Author Topic: Archbishop Lefebvre and the New Mass (Read 2935 times)

hollingsworth · « **Reply #10 on:** December 07, 2016, 05:12:31 PM »

Quote

Doubtful Pope promulgated it
Doubtful promulgation
Mass is not said in Latin original language and translations are different according to country.
Doubtful new formula for consecrating bishops (no bishop, no priests ordained)
Doubtful new ordination rite (no valid priests)
Doubt about validity of the NOM, it is the same as the Lutheran and Anglican services.

Doubtful, perhaps, but they still manage to squeeze a Eucharistic miracle out of it from time to time.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #11 on:** December 08, 2016, 03:30:44 AM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Quote
Doubtful Pope promulgated it
Doubtful promulgation
Mass is not said in Latin original language and translations are different according to country.
Doubtful new formula for consecrating bishops (no bishop, no priests ordained)
Doubtful new ordination rite (no valid priests)
Doubt about validity of the NOM, it is the same as the Lutheran and Anglican services.

Doubtful, perhaps, but they still manage to squeeze a Eucharistic miracle out of it from time to time.

They "manage" to "squeeze", again, doubtful.

Not a thing about the conciliar church is of certainty. We live by certainty of faith, not doubts, an invisible long chain built of doubtful links.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #12 on:** December 08, 2016, 01:45:12 PM »

LT:

Quote

Not a thing about the conciliar church is of certainty. We live by certainty of faith, not doubts, an invisible long chain built of doubtful links.

So bottom line: the alleged NO Eucharistic miracles are, at best, doubtful, and, at worst, simply hoaxes or, perhaps, lying wonders proceeding from the devil. Is that what you're saying?

Stubborn · « **Reply #13 on:** December 08, 2016, 02:13:18 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

LT:
Quote
Not a thing about the conciliar church is of certainty. We live by certainty of faith, not doubts, an invisible long chain built of doubtful links.

So bottom line: the alleged NO Eucharistic miracles are, at best, doubtful, and, at worst, simply hoaxes or, perhaps, lying wonders proceeding from the devil. Is that what you're saying?

NO Eucharistic Miracles could well be true miracles, but lest we be deceived, we are correct to be suspicious of them because of where they are, that is, in the NO, which has already deceived two or three generations.

We are justified being suspicious because of what the NO is, i.e. diabolical.

Can someone point to any time in the history of the Church when miracles were associated with sacrilegious protestant or pagan services, yet were approved as true miracles from heaven? I don't know but I don't think so.

Were we not warned by God Himself: "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."?

If the miracles of the NO are indeed authentic, it can only be to show the NO offends Our dear Lord so very much, enough for God to make Himself in the host bleed again for all to witness. The other alternative is God made the miracles to draw people into the NO - I will never accept that and I am sure most here are with me on that.

John Steven · « **Reply #14 on:** December 09, 2016, 08:16:18 AM »

Quote from: Raphaela

Quote from: Matthew
I received this via e-mail:

Quote
The widow of Hamish Fraser relayed a question to Archbishop Lefebvre, through Fr Michael Crowdy, asking whether she could attend the New Mass because she was unable to get to the traditional Mass. The Archbishop replied to her that she could do so. This would have been in the late 1980's.

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=40394&f=19&min=513&num=3

I heard about this case. This was after Hamish Fraser's death and his wife was very isolated in the north of Scotland. She asked Fr Crowdy, an elderly English priest who worked with the SSPX, about whether she could go to the New Mass. He asked the Archbishop at Econe, who said it would be better for her to go to it than stay 'home alone'. Hamish died in 1986, so it was some time after that.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a priest who had given advice to a friend on a particular issue that made me uneasy. I'm paraphrasing here, but he told me it should be considered in the same light as advice given by a doctor: it was specific advice given to one person and not to be applied to everyone.

I think these type of anecdotes people bring up have to be looked at in the same light.