|
| ||||
|
The rape of a woman is objectively evil just as the Novus Ordo Mass is objectively evil. The rape is an act of such grievous nature as to characterize it as one of the necessary elements of a mortal sin. Nevertheless, God may allow the conception of a human being (i.e., a creature composed of a body and soul, and made to the image and likeness of God) to take place -- the miracle of life and that new creation of a human being made in the image and likeness of God is an objectively good thing, even though the subsequent birth is classified as illegitimate and the child is classified as a bastard. (As an aside and perhaps needless to say, the bastard may possibly grow up to be a great saint.)A very thoughtful, cogent, even semi-mystical post. We don't often read on CI offerings of this caliber. I am forced to internalize the instruction, and admit, tentatively, that it might be from God.
Again, human conception with the infusion of an eternal soul (leaving aside any discussion concerning the exact time of ensoulment) took place as a result of the rape.
Would not the miraculous bringing forth of a human life arising out of a rape (evil in and of itself) be in some way similar to the miraculous act of transubstantiation that takes place in the Sacrament of the Eucharist incorporated into the Novus Ordo Mass if the necessary elements of that Sacrament are present?
I do not claim that all that I have stated above is a 100% correct statement of truth. I think it is, but I don't claim it to be with anything approaching absolute certainty. Rather I put it forth for the purpose of good faith discussion.
Just as we would never condone rape we need not ever condone the Novus Ordo Mass. At the same time however we should realize that God Almighty allows both and that from both there may arise good. What is of paramount importance is that we clearly realize that any good comes about not because of the rape or the objectively deficient Mass, but in spite of them.
Furthermore, our Catholic Theology informs us, of course, that a good end can never justify evil means. Rape and the Novus Ordo Mass are evil means and therefore no good end can be used to justify them.
Rape is a great evil but whether it's based on lust, or to wield power, it's a 'natural' inclination. There is the chance life might result. The New Mass is the exact opposite - if you go to it, you will lose your faith, belief in the Real Presence, etc. - by its very nature the New Mass takes away life.Rape is also a fully human act. Yes, God can bring good out of it. However, the (Holy) Mass is supposed to be from Christ's Holy Church. It can't be evil at all. God should not have to bring good from it.
The New Mass was designed by a Freemason, liberals, and six Protestant ministers in order to make it less Catholic. It is an objective attack on Christ's saving work for mankind.
The tragic reality of rape and to the tragic destruction of the Catholic Mass are not in the same universe by comparison.
Since the original topic was re: NO Eucharistic miracles(s), I can see no other Heavenly intention for it other than to validate and confirm actual transubstantiation within the Novus Ordo Mass . The logical end point would be validation of the NO Mass and an encouragement to attend it - not the other way around. Although I found Charity’s post profound as well, I think the average Catholic would look at a NO Eucharistic miracle as that validation for the new mass , not a miraculous intentional Consecration “aberrancy” arising from a corrupted liturgyDevil's advocate here- I don't believe they are legitimate miracles either. Just following a path of logic for someone who believes that they actually are.
Rape is also a fully human act. Yes, God can bring good out of it. However, the (Holy) Mass is supposed to be from Christ's Holy Church. It can't be evil at all. God should not have to bring good from it.
False Christs, false prophets and all...
Why anyone would give this post a thumbs down is beyond me. Wow. Welcome to CathInfo...Because I dared to disagree with the rape analogy?
You need three things to make a sacrament valid. Just as the Form was purposely derailed, it seems people forget about the intent (which baffles me with +Williamson's position). If Freemasons, liberals and Protestants actually had the intent of the Catholic Church then get on over to your local New Order and support your local bishop. Yes, Virginia, it really is that easy.
Because I dared to disagree with the rape analogy?Who knows? I totally agreed and equalized it for you.
Because I dared to disagree with the rape analogy?
Some "good shepherd." Go on, Bishop Williamson - keep saying it's ok to go to this illegal, sacrilegious Mass, despite what the Church has commanded.This is not what he wrote.
And as for those who love the Newchurch and want its bad Mass, they have been reminded and warned by the miracles that they are choosing to go to Hell.
In this case, for sure, the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is altered at the Consecration of the Wine - "for many" being changed to "for all" - something Our Lord did not say nor mean. The Destroyers did not blush to alter Holy Scripture to something Jesus never said!
They changed it back about 12-13 years ago to "for many". You gotta keep up, man.
They changed it back about 12-13 years ago to "for many".
So Lads, you believe the Novus ordo rabble followed Benedict XVI’s teachings, even his footnotes on the change back to the Consecration words,
“…for many…” ?
It would be an interesting poll to see the percentage of newChurch presbyters that are using the words, “… for many…” in the Consecration. ?
Perhaps as many as are following B16’s Latin Mass motu in 2022. 😉
However, the (Holy) Mass is supposed to be from Christ's Holy Church. It can't be evil at all. God should not have to bring good from it.
False Christs, false prophets and all....
Several groups apparently stated they were cutting themselves off from Father as he's 'in' with +Williamson and they don't want to be associated with it.
Hey, who said the Great Apostasy would be easy?
Isn't transubstantiation the true miracle -- Eucharistic Miracles are no more or less supernatural than what takes place at every valid Mass. And the grace that comes along with the Mass and the Holy Eucharist is 100% supernatural.So, if the New Mass is 100% valid, confects the Body of Our Lord, offers true Eucharistic miracles, provides supernatural grace why aren't you assisting there?
But you should have seen the wicked priests and bishops who lived before the Protestant Revolt. I wasn't there, but I have a good imagination and I've read my history books. Let's just say the Protestants DID have something to go on, a grain of truth, something that resonated with the disaffected Faithful -- that the Church WAS in a horrible, sorry state. Widespread ignorance, avarice, doctrinal error, moral depravity (including concubinage) and so forth. Priests were slaves to all 7 of the capital sins; guilty of mortal sins against all 10 of the Commandments (some more common than others).
Many purist Trads, if they found ourselves in such circuмstances, would be revolted, wash our hands of the whole thing, and would become home-aloners -- or even Protestants, once an eloquent heresiarch appeared in our village and started out by decrying the abuses -- speaking the truth. Just look at Pfeifferville. Those people went off the deep end, joining a cult, because their leader has a foundation of truth to go off -- and the people just go along for the ride. They come for the condemnation of the various neo-SSPX evils (GOOD!) and stay for the cult (BAD!) Just like poor Catholics in the 1500's came for the condemnation of clerical vices (GOOD!) and stayed for the heresy (BAD!)
So, if the New Mass is 100% valid, confects the Body of Our Lord, offers true Eucharistic miracles, provides supernatural grace why aren't you assisting there?
I know it's not terribly welcome here, but I think Bishop Williamson's position on the new "mass" is dangerous. And there are quite a few other posters here who seem to be saying the same thing.
More stupidity from one of the resident CI halfwits. This is not a question of what I "believe", as these word were changed back in the official English NOM books and Missals and missalettes. You on the other hand throw bullshit speculation out there as fact, implying that most NO priests comply, as if it were fact.
We need a subforum that requires passing IQ and reading comprehension tests (above a 4th grade proficienty) before permitting people to post there, eliminating about 25% of the membership here at least.
I'm this close to getting out of here because I can't suffer the idiots, shills, and bad-wille slanderers on this forum anymore ... maybe I'll start my own forum / blog that has at least some minimal requirements with regard to intellectual capacity or at least sincerity and intellectual honesty.
So, if the New Mass is 100% valid, confects the Body of Our Lord, offers true Eucharistic miracles, provides supernatural grace why aren't you assisting there?
Isn't transubstantiation the true miracle -- Eucharistic Miracles are no more or less supernatural than what takes place at every valid Mass. And the grace that comes along with the Mass and the Holy Eucharist is 100% supernatural.
But you should have seen the wicked priests and bishops who lived before the Protestant Revolt. I wasn't there, but I have a good imagination and I've read my history books. Let's just say the Protestants DID have something to go on, a grain of truth, something that resonated with the disaffected Faithful -- that the Church WAS in a horrible, sorry state. Widespread ignorance, avarice, doctrinal error, moral depravity (including concubinage) and so forth. Priests were slaves to all 7 of the capital sins; guilty of mortal sins against all 10 of the Commandments (some more common than others).
Many purist Trads, if they found ourselves in such circuмstances, would be revolted, wash our hands of the whole thing, and would become home-aloners -- or even Protestants, once an eloquent heresiarch appeared in our village and started out by decrying the abuses -- speaking the truth. Just look at Pfeifferville. Those people went off the deep end, joining a cult, because their leader has a foundation of truth to go off -- and the people just go along for the ride. They come for the condemnation of the various neo-SSPX evils (GOOD!) and stay for the cult (BAD!) Just like poor Catholics in the 1500's came for the condemnation of clerical vices (GOOD!) and stayed for the heresy (BAD!)
The rape of a woman is objectively evil just as the Novus Ordo Mass is objectively evil. The rape is an act of such grievous nature as to characterize it as one of the necessary elements of a mortal sin. Nevertheless, God may allow the conception of a human being (i.e., a creature composed of a body and soul, and made to the image and likeness of God) to take place -- the miracle of life and that new creation of a human being made in the image and likeness of God is an objectively good thing, even though the subsequent birth is classified as illegitimate and the child is classified as a bastard. (As an aside and perhaps needless to say, the bastard may possibly grow up to be a great saint.)
Again, human conception with the infusion of an eternal soul (leaving aside any discussion concerning the exact time of ensoulment) took place as a result of the rape.
Would not the miraculous bringing forth of a human life arising out of a rape (evil in and of itself) be in some way similar to the miraculous act of transubstantiation that takes place in the Sacrament of the Eucharist incorporated into the Novus Ordo Mass if the necessary elements of that Sacrament are present?
I do not claim that all that I have stated above is a 100% correct statement of truth. I think it is, but I don't claim it to be with anything approaching absolute certainty. Rather I put it forth for the purpose of good faith discussion.
Just as we would never condone rape we need not ever condone the Novus Ordo Mass. At the same time however we should realize that God Almighty allows both and that from both there may arise good. What is of paramount importance is that we clearly realize that any good comes about not because of the rape or the objectively deficient Mass, but in spite of them.
Furthermore, our Catholic Theology informs us, of course, that a good end can never justify evil means. Rape and the Novus Ordo Mass are evil means and therefore no good end can be used to justify them.
If that's what you took away from my post, then you need to re-read it. I'll leave it at that.OK, I re-read. Maybe you need to better explain it.
I'm going to get flack for this, but it seems evident that it's mostly sedevacantists who are in disagreement with the +W's latest EC. Not that anyone has to agree with it, but it just serves to highlight how much sedevacantists differ in belief as opposed with that of the Resistance.Mostly but not all...thankfully.
With sedevacantists, it's all or nothing, and the situation is completely black and white. That's not how non-sedevacantists (such as the Resistance) view the Crisis in the Church, however.
Mostly but not all...thankfully.
In my opinion, the 7 Capital Sins being used and abused does not equate to the Vicar of Christ forcing, by law, a Mass that produces miracles and also leads you to Hell. One is bad living, the other is total apostasy.A Catholic Mass that both produces miracles AND leads you to Hell. :facepalm: How can this be a Catholic position to have?
+Williamson believes -
- the Pope is a real pope
- the mass is a real mass
- the miracles are real miracles
- you will go to Hell if you attend it
Imagine if he promoted the opposite -
- the pope is not a real pope
- the mass is not a real mass
- the miracles are not real miracles
- you will go to Heaven if you attend it
That would be a strange religion indeed.
That's not how non-sedevacantists (such as the Resistance) view the Crisis in the Church, however.
A Catholic Mass that both produces miracles AND leads you to Hell. :facepalm: How can this be a Catholic position to have?
A Resistance priest sent out a lengthy email a couple of days ago, which I'd mentioned, lamenting the fact that many under his wing have now separated themselves from him over +Williamson's comments. Many Resisters, it turns out, don't agree with +Williamson regarding the New Order Bastardo Missae.
Are they really Resisters, or sedevacantist resisters? There's a difference.
One needn't be a sedevacantist to disagree with Bishop Williamson regarding the NOM. Father Hewko (notoriously ANTI-sedevacantist) would be one of those. Sedevacantists were never really "on board" with Bishop Williamson in the first place, so there's no "separation" taking place as a result.
Are they really Resisters, or sedevacantist resisters? There's a difference.
The email only referred to people leaving because of +Williamson's comments.
What is it that they are leaving, exactly? A chapel?
Father's Mass circuit. Different groups on the route have now distanced themselves because of +Williamson's comments.
What sounds fishy about it?
The authenticity of these supposed miracles is vouched for by the same people that tell us there was only one Sister Lucy, and that the Third Secret was revealed about 20 years ago. They also tell us with infallible certainty that Paul VI is currently enjoying the beatific vision. Okay. ::)
What is it that they are leaving, exactly? A chapel? You see, Bp Williamson view's on this matter have not changed for quite some time. Were those who supposedly left really not aware of Bp. Williamson's views? That seems very odd.Perhaps THEIR views have changed.
I've asked you this twice now, so please try to pay attention. How is it that those who left have been unaware of +W's views on this subject? They haven't changed, and they haven't been kept secret. It doesn't make any sense at all. That's why it sounds fishy to me. I don't believe it (what you've claimed).
"Please try to pay attention." You are funny, Meg. I have to hand it to you. Good one!
"How is it that those who left have been unaware of +W's views on this subject?" Now that's a good question. I bailed years ago for this very reason. After the viral email went around regarding the woman asking about it, I attended a conference in which, when asked to clarify his statement, +Williamson slammed his hand down on the table and said, "I don't take anything back." I bailed at that point.
"I don't believe it (what you've claimed)." Funny again, Meg. Again, I have to hand it to you. Why don't you get on the email list and read it yourself instead of calling me a liar?
Meg wins the blue ribbon for clarity, charity and humor.
You keep evading the question. You are the one who has said that half of the people have left a circuit of a Resistance priest. What is it that they are really leaving exactly? An email list? You need to back up your claim, which you obviously have no intention of doing.
Meg...
- Nowhere on God's green earth did I state half the people have left.
- "What is it they are really leaving exactly? An email list?" They are really leaving Father's Mass circuit because of +Williamson's comments. Not to be mean here but do you understand what a Mass circuit is?
- "You need to back up your claim..."
I'm not going to publish the priest's email which goes out to a group. I have no authority to do that. But you can, if you'd like, start joining email lists of priests and read what they send out.
So, the problem I have with the "authenticity" of the miracles is equivocal understanding of what is meant by "authentic"..
Simply because you can rule out natural causes, including human fraud, and demonstrate that the phenomena were in fact preternatural, this does NOT rule out the diabolical. So, for instance, the docuмented phenomena at Garabandal do seem to be very much preternatural. But this does not mean it is of God.
Bishop Williamson states that the miracles cannot be disputed. Well, the Polish ones could be suspect. Those were both cases of a single individual going back later and allegedly "finding" the blood on "consecrated Hosts" that had been put away to naturally dissolve after having been dropped. What's very strange is that the two Polish ones are nearly identical ... both involving the exact same scenario, where a Host was dropped and then put aside to dissolve in this manner, only for someone to later find it with blood on it. That seems strange to me. Bishop Williamson urged someone to check the internet ... as if there have never been fake / fraudulent posts made on the internet.
But let's say that there's miracle that took place in front of a number of people who are credible witesses, and the blood/flesh samples were proven at a lab to be authentic blood and human heart tissue, what's to stop the devil from swooping in to introduce this tissue from some other source? Probably only a valid Blessed Sacrament (as I don't believe God would allow demons to tamper with it). Of course, if it's just bread, as many of us believe, it might be fair game.
What are they leaving, exactly? An email list, or a chapel? Do you not know exactly?
You don't need to post any info about the group in order to answer a simple question. You are still evading the question.
I think this is where the misunderstanding is...
They are leaving Father's Mass circuit - a Mass circuit is where a priest will travel to different chapels to service the needs of the faithful. So, when I worked at the SSPX retreat house in Los Gatos, for example, I used to drive Fr. Alphonsus all over the state of California to serve different chapels. His Mass circuit went out to Bakersfield, sometimes out to San Jose, Sacramento, etc.
The priest in this case is driving all over to serve different chapels. Some of those groups have now cut themselves off from his circuit.
I think this is where the misunderstanding is...
They are leaving Father's Mass circuit - a Mass circuit is where a priest will travel to different chapels to service the needs of the faithful. So, when I worked at the SSPX retreat house in Los Gatos, for example, I used to drive Fr. Alphonsus all over the state of California to serve different chapels. His Mass circuit went out to Bakersfield, sometimes out to San Jose, Sacramento, etc.
The priest in this case is driving all over to serve different chapels. Some of those groups have now cut themselves off from his circuit.
They are leaving Father's Mass circuit
The priest in this case is driving all over to serve different chapels. Some of those groups have now cut themselves off from his circuit.
Is Father Alphonsus aligned with the Resistace somehow?
Can you please name who this priest is, and where some of these locations are that people are leaving?
Thank you for finally explaining that. So, some groups are no longer attending masses because of +W's statements, which are statements that he has made many times in the past, and which nearly everyone on this forum has known about for a few years. I still don't get why they would suddenly be leaving. Very odd, but okay. That's their choice. I guess it's worth it to them to not have access to the sacraments over this issue.Because they finally decided that they can't go along with it?
It seems to back up what Matthew has said on this thread regarding home-aloneism.
He's still aligned with the SSPX, at least officially I believe. The last I heard was him doing a Mission at the Portland chapel (Vancouver, WA actually) recently. He's an excellent confessor if one gets the chance.
Why do you assume that they are now home alone not receiving sacraments?
Can you please name who this priest is, and where some of these locations are that people are leaving?
Because if they attend a Resistance mass, they have likely issues with other mass venues.Aren't there a number of Resistance folks on this forum alone that would go to other trad masses ...if they were the only other ones available?
I don't have that authority and he did not specify which - but puhleeze don't imply I'm a liar for not posting it, like one forum has already. If one doesn't believe me, or understand the terminology in use, that ain't my responsibility. Ye'all need to hunt down the Resistance priests (so to speak) and get on the email chains.
Waiting...
:popcorn:
Still waiting for you to join an email list and get that firsthand news when it breaks!
Can you please explain why you would need "authority" to name a priest covering a public Mass circuit?
:popcorn:
Because they are sent out to a group and he hasn't said I'm allowed to post his emails to the world at large whenever I feel like it.
The liar hides again.
Do you sense I am about to expose you?
What's with the witchhunt here de Lugo? If I had an email from a specific priest I wouldn't share his name either.
How about you share your thoughts on the OP instead?
Can you also please explain why faithful would be leaving an FSSPX priest's Mass for not condemning Msgr. Williamson (who's not part of the FSSPX)?
That makes no sense.
Are you starting to panic a little?
Because to assert a claim as MiracleOfTheSun has done, it can't really be believed without evidence. And that has not been provided.
Because to assert a claim as MiracleOfTheSun has done, it can't really be believed without evidence. And that has not been provided.It is interesting that Matthew didn't require proof from him. Perhaps it's not as unbelievable as you think.
Buddy, Friend, Amigo - I can only say this in all charity, but you really have no idea what you're talking about. If you actually have the ability to 'expose' me then that would be through access to the email. And if that were the case, you know, and agree, I'm telling the Truth.
Funny stuff here on CathInfo.
Au contraire.
I am completely aware of the story (the facts of which you are twisting to bolster your position).
It is for this reason you will not name the priest or venues (i.e., You can pretend it is some other priest at some other venue you speak of).
You are not an honourable man.
Then why don't you post the Truth??? C'mon, man.
Then why don't you post the Truth??? C'mon, man.
The burden is upon you to substantiate your lies (impossible).
You claim faithful previously allied to Msgr. Williamson are leaving this priest's Mass circuit, because they're upset with his recent comments on new Messe miracles and grace.
Yet you're unable to provide the name of the priest serving this Mass circuit, or even what venues comprise this circuit (despite the fact that this would all be public knowledge), and pretend to require authority to declare what -if it were true- would already be very public knowledge.
You'll forgive me for not believing you.
Another question is, why aren't any of the accusers here bashing me tied into email chains with certain priests so they can be educated about this stuff firsthand???.
de Lugo, are you Sean Johnson?
.
Probably because they've been asking you who these priests are for two pages now and you refuse to tell them?
What a troll.
Why are you asking that? Everyone is entitled to anonymity, if they want it.With a duplicate account? Um, no. That would be......dishonest. Of course, de Lugo can always just answer the question honestly.
Why don't you all find a priest and get the email chain. lol
With a duplicate account? Um, no. That would be......dishonest.
So you are sure that it's a duplicate account? If he were a sedevacantist, would you care? Probably not.No, I don't know. That's why I asked. I'm not liking the witch hunt here. Calling MOTS a liar. Would you be okay with it if MOTS wasn't a sedevacantist? Probably not. ;-)
No, I don't know. That's why OI asked. I'm not liking the witch hunt here. Would you be okay with it if he wasn't a sedevacantist? Probably not. ;-)
If you provide an address for the email chain, I might just do that.
"Probably because they've been asking you who these priests are for two pages...".
Who said anything about 'priests'??? This is and has been about 1 priest the entire time. Another non-reading complainer.
why aren't any of the accusers here bashing me tied into email chains with certain priests so they can be educated
.
Because you said:
Something is off about the challenge as well. DeLugo's admission that he has information makes me go hmmmm.
Exactly. Just 'expose' me already.
I'm actually getting full due to all of this popcorn. No lunch today...
:popcorn:
Sorry to break it to you, but it's not really all about you. It's about what you have asserted, with no evidence at all. Sedevacantists like to make it all about personalities, so as to distract from the real subject.
Exactly. Just 'expose' me already.
I'm actually getting full due to all of this popcorn. No lunch today...
:popcorn:
Monsieur-
You have made an unsubstantiated claim, which I am challenging.
The bottom line is that you cannot substantiate anything you have said, which suffices for me to rest my case, until/unless you can provide any evidence.
Sorry to break it to you, but it's not really all about you. It's about what you have asserted, with no evidence at all. Sedevacantists like to make it all about personalities, so as to distract from the real subject.
Anyhoo, not here to start a keyboard war so I'm sorry for any misunderstanding.
Monsieur-
You have made an unsubstantiated claim, which I am challenging.
The bottom line is that you cannot substantiate anything you have said, which suffices for me to rest my case, until/unless you can provide any evidence.
Apology accepted.
But didn’t you claim to have evidence to prove that he is a liar? If you have it, please post it.
I haven't apologized for anything and especially not for being wrongfully and unjustly accused in public.
I have lots of popcorn if anyone would like some.
:popcorn:
Why should I be required to provide evidence, when Miracle is not?
"If you want the truth, you'll have to find a priest who knows how to get you onto an email list."
What would make this forum believe you over him?
Why should I be required to provide evidence, when Miracle is not?
present nothing to back up the claim.
Exactement!
We play by the same rules, or we don't play at all. Right now, the rule is that no asssertions require evidence. If evidence is required of me, then evidence is required of him. Or it is required of nobody. Anything else is unjust.
Precisely what you have done.
Update: But if you require proof, don't be lazy. Do some research. Find a priest who has my information in a private email thread, and get yourself included in it.
:facepalm:
This has been enjoyable, but it's late, and I need to go.
Don’t you feel compelled, for the sake of truth, to expose him as a liar, if he actually is one?
Meg, just when I thought you just might (just quite possibly) be showing some semblance of understanding the traditional landscape, you come out with this. You are a pathetic case indeed. :facepalm:
You're right. My comment was not intended to disparage Our Mother. I apologize to everyone for this. I'm going to own this as a mistake on my part...
That shouldn’t be ever written especially by a Catholic!
Looks like the 'thumbs down' army is out in farce, er, I mean force.
People, I've invited you, and now invite you again, to get off your couch, roll up your sleeves, and do some research.
"It wasn't until April 8, that Br. Raymond de Pennefort, T.O.P., posted a quote of Archbishop Lefebvre taken from a recording of a spiritual conference in 1979, which fully vindicated and corroborated the pastoral approach taken by Bp. Williamson on June 28:
[+ABL:] "I still have some considerations to make about precisely what the judgment is that we should make regarding those who say this New Mass and those who attend the New Mass. Is there not also a need to have a reasonable judgment which corresponds to the pastoral care that we must have regarding the souls who still do not realize the error that they could be committing?
"It is not just the fact of the attendance or the celebration of the New Mass. It's true that in many cases where the fault is objectively grave and subjectively it is not because ultimately the conditions of a grave moral culpability do not exist; it is necessary that there is serious matter, knowledge, and full consent. We admit that there is serious matter (material grave) and that there is full consent. But if there is no knowledge of the seriousness of the sin, then the person is not aware of the grave matter. They do not commit a subjective sin.
"They commit an objective sin, but not a subjective sin. I think that people who are accustomed to utter profanities or repeat blasphemies without realizing that it is blasphemy do not know it. They repeat what they hear in their environment, vulgar things to which is associated the name of God, and they are not aware of it - well, one can point it out. They can understand it, but then they could be committing an objectively serious offense but subjectively not be guilty.
"Therefore you should not judge all people. You must know how to examine each case. It's precisely the role of a confessor, because he must examine, he must be informed.....sometimes in certain cases, we might think that it is not always very pastoral to point it out to certain people....if, for example, we are aware that these people, if we point out the error that they are committing, these people will continue to do it [attend the New Mass - translator]....it is sometimes necessary to proceed prudently in order to open their eyes to tell them what to do and not always be harsh in the way we act regarding souls. Souls are delicate objects that we cannot mistreat. When we say, "you commit a grave sin," "you will go to hell," etc., we take a chance of doing more damage to a soul by mistreating it then by making it understand things gently. Rather than making one understand, explain it to them, open their eyes about the error being committed. It is a pastoral question, I would say, but it is necessary to be a shepherd to these people as well as not condemn them immediately." [End Quote]
Would not the miraculous bringing forth of a human life arising out of a rape (evil in and of itself) be in some way similar to the miraculous act of transubstantiation that takes place in the Sacrament of the Eucharist incorporated into the Novus Ordo Mass if the necessary elements of that Sacrament are present?Bolding and underline in quote are mine.
I do not claim that all that I have stated above is a 100% correct statement of truth. I think it is, but I don't claim it to be with anything approaching absolute certainty. Rather I put it forth for the purpose of good faith discussion.
I believe Novus Ordo "miracles" are demonic and false. No other way to view it in my mind.I believe the same. Pre V2, this the how we were supposed to believe, no? - Unless or until approved by the Church.
I believe the same. Pre V2, this the how we were supposed to believe, no? - Unless or until approved by the Church.
But with Bishop Williamson's glomming onto all these private revelations, why never a mention of Julie Marie Jahenny ... who IMO is actually quite credible? Why no mention of Emmerich, with her visions of a false Church and a false pope, with the true Church being driven out into the wilderness?
I believe the same. Pre V2, this the how we were supposed to believe, no? - Unless or until approved by the Church.
That's the difficult part - "unless or until approved by the Church". Given that the Church is occupied by a Modernist sect, it's not possible at this time that the Church can approve anything. And who knows how long the Crisis will last. It may not be over in our lifetime. Could it be the Crisis predisposes that some bishops will take it upon themselves to see merit in a particular apparition? Or supposed miracles in the Novus Ordo Mass? Not that I'm approving Garabandal, or the supposed miracles. But I tend to give +W the benefit of the doubt, even though I'm not a fan of Garabandal, for example. He's right about most things. That's why I can't outrightly condemn his views on other things which may otherwise be doubtful to us laity.
You're the one who's making an allegation
Bolding and underline in quote are mine.
This analogy reminds me of the heresy of Adoptionism.
Charity, I see your point... but we have to consider WHO we are talking about when we speak of The Holy Eucharist. We're talking about God Incarnate who was conceived of The Holy Ghost and born of The Virgin Mary.
I believe Novus Ordo "miracles" are demonic and false. No other way to view it in my mind.
To all: I say this ONLY to describe the seriousness of what we're discussing here and I'm posting it as a rebuttal in this good faith discussion.
I love Our Mother very much and would never purposely write something to make her look bad. I hope my comment is understood and considered as intended. The phrasing I used in my original comment was immodest and imprudent. I hope this comment makes my point clear without having to explicitly state what I'm insinuating. Maybe I'm shooting myself in the foot again, but I think I make a valid point here.
Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us.
I stated a Resistance priest sent out a group email in which he stated his flock is breaking up due to +Williamson's comments. Just a fact and nothing more.
That's the difficult part - "unless or until approved by the Church". Given that the Church is occupied by a Modernist sect, it's not possible at this time that the Church can approve anything. And who knows how long the Crisis will last. It may not be over in our lifetime. Could it be the Crisis predisposes that some bishops will take it upon themselves to see merit in a particular apparition? Or supposed miracles in the Novus Ordo Mass? Not that I'm approving Garabandal, or the supposed miracles. But I tend to give +W the benefit of the doubt, even though I'm not a fan of Garabandal, for example. He's right about most things. That's why I can't outrightly condemn his views on other things which may otherwise be doubtful to us laity.Well, even if a Eucharistic miracle occurred in a SSPX chapel I think I would still not believe it, at least not initially - (very easy to say at the moment). But the principle is the same if the crisis lasts another 1000 years.
For example, and I have nobody in mind, but were Pius XII to have consecrated someone in pectore behind the Iron Curtain, then later that bishop rejected Vatican II and himself consecrated other successors in pectore, and imparted office to them, then the "lone bishop in the woods" theory is not as absurd as its made out to be..
The grand question is: Can office be transmitted in pectore by another bishop, Rome being unadvised?
consecrated someone in pectore behind the Iron Curtain, then later that bishop rejected Vatican II and himself consecrated other successors in pectore, and imparted office to them
Well, even if a Eucharistic miracle occurred in a SSPX chapel I think I would still not believe it, at least not initially - (very easy to say at the moment). But the principle is the same if the crisis lasts another 1000 years.
What would you think if it occurred at a CMRI chapel? As much as you and I are against the sede doctrine, I (and I assume you) are way, way more anti-NO because of what it is. Between the two, the NO is by far the worst because of what it is. There is not even any comparison and I realize to even say such a thing does an injustice to CMRI and sedeism overall.
Because of what the NO is, no miracles within the NO can be from heaven, any more than miracles would come out of a Lutheran service. If I and the others are wrong, so what. No harm done.
.
I think those bishops were sacramental functionaries whose job it was to administer confirmation or maybe Holy Orders. I don't think they were the ordinaries of dioceses. There's an inherent problem in having the bishop of a diocese whose identity is secret, which is that people are obliged to obey the bishop of a diocese, and they can't obey him if they don't know who he is. Now, certainly there have been bishops with ordinary jurisdiction who went into hiding to evade persecution, but that's not the same thing. In that case, everyone knew who they were, they just didn't know where they were (especially not the persecutors).
But you have a real problem if no one knows even the identity or name of a person who has ordinary jurisdiction. That's basically a scenario in which someone walks into town and says, "I'm the bishop of this place, I have authority over this diocese," and no one has ever heard of him before or was notified by the pope of his appointment. Would anyone accept him? Of course not. Nor should they. Then, if he produced some docuмent supposedly from the pope, how would anyone know this was not a forgery?
The problem here is that the whole concept of appointing someone to public office, by its very nature, is a public act by a superior authority, and it isn't possible to confer that authority secretly without removing at the same time any obligation of people to obey him.
This problem is becoming even further compounded in this scenario, in which such a person secretly appointed to office is now dead and gone, and someone comes along claiming that someone whom nobody ever knew was a bishop has subsequently turned around and made him a bishop, so that he now has authority over the Church.
I understand people trying to find a way to trace authority back to pre-Vatican 2 times, on the supposition that it has been lost somehow unless we can do that (an idea I disagree with), but honestly this scenario has serious problems on multiple levels.
And is French this priest's native language?
There can't be an "in pectore" bishop, as that requires Holy Orders to be actually conferred, but the bishop could be given jurisdiction "in pectore".
We did (most likely) have Archbishop Thuc receive a mandate to consecrate without explicit papal approval due to his being in a Communist country.
There can't be an "in pectore" bishop, as that requires Holy Orders to be actually conferred, but the bishop could be given jurisdiction "in pectore"..
We did (most likely) have Archbishop Thuc receive a mandate to consecrate without explicit papal approval due to his being in a Communist country.
Pius XI, Pope,
In virtue of the fullness of powers of the Holy Apostolic See, we institute as our legate Pierre Martin Ngô-Dinh-Thuc, titular Bishop of Saïgon, for purposes known by us, with all the powers required.
Given in Rome, near Saint Peter, on March 15, 1938, in the seventeeth year of our pontificate.
Pius XI, Pope
Allegation - a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof:
I never claimed someone has done something or anything wrong. I stated a Resistance priest sent out a group email in which he stated his flock is breaking up due to +Williamson's comments. Just a fact and nothing more.
If a supposed miracle can take place in the NO, it may be for the benefit of those Novus ordo attendees who need to know that the Real Presence truly exists - though most here would probably say that there is no Real Presence in a Novus Ordo Mass. But some of us would disagree. I think that it can be present, if it's valid Mass. But I don't want to get into a long discussion about the validity of the NO Mass. You will disagree, of course. That's okay.It is not a matter of the NOM being valid or not, to even phrase it that way confuses the matter imo. It is the consecration within the NOM that may or may not be valid, but the NOM itself is illicit i.e. illegal.
That's just one definition of allegation. I never implied that it was of wrongdoing. Yes, this term is typically used in a legal context, but I meant it as simply making an unsubstantiated assertion.
People,
I have no permission to release private group emails from that priest to the public. I haven't yet hit 'panic' mode or been 'exposed' but at this point I'm moving on. To the bashers who think I'm lying, c'est la vie.
Cheers
Well, I for one didn't say that you're lying. I was more about getting some details about why this happened recently when Bishop Williamson's views about the NOM have been known (and contested) for a couple yars now.I suspect that what is currently hidden will come to light in time.
It is not a matter of the NOM being valid or not, to even phrase it that way confuses the matter imo. It is the consecration within the NOM that may or may not be valid, but the NOM itself is illicit i.e. illegal.
The NOM was designed to replace the true Mass, not to worship God, which means any miracles should clearly point away from the evil thing. I find it somewhat perplexing that +Willimason does not at least acknowledge this.
The NOM was designed to replace the true Mass, not to worship God, which means any miracles should clearly point away from the evil thing. I find it somewhat perplexing that +Willimason does not at least acknowledge this.
I know what illicit means. I'm not new to this subject. My opinion is just different from yours. Illicit does not mean invalid. The SSPX used to maintain that the Novus Ordo is valid but illicit. They don't really talk much about that anymore. They also used to say that attending the NO Mass is only sinful for those who are aware of its deficits. Sound familiar?Yes Meg, it sounds all too familiar, and wrong because that idea is altogether absurd. It's ridiculous. There is no possibility of making it make any sense.
+W views it as +ABL viewed it, if you refer to my post earlier today where I outlined +ABL's words on the subject, based on the study of Sean Johnson on the subject. +W is merely saying what +ABL said. +W is a successor to +ABL. Therefore, he has a right and some might say a duty to reflect the views of +ABL, where he can do so. Those who do not care for +ABL's thought on the matter, whether they be sedevacantists or otherwise may disagree.Yes, I saw your post what +ABL was quoted as saying, which by any measure is ridiculous no matter who said it. Not sure how he and +Williamson
“…what the Hell are we doing here?”
🙄
Duh… I forget?
Why did they kick us out of their newChurch ѕуηαgσgυєs?
Who kicked you out? You can go anywhere you like.
Depending on the NOM venue, TLM Catholics are unwelcome.
In fact, not long ago, the Director of Louisville’s Archdiocese Cemeteries told trads, they could not hold an “all souls”public Rosary inside the Cemetery grounds because we were not Catholic.
If you show dissent with their programs, you are escorted out the door.
1b But how can God possibly work with and through a text of Mass essentially offensive to Him?Focusing now on part 1b of +Williamson's latest Kyrie Eleison. Does anyone volunteer to enlighten my understanding on this section. I refer particularly to the last part in bold letters. How do the Eucharistic miracles warn lovers of the new Mass that they are going to Hell? Is the answer obvious, and is only my cognitive decline the reason I don't understand?
Because even Mass is not the final end, but only a means, albeit a mighty means, to the final end of souls dying with true faith in God so as to achieve salvation, help populate Heaven, and thereby give glory to God. If souls have no Mass to attend, can they keep the faith? Yes. If they have no faith, will they attend Mass? No. Therefore the Mass relates to the faith as means to end, and not as end to means. Therefore the New Mass is only a means, and if it is a mixture of good and bad in which its villainous fabricators had to keep enough good in order to deceive Catholics into accepting it when it was introduced in 1969, for instance enough good for possible validity, then God is easily great enough to work around the bad if He has a good reason to do so. To this day, does He have such a reason? Yes.
All human souls that ever lived are the sheep of God, and His personal creation (Ps. 94, 7), He wants all of them to be saved (I Tim. II, 4), and not just the Catholics (or the Traditional Catholics). The Sacred Heart knows from eternity just how many of His sheep were deceived at Vatican II by their shepherds, how many were more sinned against than sinning, and He knows today how many good believing souls, how many believing priests and even bishops there still are, and who they are, and He reaches through to them in the diabolical mixture of the Novus Ordo, working around the bad and with what is still good, towards the salvation of their souls. And as for those who love the Newchurch and want its bad Mass, they have been reminded and warned by the miracles that they are choosing to go to Hell. If one starts out from the Heart of God, these Novus Ordo miracles make perfect sense . . .
Kyrie eleison
They changed it back about 12-13 years ago to "for many". You gotta keep up, man.
I realized the New Church had changed the words at their consecration of the wine with "for many," but thought like Incredulous that its use would be spotty.
To update - this morning, while doing other things, I put on the local Novus Ordo live tv Mass to see how it was handled at this venue. I had muted the volume, but kept checking the screen, and unmuted it at their consecration. The priest did say "for many," reading everything from a missal laying in front of him.
Speculation was that this "change back" happened, because the New Church knows it thereby removes the cause of complaint that Trads or purists had about how they'd tampered with the wine formula. And it could be safely done because at this point, there were no more "real" priests that may cause real Transubstantiation, due to how the Sacrament of Holy Orders and the Episcopal consecration had been tampered with.
See, while those who defend the new ordination claim that "it's just a single two-letter word," to me the "it's just a single two-letter word" is evidence of the opposite, that it's invalid. Why else would the Modernists even bother with that? It did not render it even the least bit more accessible to modern man (as was the excuse for most of their changes). No, the "ut" was removed on purpose to invalidate the rite while going unnoticed by most.Ladislaus, I read something recently that says the New Ordinal of 1969 fails to confer: the prayer of consecration of the hands of the ordinand, or the prayer for the consecrated hands to consecrate, hallow or bless... it amazes me how botched these new ordinations are.
Ladislaus, I read something recently that says the New Ordinal of 1969 fails to confer: the prayer of consecration of the hands of the ordinand, or the prayer for the consecrated hands to consecrate, hallow or bless... it amazes me how botched these new ordinations are.
the New Ordinal of 1969 fails to confer: the prayer of consecration of the hands of the ordinand, or the prayer for the consecrated hands to consecrate, hallow or bless... it amazes me how botched these new ordinations are.
"I am only the Pope. Who am I to touch the Canon?" - Pius IX
Focusing now on part 1b of +Williamson's latest Kyrie Eleison. Does anyone volunteer to enlighten my understanding on this section. I refer particularly to the last part in bold letters. How do the Eucharistic miracles warn lovers of the new Mass that they are going to Hell? Is the answer obvious, and is only my cognitive decline the reason I don't understand?
C'est la vie... How can a Mass enforced by a legitimate authority, which produces miracles, lead anyone to Hell? If the Mass is a Catholic one, and the faithful can attend it, the faithful should attend it. There is really no need to obtain Sacraments from illegal chapels not recognized by the local ordinary. What are trads actually doing?Exactemente. ;)
::)Or that the undersimplification is deliberate to preserve a Bishop Williamson narrative. ;)
One almost gets the impression that the oversimplification is deliberate, to preserve a narrative (and that others are taking delight in the artifice).
Or that the undersimplification is deliberate to preserve a Bishop Williamson narrative. ;)
As stated in the other thread, I know you have the theological need for that to be true.And as I stated in the other thread...still no proof that your NO miracles increase anyone's faith and finds Tradition.
And as I stated in the other thread...still no proof that your NO miracles increase anyone's faith and finds Tradition.
Are you also de Lugo Sean?