Author Topic: Eleison Comments - Questions Ensuing III (no. 804) (Read 10297 times)

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #75 on:** December 14, 2022, 01:56:07 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on December 14, 2022, 01:39:57 PM

PS: The Eucharistic Presence and transubstantiation are not the same thing

"(b) In the mind of the Church, Transubstantiation has been so intimately bound up with the Real Presence, that both dogmas have been handed down together from generation to generation, though we cannot entirely ignore a dogmatico-historical development."

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3

Two distinct dogmas.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #76 on:** December 14, 2022, 02:07:47 PM »

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:

Summa Theologiae: III, Q.76, A.8:

"I answer that, Such apparition comes about in two ways, when occasionally in this sacrament 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. And this seems to happen when to one person it is seen under the species of flesh or of a child, while to others it is seen as before under the species of bread; or when to the same individual 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 is divinely formed in the eye in order to represent some truth, namely, for the purpose of showing that Christ's body is truly under this sacrament; just as Christ without deception appeared to the disciples who were going to Emmaus. For Augustine says (De Qq. Evang. ii) that "when our pretense is referred to some significance, it is not a lie, but a figure of the truth." And since in this way no change is made in the sacrament, it is manifest that, when such apparition occurs, Christ does not cease to be under this sacrament.

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 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 of Christ's body. Nor does it matter that sometimes Christ's 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).

But this seems unlikely. First of all, because Christ's body under its proper species can be seen only in one place, wherein it is definitively contained. Hence since it is seen in its proper species, and is adored in heaven, it is not seen under its proper species in this sacrament. Secondly, because a glorified body, which appears at will, disappears when it wills after the apparition; thus it is related (Luke 24:31) that our Lord "vanished out of sight" of the disciples. But that which appears under the likeness of flesh in this sacrament, continues for a long time; indeed, one reads of its being sometimes enclosed, and, by order of many bishops, preserved in a pyx, which it would be wicked to think of Christ under His proper semblance.

Consequently, it remains to be said, that, while the dimensions remain the same as before, there is a miraculous change wrought in the other accidents, 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," namely, to show by this miraculous apparition that Christ's body and blood are truly in this sacrament. And thus it is clear that as the dimensions remain, which are the foundation of the other accidents, as we shall see later on (III:77:2, the body of Christ truly remains in this sacrament.

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4076.htm#article8

Hopefully, this puts an end to this Hewkonian nonsense.

Yeti · « **Reply #77 on:** December 14, 2022, 02:58:49 PM »

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

MiracleOfTheSun · « **Reply #78 on:** December 14, 2022, 03:03:19 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on December 14, 2022, 11:50:56 AM

Incorrect

You were able to find the emoji section. Good work.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #79 on:** December 14, 2022, 03:34:01 PM »

Quote from: Yeti on December 14, 2022, 02:58:49 PM

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.

Responses in red (above).

Yeti · « **Reply #80 on:** December 14, 2022, 04:42:10 PM »

Quote

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?

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.

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.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #81 on:** December 14, 2022, 04:50:28 PM »

Quote from: Yeti on December 14, 2022, 04:42:10 PM

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.

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.

Responses in red above.

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #82 on:** December 15, 2022, 06:03:41 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on December 14, 2022, 02:07:47 PM

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:

Summa Theologiae: III, Q.76, A.8:

"I answer that, Such apparition comes about in two ways, when occasionally in this sacrament 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. And this seems to happen when to one person it is seen under the species of flesh or of a child, while to others it is seen as before under the species of bread; or when to the same individual 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 is divinely formed in the eye in order to represent some truth, namely, for the purpose of showing that Christ's body is truly under this sacrament; just as Christ without deception appeared to the disciples who were going to Emmaus. For Augustine says (De Qq. Evang. ii) that "when our pretense is referred to some significance, it is not a lie, but a figure of the truth." And since in this way no change is made in the sacrament, it is manifest that, when such apparition occurs, Christ does not cease to be under this sacrament.

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 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 of Christ's body. Nor does it matter that sometimes Christ's 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).

But this seems unlikely. First of all, because Christ's body under its proper species can be seen only in one place, wherein it is definitively contained. Hence since it is seen in its proper species, and is adored in heaven, it is not seen under its proper species in this sacrament. Secondly, because a glorified body, which appears at will, disappears when it wills after the apparition; thus it is related (Luke 24:31) that our Lord "vanished out of sight" of the disciples. But that which appears under the likeness of flesh in this sacrament, continues for a long time; indeed, one reads of its being sometimes enclosed, and, by order of many bishops, preserved in a pyx, which it would be wicked to think of Christ under His proper semblance.

Consequently, it remains to be said, that, while the dimensions remain the same as before, there is a miraculous change wrought in the other accidents, 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," namely, to show by this miraculous apparition that Christ's body and blood are truly in this sacrament. And thus it is clear that as the dimensions remain, which are the foundation of the other accidents, as we shall see later on (III:77:2, the body of Christ truly remains in this sacrament.

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!

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.

Do we find Eucharistic miracles in the Orthodox Churches, for example? My Catholic sense tells me no, unless God were to somehow use such miracles to get these poor souls out of their errors.

Now I know that the NOM is a special case, given the profound crisis and the fact that in many cases these Conciliar parishes could be full of Catholic souls, and God wants to save souls...

But imagine if the Traditionalists had a chapel just around the corner. Would such a miracle in the neighbouring Conciliar parish be a scandal? Would it be encouraging souls in the right direction?

I don't know the answer, and I'm not saying it is impossible, but these are valid concerns.

As I said at the time, if these miracles are genuine, then they are certainly not for Traditionalists. But then again, I could be wrong about that too!

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

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #83 on:** December 15, 2022, 06:41:52 AM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on December 15, 2022, 06:03:41 AM

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!

There are two problems with this:

1) God’s miracle is leading them toward the truth (belief in the real presence, as St. Thomas says).

2) You’re preferring your own arbitrary reasoning and making God confirm to it, instead of listening to St. Thomas.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #84 on:** December 15, 2022, 06:43:26 AM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on December 15, 2022, 06:03:41 AM

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

Hi, Plenus. A thoughtful post.

Two observations. First, yes, He would not do it in such a way that leads the faithful away, but He may indeed "do it" in the sense of leading away those who received not the love of truth, whom He permits (and in fact uses) Satan to deceive. For example:

Quote

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.

Second: great quote from Pope Benedict XIV. Often to be noted in regard to discussions of this sort, and on things related to Antichrist, the Great Apostasy, etc. What stands out to mind in this regard is a discussion where Pax Vobis - where is Pax? - maintained that belief in "the great monarch" as part of God's End Times timeline or such was "de fide."

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.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #85 on:** December 15, 2022, 06:48:11 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on December 15, 2022, 06:43:26 AM

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.

Agreed

Ladislaus · « **Reply #86 on:** December 15, 2022, 09:32:06 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on December 14, 2022, 02:07:47 PM

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. He's simply talking about whether it would be "deceptive" on God's part to manifest Eucharistic miracles in different ways. When God works Eucharistic miracles, I would agree that He would generally be doing it to increase faith in the Real Presence. But this does not mean that He would do so when it might be misconstrued. Would God work miracles at an Orthodox Liturgy that's undoubtedly valid? No. Why? Because that might be construed by some as God's endorsement of Orthodoxy. Why would He work such a miracle to increase faith among the Orthodox in the Real Presence when they have much bigger issues and might lead some Catholics astray ... into thinking that Orthodoxy might be OK and not offensive to God.

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.

You're way too myopically focused on validity. Orthodox Liturgies are valid. Should Catholics go to those because they're valid and because the Sacraments can confer grace and to nourish their souls? Of course not. Then why is it OK to go to NOM?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #87 on:** December 15, 2022, 09:41:51 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 15, 2022, 09:32:06 AM

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:

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.

josefamenendez · « **Reply #88 on:** December 15, 2022, 09:49:04 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on December 15, 2022, 09:41:51 AM

I’ve been trying to make this very point to the Hewkonians for some time:

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?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #89 on:** December 15, 2022, 09:52:13 AM »

Quote from: josefamenendez on December 15, 2022, 09:49:04 AM

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?

Why God does one thing is explained by St. Thomas. If men choose to ignore that, and assign to the miracle another purpose, that’s on them.

Author Topic: Eleison Comments - Questions Ensuing III (no. 804) (Read 10297 times)

SeanJohnson

Re: Eleison Comments - Questions Ensuing III (no. 804)

SeanJohnson

Re: Eleison Comments - Questions Ensuing III (no. 804)

Yeti

Re: Eleison Comments - Questions Ensuing III (no. 804)

MiracleOfTheSun

Re: Eleison Comments - Questions Ensuing III (no. 804)

SeanJohnson

Re: Eleison Comments - Questions Ensuing III (no. 804)

Yeti

Re: Eleison Comments - Questions Ensuing III (no. 804)

SeanJohnson

Re: Eleison Comments - Questions Ensuing III (no. 804)

Plenus Venter

Re: Eleison Comments - Questions Ensuing III (no. 804)

SeanJohnson

Re: Eleison Comments - Questions Ensuing III (no. 804)

DecemRationis

Re: Eleison Comments - Questions Ensuing III (no. 804)

SeanJohnson

Re: Eleison Comments - Questions Ensuing III (no. 804)

Ladislaus

Re: Eleison Comments - Questions Ensuing III (no. 804)

SeanJohnson

Re: Eleison Comments - Questions Ensuing III (no. 804)

josefamenendez

Re: Eleison Comments - Questions Ensuing III (no. 804)

SeanJohnson

Re: Eleison Comments - Questions Ensuing III (no. 804)