Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10

Author Topic: Eleison Comments - Questions Ensuing III (no. 804)  (Read 10291 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 48414
  • Reputation: +28580/-5349
  • Gender: Male
Re: Eleison Comments - Questions Ensuing III (no. 804)
« Reply #90 on: December 15, 2022, 09:52:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on December 14, 2022, 12:28:24 PM
    Perhaps a real belief in the real presence is the beginning of a journey away from the rite which implicitly denies it?

    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.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48414
    • Reputation: +28580/-5349
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Questions Ensuing III (no. 804)
    « Reply #91 on: December 15, 2022, 09:54:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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?

    I think that it most certainly would.  If you're a Traditional Catholic attempting to convinced a Novus Ordite that the NOM is bad, they could just point to a Euchaistic "miracle" in the NOM.  We see these (IMO diabolical) NO Eucharistic miracles softening Bishop Williamson on the NOM already ... which would in fact be the intended effect if the devil is in fact simulating them.
    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Questions Ensuing III (no. 804)
    « Reply #92 on: December 15, 2022, 09:57:43 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on December 15, 2022, 09:52:58 AM
    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.

    Arbitrary.

    My own arbitrary belief if that once God instills faith in the Real Presence, that soul becomes more predisposed to the further acceptance of truth (which could in turn lead to dissatisfaction with a rite which contradicts that same Real Presence, which said soul would feel the need to protect and defend).

    Pax tecuм.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 15345
    • Reputation: +6287/-924
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Questions Ensuing III (no. 804)
    « Reply #93 on: December 15, 2022, 10:01:14 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11528
    • Reputation: +6479/-1195
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Eleison Comments - Questions Ensuing III (no. 804)
    « Reply #94 on: December 15, 2022, 10:14:14 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stubborn on December 15, 2022, 10:01:14 AM
    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.
    Or Matthew 24:24
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 15345
    • Reputation: +6287/-924
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Questions Ensuing III (no. 804)
    « Reply #95 on: December 15, 2022, 10:18:37 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on December 15, 2022, 10:14:14 AM
    Or Matthew 24:24
    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.
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11528
    • Reputation: +6479/-1195
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Eleison Comments - Questions Ensuing III (no. 804)
    « Reply #96 on: December 15, 2022, 10:21:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stubborn on December 15, 2022, 10:18:37 AM
    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.
    Logged

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2359
    • Reputation: +885/-147
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Questions Ensuing III (no. 804)
    « Reply #97 on: December 15, 2022, 10:56:53 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stubborn on December 15, 2022, 10:01:14 AM

    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.

    Matthew 24:24

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect.

    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.

    The "eucharistic" miracles of the Novus Ordo put the whole question of the Novus Ordo and the Conciliar religion into clear focus: either they are a) of Satan, the deceptive miracles of Mt 7, 24 and 2 Th. 2, or b) they are not, and of God. 

    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. 

    It would seem to me that you cannot have transubstantiation with the miracles being of satan, the a) above. And if you have transubstantiation, what does that say about the Traditionalist cause of rejecting the NO? If one isn't Sede, isn't one effectively treating the pope and the Conciliar hierarchy, your local NO bishop or priest, as if he were an Orthodox priest or prelate with valid liturgy and ordination, but was "illicit" - do we have that authority? 

    It seems to me these miracles require ultimate decision: either the NO is either of Satan (and the Sedes are right), or . . . get on board.  

    This looks like a divine line drawing. A reminder that this is no game we play here: rejecting the NO and Conciliar Church. 
    Logged
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 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.

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2359
    • Reputation: +885/-147
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Questions Ensuing III (no. 804)
    « Reply #98 on: December 15, 2022, 11:16:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.



    Logged
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 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.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Questions Ensuing III (no. 804)
    « Reply #99 on: December 15, 2022, 11:37:50 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: DecemRationis on December 15, 2022, 10:56:53 AM

    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.

    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. 

    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Questions Ensuing III (no. 804)
    « Reply #100 on: December 15, 2022, 11:39:12 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: DecemRationis on December 15, 2022, 11:16:36 AM
    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.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2359
    • Reputation: +885/-147
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Questions Ensuing III (no. 804)
    « Reply #101 on: December 15, 2022, 11:43:24 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on December 15, 2022, 11:39:12 AM
    Disagree: A Satanic Mass could be capable of transubstantiation, but you would not on that account be permitted to attend it.

    You're missing the part of it being the Mass of a priest recognized as a truly Catholic priest. It's not only the fact of transubstantiation, but a Mass offered by a minister of the Church. 
    Logged
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 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.

    Offline josefamenendez

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5700
    • Reputation: +4339/-293
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Eleison Comments - Questions Ensuing III (no. 804)
    « Reply #102 on: December 15, 2022, 11:49:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.
    Logged

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2359
    • Reputation: +885/-147
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Questions Ensuing III (no. 804)
    « Reply #103 on: December 15, 2022, 11:54:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on December 15, 2022, 11:37:50 AM

    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.

    I agree with Lad, who says:

    Quote

    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.


    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.

    There no miracles at Orthodox masses (as Lad noted), and no miracles at Black masses.
    Logged
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 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.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Questions Ensuing III (no. 804)
    « Reply #104 on: December 15, 2022, 12:13:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: DecemRationis on December 15, 2022, 11:54:57 AM

    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.
    Comments above in red.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."
    Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
    « previous next »