What did you not understand.  It was clear, was it not?

Which part?  Please be more specific.  No idea what you’re talking about.

I also found this article https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/new-eucharistic-miracle-poland . Presuming that the miracle is real, it is beyond me how they call it a Relic though.

The article also states they did DNA test. That made me wondering if they matched those across multiple miracles.

In any case, the conclusion seems to be similar to bp Williamson's one.

Article excerpt, with comments:


Answer to a Common Objection

Some may ask the question: how can God allow a miracle to happen in the context of the New Mass?

When we say the New rite is defective, we do not say all the Masses celebrated with this rite are invalid. We say that the rite in itself departs from the unequivocal expression of the Catholic doctrine about the priest, the Real Presence, and the propitiatory character of the sacrifice.

During any valid Mass, the host is consecrated and therefore Our Lord is present under the species of wine and bread, no matter how the reverence of the priest and of the assistants treat Him.

In fact, Church history shows us that Eucharistic miracles - which consist precisely in the appearance of other species - often happen because of doubt or irreverence. At Lanciano, the priest doubted the Real Presence. At Cascia, the priest was irreverent by putting the host in his breviary for a sick call.

Whenever the mass is valid, Our Lord is present. God freely manifests His power by a miracle to rectify the attitude towards the reality of the Eucharist. May these miracles lead to the suppression of Communion in the hand and bring the definitive triumph of the traditional Mass!


It's legitimate to question the validity of the Mass if the form is changed, contrary to St. Pope Pius X's codification.  The above writer can say the mass was valid, but what were the exact words used in the Consecration?   Secondly, what ordination rite did the celebrant come from?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Bp. Williamson has previously stated that the Novus ordo missae is a gutted, non Catholic mass.
Bp. Fellay once said the Novus ordo missae was intrinsically evil because so many good parts were removed from the true Mass.

It would seem the Novus ordo Eucharistic miracles need to be more closely scrutinized.  
The miracle details, the consecration form used at the Mass and the priest's ordination rite.

It's pretty easy to gin-up a miracle and get the masonic press to report on it:
10 years before Pope John XXIII was canonized, supposed miraculous cures started happening at a European Novus ordo church dedicated to this Pope.

Does anyone on this forum really believe Pope John XXIII is a Saint?

Likewise I don't see why you and Sean don't see why one who has abandoned the new faith and been faithful to the true faith would have to worry about God sending a new faith priest to them on their death bed, I really don't get it.

I do agree with Lad that if such an unthinkable thing like that were to happen, then we "would have to conclude he was valid (some how, some way)..."

Conversely, I can see the all merciful God sending a good priest to a NOer, but it is against the very nature of God to send a bad priest to a faithful trad.  

Two questions....

1) Do you at least agree that for a faithful Catholic, no priest is ever going to appear by chance or coincidence in an emergency?

2) If so, then do you agree that if one gets a priest at all, that it is God Himself who not only specifically and purposely provides that priest, He also provides *that* particular priest?  

If you said "yes" to both questions, then you must conclude *not only* that faithful trads, if they are provided a priest at all, have no need to worry about getting an invalid or doubtful priest, but also if they've waved both flags (NO and trad) during their life, then they should worry about it.  

The purpose of this whole exercise has been to somehow show how it is valid for us (and Trad clergy) to remain open to the NO and its clergy by taking the discussion to the utmost extreme and unlikely hypothetical situation (ie. a catastrophe occurs when you are minutes from dying, are completely alone and have no other choice but a NO priest at the moment of your death).  

Given ByzCat is still part of the Novus Ordo (and others still straddle the uncomfortable NO fence in some capacity), it makes absolute sense why he can not see our POV.  

In the past 8 years (and for some of us decades), I have gone out of my way to avoid the NO, to be conditionally baptized, to make general confessions, etc to be SURE I was right with God and His Holy Religion.  Like you say, it makes absolutely NO SENSE to do the complete opposite right before my death...and God would not put me in that position.      

To what end? If I recall correctly, the end is to not have animosity toward those who attend the Novus Ordo. In other words, Charity is the reason. Though "Charity' tends to be a bad word for some here.

Hating the abomination of the new mass is not the same as hating individuals who go there.  One practices no charity who minimizes the evils of the new liturgy and V2.  We should be charitable to those in ignorance, but we must always uphold truth no matter how harsh, because we owe perfect Charity to God, above all men.

Likewise I don't see why you and Sean don't see why one who has abandoned the new faith and been faithful to the true faith would have to worry about God sending a new faith priest to them on their death bed, I really don't get it.

I do agree with Lad that if such an unthinkable thing like that were to happen, then we "would have to conclude he was valid (some how, some way)..."

Conversely, I can see the all merciful God sending a good priest to a NOer, but it is against the very nature of God to send a bad priest to a faithful trad.  

Two questions....

1) Do you at least agree that for a faithful Catholic, no priest is ever going to appear by chance or coincidence in an emergency?

2) If so, then do you agree that if one gets a priest at all, that it is God Himself who not only specifically and purposely provides that priest, He also provides *that* particular priest?  

If you said "yes" to both questions, then you must conclude *not only* that faithful trads, if they are provided a priest at all, have no need to worry about getting an invalid or doubtful priest, but also if they've waved both flags (NO and trad) during their life, then they should worry about it.  

I don't know how predestination and free will balance together when it comes to such things, but you grant the possibility that God could provide *no* priest at all.  If its not against God's nature and character to provide no priest, than its not against his nature and character to provide a priest that *you* can't discern 100% whether validity exists or not.  If it would be unloving for God to send an NO priest, than it would be unloving for God *not* to send a trad priest, and I don't think that's where you're going here.

To what end? If I recall correctly, the end is to not have animosity toward those who attend the Novus Ordo. In other words, Charity is the reason. Though "Charity' tends to be a bad word for some here.

Meg,

We trads hate the Novus ordo’s “Great Sacrilege”, but love Novus ordo sinners.

I’ve never met a trad who wasn’t eagerly willing to evangelize a sincere soul who wanted the truth.

If Bp. Williamson is concerned about our lack of charity to newChurchers, he needs to recall they kicked us out of their ѕуηαgσgυєs for 60 years.

This thread reminds me of a situation I heard about. A CMRI supporter was dying and the only traditional priests near enough to visit were SSPX. So the SSPX sent a priest to give her last rites. And the SSPX sent a Novus Ordo ordained priest who was never conditionally reordained. And the CMRI supporter knew this and did not believe his orders were valid, or at least doubted them. I don't remember what happened next (whether the priest was accepted and sacraments were received or if he was refused and the dying woman had to rely on an act of contrition.)