Why the New Mass and New Rite of Ordination are Invalid??
#11
Father Cekada has some very good arguments against the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration on his Quidlibet site. 

Ultimately if you don't believe manual Scholasticism is the be all end all of valid theologizing than the arguments seem less bombastic, but if you are just looking at things through a black/white scholastic way his arguments are pretty solid. 


Honestly, if the Anglican Rite of ordination is null and void so is the Novus Ordo. There really is almost nothing specific within it.  It's bare bones compared to what came before, and if it weren't for peoples faith that:


A. Rome is the True Church
B. Rome can never promulgate invalid rites

I think that more people would look and see that the differences are drastic enough to give one pause. 


That being said I don't believe the new rites are invalid more based on experience of grace even with new rite priests and at the new rite Mass, not because the arguments against them aren't strong and cogent.  


While I'm not a sedevacantist, the more intelligent amongst them actually do know traditional Roman Catholic theology in its manual scholastic version pretty well, and they ought to be seriously considered. After all, the best amongst the sedevacantists are not evil, they seriously want to make sense of the worst crisis to EVER grip the RCC just like all of us here.
Walk before God in simplicity, and not in subtleties of the mind. Simplicity brings faith; but subtle and intricate speculations bring conceit; and conceit brings withdrawal from God. -Saint Isaac of Syria, Directions on Spiritual Training


"It is impossible in human terms to exaggerate the importance of being in a church or chapel before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. I very seldom repeat what I say. Let me repeat this sentence. It is impossible in human language to exaggerate the importance of being in a chapel or church before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. That sentence is the talisman of the highest sanctity. "Father John Hardon
[-] The following 2 users Like formerbuddhist's post:
  • catquilt, Margaret-Mary
Reply
#12
(07-28-2017, 11:33 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(07-28-2017, 07:48 AM)MichaelNZ Wrote: The Dimond Brothers are not real Benedictine monks.

Not only are they NOT real Benedictine monks, they are lying hypocrites who, whilst preaching sedevacantism, attend una cum Liturgies of the Eastern Rite.

Fact is: they are not even Catholic. They are more like Protestants who dress in cassocks. I have seen their stuff for many years. The are NOT monks and the only type of 'brother' they are is possibly of the same parentage. There is no Bishop to back their 'Monastery' and all they spew is heretical garbage.

Stay AWAY! Far, far AWAY!!
One should have an open mind; open enough that things get in, but not so open that everything falls out
Art Bell
  
I don't need a good memory, because I always tell the truth.
Jessie Ventura

Its no wonder truth is stranger than fiction.
Fiction has to make sense
Mark Twain

If history doesn't repeat itself, it sure does rhyme.
Mark Twain

You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.
C.S. Lewis

Political Correctness is Fascism pretending to be manners.
George Carlin
[-] The following 1 user Likes Zedta's post:
  • In His Love
Reply
#13
(07-28-2017, 01:23 PM)GRA Wrote: So what do they do for a living?
If you Google HFM, the first line of the link 'blurb' is 'Donations to Most Holy Family Monastery are tax-deductible'!
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply
#14
(07-28-2017, 02:17 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: Honestly, if the Anglican Rite of ordination is null and void so is the Novus Ordo.
The only way one could say such a thing is to have never actually looked at the relevant matter.
The Anglican question stems from a 1552 ordinal where, while the matter remained the imposition of hands, 
  • The Form for the priesthood became : "Receive the Holy Ghost. Whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained; and be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God and of His Holy Sacraments"
  • The Form for the episcopate became : "Take the Holy Ghost, and remember that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee by imposition of hands, for God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and of soberness"
As a result this no longer signifies what is being conferred, and because of that the ordinations were judged invalid. The Anglicans themselves realized this and in 1662 tried to amend the rites by adding "for the the office and work of a priest [or a bishop]". The problem is that after over 100 years there were no longer any valid orders, so even if that form were sufficient, the man ordaining was not a priest or bishop.

There is no real question about the form and matter of the 1968 rite for ordaining priests. The matter is identical (imposition of hands) and words of the form are essentially the same (the new form omits 'ut' in the Latin, but this is not essential for two reasons: (1) The Latin still means the same thing, (2) Even if it didn't Latin is rarely if ever used in ordination).

The only question is about the 1968 rite Consecration of a Bishop. This is a far more complex question. 

A theologian before Pius XII would probably have said the episcopacy is not a sacrament, but a sacramental, thus some held that a priest could, in necessity, ordain, because there is no difference in the Sacrament of Order between a bishop and a priest. A sacrament has a defined matter and form required for validity. A sacramental is not the same and is much looser. Thus, one relying on the traditional theology will be met with a problem of proving that a priest could not ordain -- the most common argument is the the Church does not allow it, just as she sets conditions for valid marriages. But those conditions admit of exceptions, complicating things.

Secondly, the rite was significantly changed. The matter remains the same, but the form is drastically different, so if a sacrament, or if a valid rite is necessary to fulfill the conditions set by the Church, we may have an issue. This falls flat when we see that the new rite adopts an ancient form which was always regarded as valid. While Pius XII did define the matter and form to be used from then on, Paul VI could have validly changed this. In fact, an argument could be made that the newer form better expresses what is being done.

The bigger question is what precisely does the ordaining bishop actually intend to do. That was always the question Archbishop Lefebvre had and why he expressed doubts. If a bishop does not intend to ordain Catholic priests or bishops, or has an heretical notion of the priest, he certainly could fail to validly intend to ordain a man.

So in the Anglican case and Novus Ordo case are wildly different. The Anglican case is a question of matter and form. The 1968 rites case is a question of intention of the ordaining bishop.

Fortunate for us, the latter can be reasonably investigated, and the practice of the SSPX has always been to conditionally ordain a priest who comes to them when the investigation was not conclusive.

The "Dimond Brothers" arguments are fallacious red herrings, than anyone with even basic theological training should see for what they are.
[-] The following 3 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Florus, In His Love, Sacred Heart lover
Reply
#15
For the benefit of looking at the form for the ordination of a priest, these are the essential words :


The 1962 (and previous) Roman Pontificals :
Quote:Da, quaesumus, omnipotens Pater, in hunc famulum tuum Presbyterii dignitatem; innova in visceribus eius spiritum sanctitatis, ut acceptum a Te, Deus, secundi meriti munus obtineat censuramque morum exemplo suae conversationis insinuet.
Quote:Grant, we beseech Thee, Almighty Father, invest this Thy servant with the dignity of the Priesthood; renew in his bowels the spirit of holiness, so that he may persevere in this office, which is next to ours in dignity, since he has received it from Thee, O God, and may the example of his life lead others to moral rectitude.

The 1968 (and following) Roman Pontificals :
Quote:Da, quaesumus, omnipotens Pater, in hunc famulum tuum Presbyterii dignitatem; innova in visceribus eius spiritum sanctitatis; acceptum a Te, Deus, secundi meriti munus obtineat censuramque morum exemplo suae conversationis insinuet.
Quote:Grant, we beseech Thee, Almighty Father, invest this Thy servant with the dignity of the Priesthood; renew in his bowels the spirit of holiness ; may he persevere in this office, which is next to ours in dignity, since he has received it from Thee, O God, and may the example of his life lead others to moral rectitude.

The removal of "ut" makes absolutely zero change to the meaning of the text.

In the Latin form of the sacrament, there is no reasonable doubt possible.

If the 1962 form was sufficient to precisely express what the imposition of hands was signifying (thus conferring the sacrament), the 1968 rite also does so.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Sacred Heart lover
Reply
#16
To go back to the OP's questions about the N.O. Mass, yes, stay away from the Dimond Brothers as many others have recommended. However, the N.O. Mass can be problematic for many reasons, not just the "for all"/"for many" translation issue.

Michael Davies wrote several books about Vatican II and the New Mass, in addition to other Catholic historical topics. I would recommend one of his books. 

One of his books, Liturgical Shipwreck is online (http://catholictradition.org/Eucharist/shipwreck.htm) but there are many others[/url]

Edited to add: there's something weird going on with the link I posted...
[url=http://catholictradition.org/Eucharist/shipwreck.htm]
Lynne

+JMJ+

"Certainly, you must be informed about modern errors because preaching the truth involves preaching about distancing oneself from error; but do not make the negative, secondary aspect into the most important! Your first aim is not to fight against error but to know the truth. Your central concern should be study, your sanctification, silence, meditation, and the exercise of charity." - Archbishop Lefebvre
Reply
#17
I recently saw a reference which referred to the Dimond brothers 'monastery' as Holy Family Monetary!
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


[-] The following 1 user Likes jovan66102's post:
  • Fontevrault
Reply
#18
Ugh the Dimond Bros...A "Catholic" version of Fred Phelps's Westboro Baptist Church...everyone is going to Hell but me and my three followers, so give us money!

:rolleyes:
Reply
#19
Thanks everyone, for your responses, and especially Magister Musicae for your explanations.

I would love to read books about this but unfortunately I can no longer read for very long due to a neurological disorder.  I can mostly skim things online a bit and get the gist.

This is why I utilize You Tube videos.

Have no fear of the Diamond Brothers luring me away from the true Church!  I am simply using them as a means to an end for my better understanding and I'm grateful to have your friendship and illuminating advice. :)
Reply
#20
The main clue that convinced me that the Novus Ordo masses and priestly ordination are valid is the following:
We know that a number of mystics have the gift to discern between consecrated and non-consecrated hosts. For example, the famous seer Marie-Julie Jahenny who lived before WWII, Saint Padre Pio and Sister Lucia of Fatima were so gifted. If the post Vatican II priests had been invalidly ordained or if the Novus Ordo rite was invalid, certainly such mystics living in the present times would have noticed this.
In addition, we know that in the old exorcism rite (still used by a majority of exorcists) sometimes the priest uses a consecrated host to scare the devil and oblige him to leave the possessed person. If the host was only bread instead of the True Body of Christ, it is obvious that many holy exorcists like Fr Amorth would have noticed that the N.O. hosts didn't work and this would have had huge consequences on the implementation of the Novus Ordo since many good priests and bishops would have required coming back to the pre-VATII immemorial latin Mass.
[-] The following 2 users Like maso's post:
  • LaudeturIesus, Sacred Heart lover
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)