Reminds me of a story one of the older nuns told when I was in grade school.
The priest in the midst of the elevation of the host had a doubt about the Real Presence of our Lord.
At that moment the host began to bleed in his hands.
Did the miracle occur because his faith was so good? No.
Did it occur to reward him for his doubt? No.
It occurred to re-affirm and strengthen the diminished faith of the priest.
She had described it, if I recall as a fairly modern event, not an ancient miracle.
sounds like she was talking about the famous eucharistic miracle of Lanciano from the 8th centuey where the sacred host was sientifically tested in 1971 and proved to be human heart tissue and blood
That's precisely what I was thinking when I read it, too.
I found myself in Boston, Kentucky a few days ago. While I was there Fr. Pfeiffer was talking about Bishop Williamson and the miracles in the Novus Ordo. He said that it was absolutely impossible for there to be eucharistic miracles in the Novus Ordo because it would be affirming a bad thing. I did not know enough to formally argue with him, but I did bring up the eucharistic miracle in Spain from a few hundred years ago. There was a protestant who stole a host and stomped on it with his hobnailed boots. Out of the holes oozed a great quantity of blood.
Now certainly Our Lord Jesus Christ was not affirming that the protestant was doing a good thing by stomping on His Sacred Body. Christ was not rewarding him, He was expressing His extreme displeasure. This is what I tend to think about Eucharistic miracles.
Fr. Pfeiffer seems to have taken a turn to the perpendicular when he keeps on heaping irrational conclusions onto his case history. Is he trying to establish some kind of unique reputation or
what?The Novus Ordo didn't even exist a few hundred years ago so the host would have been stolen from a Traditional Mass....... I don't get your point.
I will admit that the comparison limps in some respects. However, the point of comparison is that Our Lord miraculously suspended the laws of nature in order to show his displeasure at the protestant, and it would seem that He once again suspended the laws of nature to manifest His anger to the Novus Ordites. In both cases Our Lord is not "affirming" the evil act of the guilty party by granting a miracle, quite the opposite in fact...
If we can agree that there is a possibility of a valid consecration at a New Mass then you should be able to understand what I am getting at.
That's the point of contention, Paul FHC, whether there is any validity in the Newmass. This is the effect of sedevacantism today: there is a growing number of Catholics who are starting to accept the rejection of the Newmass as a dogmatic principle. Ironically, not infrequently these same people deny the unique and necessary nature of the Catholic faith and practice, regarding the possibility of salvation for those who do not believe in the essentials nor have been baptized.
.
Topic: In defence of Mons. Williamson (Read 3138 times)