1) Miracles in the NOM could bolster faith in the Real Presence. Especially since the Real Presence has been under attack - True
2) God can work a miracle at any time, and in any way, He so chooses - True
Therefore, the recent NOM events, which can be counted on two or three fingers, could bolster the faith and might even be real. He cites Aquinas to support this.
The problem is as follows:
Aquinas presupposes some things: Namely that you have a real priest doing Calvary in an unbloody manner.
Lefebvre never declared the NOM or the new rite of priestly ordination per se invalid. For Hewkonians pretending to be the most faithful followers of Lefebvre, therefore, the possibility of invalidity does not exist for them. Consequently, your concerns regarding validity do not enter the conversation (as they might for, say, sedevacantists).
1) The Dogma of the Real Presence has been under attack for the last 500 years. But no one here would believe Eucharistic miracles were being done in an Anglican service.
Neither is anyone alleging them to occur at Anglican services.
2) The Bastard Missae is inherently flawed, by design, and is not Catholic at all. I showed this by citing 3 items - the Ottaviani Intervention, Saint Paul VI's original definition, and the Catholic requirements of Form, Matter and Intent.
And it has been shown back to you ad nauseum that the rite of Masss has nothing to do with why god performs Eucharistic miracles (except to the extent that performin one at the NOM where the real presence is implicitly attacked is perfectly consistent with the reason St. Thomas says God performs them).
I agree with the Aquinas citation when you have a Catholic rite performed by a Catholic priest but according to Catholic definitions, the Bastardo is not Catholic. It's just a real bastard.
Please explain the significance: If there has been a transubstantiation (thereby proving the validity of priest and rite), does not your argument implicitly suggest that the Real Presence itself is somehow defective or "less sacrosanct" then the same Real Presence confected at the TLM?
Note: This is precisely what the Hewkonians believe, when thy suggest such a Eucharist is not capable of transmitting sacramental grace to well-disposed communicants at the NOM, which is flatly heretical, per Trent.
Sean,
Perhaps you can clarify, but you said in post #14 in this thread:
It does indeed appear you're missing the critical distinction.
The Hewkonian contention is that God cannot perform a Eucharistic miracle at the Novus Ordo, because it would imply God's endorsement of the New Mass. I have cited St. Thomas Aquinas to show that they are wrong (i.e., God doesn't perform miracles to endorse a rite of Mass, but to defend belief in the Real Presence).
The problem is as follows:While I agree and also see this as simple, good common sense, Sean believes even at black masses a valid consecration can happen. It seems to me I heard such a thing could not happen, may have been Fr. Hesse not sure. At any rate, I do not think purposely consecrating a host with and for the intention of blaspheming it, is something thing that is possible. They steal valid hosts to blaspheme for this reason - imo.
Aquinas presupposes some things: Namely that you have a real priest doing Calvary in an unbloody manner.
1) The Dogma of the Real Presence has been under attack for the last 500 years. But no one here would believe Eucharistic miracles were being done in an Anglican service.
2) The Bastard Missae is inherently flawed, by design, and is not Catholic at all. I showed this by citing 3 items - the Ottaviani Intervention, Saint Paul VI's original definition, and the Catholic requirements of Form, Matter and Intent.
I agree with the Aquinas citation when you have a Catholic rite performed by a Catholic priest but according to Catholic definitions, the Bastardo is not Catholic. It's just a real bastard.
If God might be producing the miracles, then might He also be suggesting trads stop congregating in illegal chapels? Could it be time to start supporting the local diocese with it's True Mass? In union with the pope's true representative?And this is exactly what the Novus Ordite would tell us. Bishop Williamson's line of thinking regarding NO "miracles" is dangerous and from what you reported in the other thread, I suspect that a number of Resistance folks are seeing it as dangerous as well.
And this is exactly what the Novus Ordite would tell us. Bishop Williamson's line of thinking regarding NO "miracles" is dangerous and from what you reported in the other thread, I suspect that a number of Resistance folks are seeing it as dangerous as well.
Bishop Williamson's line of thinking regarding NO "miracles" is dangerous and from what you reported in the other thread, I suspect that a number of Resistance folks are seeing it as dangerous as well.
Dangerous to whom, and why?
One of the things Christ promised was that, in His name, as proof, miracles would abound in the world.
But history has shown us that the Bastard Missae has yielded the exact opposite result - empty churches, no vocations, perversion of the worst kind, etc. Created by enemies of the Church, el Bastardo has obliterated the Catholic religion in fifty short years. According to Tim Staples, only about 5% believe in the Real Presence - and that's among the slim number who even still attend el Bastardo.
So, to directly answer your question - it's dangerous to anyone who actually cares about the Catholic religion during The Great Apostasy.
Still not seeing how it's dangerous or to whom. Maybe....... the biggest danger is to the sedevacantists.
Still not seeing how it's dangerous or to whom. Maybe....... the biggest danger is to the sedevacantists.The thing about miracles is they draw people to the miracle, consider Lourdes and Fatima to name only two. The expectation therefore is for NO miracles to draw people into the NO, *that* is the danger.
Well, I can only speak for one sedevacantist - myself - and it doesn't impose a danger on me whatsoever.
1) I can understand that. I can only speak for myself too. This issue poses no danger to me either. And yet some of the sedevacantists here have said that this is a danger. Therefore, the sedevacantists (and semi-sedevacantists) feel it is a danger to others.
2) I don't get why the sedevacantists are upset by this. It's not like the Resistance is a large organization. It only represents a tiny portion of Tradition in the U.S., and the sedes far outnumber Resistance adherents. So why be upset by something that +W says? It would be like me caring about what Bp. Dolan or Bp. Sanborn thinks or says. I rarely comment or care about what they say, since I have nothing to do with them. So why should sedes care about what a Resistance bishop says?
3) And why should they get to speak for all of Tradition?
1) It poses no threat to me but to Catholics the world over it has absolutely destroyed their faith. I would say that means it's dangerous to others. Tim Staples, the mainstream apologist, released a study a few years ago which showed that only 5% of New Ordites believe in the Real Presence. That means 95% of New Ordites are objectively Protestants. That would also mean the Bastard Mass is a vehicle of destruction.
1) But wouldn't Bp. Williamson's view of the Novus Ordo miracles possibly serve to help the Novus Ordo folks to believe in the Real Presence?Sorry for the length, starting with point 2 -
2) So I wonder, who did he intend to reach with his ideas about miracles in the Novus Ordo?
Sorry for the length, starting with point 2 -
2) Initially, as far as I know, it began with the statement he made to the woman who asked him at a conference if it was ok to go. While he acknowledged it was bad, he also said it was ok 'if it nourishes your faith'. I gave him the benefit of the doubt - it was a public conference, point blank questions, internet goes everywhere instantly - but thereafter I attended another conference in the backwoods of Oregon and he was asked if he stood by the statement. For effect, he slammed his hand down on the table and said, "Absolutely." That was the beginning of the end of my time in the Resistance.
For point 1 -
There are so many doctrinal issues with the Bastard Missae it's tough to know where to begin. Essentially, why give the green light to something when you know it rejects the Sacrifice of Calvary, and was designed by Protestants, Liberals and Freemasons, in exchange for a Protestant happy meal? I have a brother with a family who is staunch/conservative Ordites and +Williamson's statement completely vindicates what they're doing.
I don't think he's making these statements for the Novus ordo folks, nor does he seem to be making them for the Resistance supporters who care about the views of +ABL, so who is he making them to, or for?
If he's not doing it for New Ordites, or the Resistance, and the SSPX is already on board with Rome anyway, then it feels like the correct answer is 'sedevacantists'?
If that's the case, he'll be preaching to an empty church for many days to come as sedes are concerned with Doctrine and not feelings such as, 'you should go if you think it nourishes your faith'. But, yeah, I have no idea why he'd make any positive statements for the vehicle that has basically destroyed the Catholic faith in less than fifty years.
Archbishop Lefebvre nearly gave up on the US. altogether after the situation with the Nine, though sedevacantists will say that that situation wasn't really about sedevacantism. But I think it was.
Sorry for the length, starting with point 2 -
2) Initially, as far as I know, it began with the statement he made to the woman who asked him at a conference if it was ok to go. While he acknowledged it was bad, he also said it was ok 'if it nourishes your faith'. I gave him the benefit of the doubt - it was a public conference, point blank questions, internet goes everywhere instantly - but thereafter I attended another conference in the backwoods of Oregon and he was asked if he stood by the statement. For effect, he slammed his hand down on the table and said, "Absolutely." That was the beginning of the end of my time in the Resistance.
For point 1 -
There are so many doctrinal issues with the Bastard Missae it's tough to know where to begin. Essentially, why give the green light to something when you know it rejects the Sacrifice of Calvary, and was designed by Protestants, Liberals and Freemasons, in exchange for a Protestant happy meal? I have a brother with a family who is staunch/conservative Ordites and +Williamson's statement completely vindicates what they're doing.
Well, I have to wonder why +W is making these statements. For many of us who support the Resistance, it's not a big deal that the has said these things. I'm not concerned by them. I see +W's statements as having charity as their basis, and it's the charity shown by the Resistance bishops and priests that keeps me supporting them. Truth with charity. No other trad group has that combination, in my opinion. I understand that 'charity' can be an over-used word, which can have negative connotations, but I still think that charity is important, and it can be a part of the conversation.
I don't think he's making these statements for the Novus ordo folks, nor does he seem to be making them for the Resistance supporters who care about the views of +ABL, so who is he making them to, or for?
Indeed. I wrote of the group email I received from a Resistance priest who stated exactly that - some of his faithful have now cut ties because of +Williamson's statements.
2) It’s a shame you didn’t have the humility to listen to him, since he was obviously correct in every aspect of that conference.
1) Yes, you clearly seem confused by all the issues, which makes your statement in #2 all the more regrettable. It has been evident in your short time here tgat you are not a clear thinker, and clump multiple concepts together, which leads to your present confusion.
Quite frankly, you should not be discussing any theological topic, and focus on spiritual works.
As de Lugo reported, this is a lie, and I’ll tell the forum the true story:
As de Lugo reported, this is a lie, and I’ll tell the forum the true story:So, I'll ask again. Sean, are you "de Lugo"? Be honest.
Fr. Hewko’s Canadian dupes hadn’t received sacraments in over two years because he couldn’t cross into Canada unvaxed, and he’d schooled them since the Pfeifferian days, that it was not permissible for them to receive the sacraments from anyone associated with Bishop Williamson and the “fake resistance,” lest they too become guilty by association in the same compromises.
In other words, these people hadn’t had anything to do with Williamson & Co. since at least 2014.
But Fr. Hewko’s conscience got the better of him, so he called Fr. Girouard (ie., one of the “Williamson compromisers”), and asked him if he would start doing Mass circuits to Fr. Hewko’s people in various Canadian locales (Fr. Girouard already being located in Canada).
Fr. Girouard agreed, and in fact did begin covering Fr. Hewko’s territory.
But then in October, Canada lifted the Vax requirement, so Fr. Hewko resumed the old strategy, and told Fr. Girouard that unless he would publicly denounce Williamson, he was no longer welcome to continue the circuit, and went right back to indoctrinating his “faithful.”
So the lie de Lugo spoke of was not on the part of the priest, but on the part of MOTS, in pretending that some Williamson supporters had recently left because of his position on recently discussed topics, when the reality is that they’d been gone for over 8+ years,
But what is most interesting to me, is that Fr. Hewko would hold his faithful hostage from the sacraments for 2+ years on the pretext of not “compromising,” when it was Fr. Hewko himself who, according to his own stupid principle, “compromised” by reaching out to Fr. Girouard in the first place!
“‘Tis for thee, but not for me.”
So his faithful can have no collaboration with compromisers, but Fr. Hewko can request “compromisers” to cover Mass circuits, provide Holy oils, request delegation to perform confirmations, etc.
That's the true story about the events MOTS told.
So, I'll ask again. Sean, are you "de Lugo"? Be honest.
Honesty is good!Clearly you (and de Lugo) can't answer the question. I will no longer interact with you because I think you are the liar.
:popcorn:
Clearly you (and de Lugo) can't answer the question. I will no longer interact with you because I think you are the liar.
You have the arrogant aire of a Jєωess, if you think you’re in any position to demand anything of me (lol)..
And while it is fun to string you along in punishment, I’m curious to know what lies you are attributing to me (and if you can’t produce any, is not your accusation a lie itself?).
PS: Are you Jєωιѕн?
.Waiting.
Waiting.I already told you I'm no longer interacting with you. So you'll keep waiting.
:popcorn:
I already told you I'm no longer interacting with you. So you'll keep waiting.