I down vote all of you for callous and hardhearted refusal to address the daily massacre of preborn babies. The condemnation of abortion is an infallible doctrine of the Catholic Church but yall don't care one bit.
Frawely The charismatic movement had sign and wonders
But the bible warns against false miracles that deceive even the elect.
@Sean Johnson If the Novus Ordo is not a valid Mass, how do you explain Eucharistic miracles that were consecrated during those Masses?
If you think about it, it is always from the no mass. Those who attend most don't believe GOD is truly present in The Blessed Sacrament. They handle Our Lord as a cookie. I use to go to that sick mass. They even allowed prot's to receive. I was told they find Hosts in very bad places. (the bathrooms?)
I myself found a Host which someone bit and left on the pew I was sitting on. Also one of the Priests lied and said, The Blessed Mother didn't give The Rosary to St. Dominic!
When I was speaking to some women, one particular women got in my face and told me I hated people. Why? Because I said, we give one hour to Our Lord on Sundays. And everyone is more interested in talking, clapping, laughing and not paying attention to GOD. She was something else and kept attacking me about how I hate people and so on.
Most don't believe. Most don't care about giving one hour to Our Lord. They are there for each other and fun.
Our Lord is showing the non believers that He is "Most" certainly present!
@frawley-
1. No reliable proof that the alleged miracles are authentic;
2. Supposing the miracles were authentic, it does not necessarily follow that the Novus Ordo is valid (ie., God’s power to work miracles is not bound by validity/invalidity).
3. I nowhere said the Novus Ordo is per se invalid (but I do hold it is doubtful, because its ministers are doubtfully ordained with doubtful intentions).
4. I do hold the Novus Ordo is displeasing to God, and therefore nobody should attend it.
If #2 is true then it would mean sacraments in voto extend beyond baptism of blood/desire and perfect contrition and to the Eucharist. In which case why not extend to Holy Orders? And in that case you’re into the same theology as Hans Kung and consequently the validity of Anglican orders.
@Harry-
I think you’re outmaneuvering yourself here: The matter of sacraments in voto (ie., imparting a sacramental effect without imparting a sacramental character) is not a consequence of allowing that God could perform a “Eucharistic” miracle at an invalid Mass, anymore that if He draws water from rocks: Neither involves a transmission of sanctifying grace bringing a soul into a state of justification, as does baptism of desire.
So a priest taking a small piece and giving it as Viaticum to a sick relative wouldn’t receive the sanctifying grace effect?
@Sean Johnson
"1. No reliable proof that the alleged miracles are authentic;"
Who determines whether such proof is reliable and that the alleged miracles are authentic? Does a lay person have any authority in that regard?
"3. I nowhere said the Novus Ordo is per se invalid (but I do hold it is doubtful, because its ministers are doubtfully ordained with doubtful intentions)."
"Doubtful" according to whom?
I'm old enough to have lived through "the changes." The New Mass was first promulgated in 1969 and then sort of repromulgated in 1970. The majority of Roman Rite priests at that time were ordained in the old rite. When those priests switched to the New Mass, were their Masses all of a sudden invalid?
Were their Masses invalid in 1966, 1967, or 1968, when substantial changes were made in the Mass prior to the New Mass being promulgated?
"4. I do hold the Novus Ordo is displeasing to God, and therefore nobody should attend it."
If the above comments regarding validity of ordinations are correct, then wouldn't the same be true of the old Mass in many instances?
Many priests who offer the old Mass were ordained by bishops who were consecrated post 1968. If those bishops are invalid, that means the priests they allegedly ordain are invalid. Therefore, their "Masses" would be invalid and certainly displeasing to God, and therefore nobody should attend such Masses. Wouldn't that be true?
Where does that leave us then?
It leaves us here: The only sacraments which are certainly valid are those offered by priests ordained in the old rite, by a bishop consecrated in the old rite. That boils down to most SSPX priests, all resistance priests, some sedevacantists, and a few FSSP priests.
Okay, but I'm Greek Catholic. Our sacraments aren't "certainly" valid?
Who determines whether a sacrament is "certainly" valid and whether it is "doubtfully" valid?
"Doubtful" according to whom?
Does a mere lay person have any authority to make that call?
Okay. But what is the answer as to who determines whether a sacrament is "certainly" valid and whether it is "doubtfully" valid?
"Doubtful" according to whom?
Are you suggesting only modernist bishops (?) can decide the matter? Is it realistic for them to declare their own ordinations, consecrations (and therefore sacraments) doubtful? You want those managing the ruin of Catholicism to render an objective judgement on the matter?
I'm not suggesting anything; I was merely asking questions. What are the answers?
Who determines those things? Who declares the ordinations, et cetera, to be doubtful? Doubtful according to whom?
Nobody needs to declare anything. Catholics who know their theology (0.05%) know these conciliar “sacraments” are questionable to say the least. The SSPX thought so for many years, until Fellay became SG, and prized recognition above truth.
But you are making declarations in this thread. For example, immediately below this, you state: "A bit hypocritical for Strickland to say the time for compromise is over, even as he compromises by saying the Novus Ordo, and is himself doubtfully ordained and consecrated in the new rite."
That's a positive assertion, i.e., a declaration, that Bishop Strickland is "doubtfully ordained and consecrated." By whose authority is such a statement made? That's what I'm trying to ascertain.
A bit hypocritical for Strickland to say the time for compromise is over, even as he compromises by saying the Novus Ordo, and is himself doubtfully ordained and consecrated in the new rite (thereby confecting doubtfully valid sacraments), and accepting the legitimacy of the counterfeit council. Hmm.
@Sean Johnson,,,a bit hypocritical for you to respond to a pro-life sermon buy insulting the presenter and saying nothing about an infallible doctrine of the Catholic Church being trampled by baby murder.