Why the New Mass and New Rite of Ordination are Invalid??
#21
(09-23-2017, 05:52 PM)maso Wrote: 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.

I don't want to disturb your peace or swing you either way, but I'll just add this.

On Thursday, November 27, 1902,  Our Lord appeared to Marie-Julie Jahenny (Approved mystic and stigmatist by Msgr. Félix Fournier, Bishop of Nantes (1870-1877) in which He warned of a new liturgy for the Mass which was then currently already being made up:

“I give you a warning. The disciples who are not of My Gospel are now working hard to remake according to their ideas, and under the influence of the enemy of souls [Satan], a Mass that contains words which are odious in My Sight. When the fatal hour arrives where the faith of My Priests are put to the test, it will be these texts that will be celebrated, in this second period.” 

“The first period is the one of My Priesthood, existing since Me. The second is the one of the persecution, when the enemies of the Faith and of Holy Religion will impose their formulas in the book of the second celebration. Many of My holy Priests will refuse this book, sealed with the words of the abyss. Unfortunately, amongst them are those who will accept it.” (Marquis de La Franquerie: Julie Marie Jahenny: The Breton Stigmatist. ) 

*The Marquis de La Franquerie was the Chamberlain of Pope Pius XII and directed by a revelation to Marie Julie Jehenney to guard her prophecies.

Padre Pio died before the new mass was finalised and God did not reveal to him everything.

Tradition in Action has put forth evidence of some substantial doubt between the pre Vatican II Lucy and the one presented later.

For some this is not noteworthy or worthy of consideration.

Personally, I am on the fence.

29. As they appear in the context of the Novus Ordo, the words of Consecration could be valid in virtue of the priest's intention. But since their validity no longer comes from the force of the sacramental words themselves (ex vi verborum)--or more precisely, from the meaning (modus significandi) the old rite of the Mass gave to the formula--the words of Consecration in the New Order of Mass could also not be valid. Will priests in the near future, who receive no traditional formation and who rely on the Novus Ordo for the intention of "doing what the Church does," validly consecrate at Mass? One may be allowed to doubt it. 

-The Ottaviani Intervention: A Critical Study of the New Mass, Written by Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani and Antonio Cardinal Bacci and a Group of Roman Theologians on June 5, 1969 
Reply
#22
(09-23-2017, 05:52 PM)maso Wrote: 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 Ritual Romanum, from which the traditional rite of exorcism explicitly forbids such a use of the Eucharist. 

In the rite's instructions (Rit. Rom., cap. tit. XI, cap. 1, no. 13) we find : "One should not hold the holy Eucharist over the head of the person or in any way apply it to his body, owing to the danger of desecration."

There are alleged stories of exorcisms that involved the use of the Blessed Sacrament (such as Nicola Aubrey in 1565).

In that latter case, it was well before there was a uniform Rituale Romanum (which was promulgated in 1614). Still, that use is certainly not sanctioned now. If it were done by an exorcist nowadays, it would constitute a grave violation of Church law, and doing his own things, rather than relying on the Church and Christ through the proper rites, is most certainly something the Ritual warns the priest against (Ibid., no. 20).
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#23
(09-23-2017, 09:04 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(09-23-2017, 05:52 PM)maso Wrote: 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 Ritual Romanum, from which the traditional rite of exorcism explicitly forbids such a use of the Eucharist. 

In the rite's instructions (Rit. Rom., cap. tit. XI, cap. 1, no. 13) we find : "One should not hold the holy Eucharist over the head of the person or in any way apply it to his body, owing to the danger of desecration."

There are alleged stories of exorcisms that involved the use of the Blessed Sacrament (such as Nicola Aubrey in 1565).

In that latter case, it was well before there was a uniform Rituale Romanum (which was promulgated in 1614). Still, that use is certainly not sanctioned now. If it were done by an exorcist nowadays, it would constitute a grave violation of Church law, and doing his own things, rather than relying on the Church and Christ through the proper rites, is most certainly something the Ritual warns the priest against (Ibid., no. 20).

 "One should not hold the holy Eucharist over the head of the person or in any way apply it to his body, owing to the danger of desecration."
Yes of course, applying the Eucharist on the head or the body is an awful desecration (like is holding it in one's palm during communion), but never is forbidden the exorcist in the Rituale to present the host in  a pyxide in front of the possessed person. Even if many exorcists don't use  the Eucharist in their exorcisms, certainly those who use it that way would have noticed that the N.O. hosts don't scare the devils if they were invalidly consecrated.
And the late Fr Amorth who was a very holy and trad priest never spoke about it.
Reply
#24
(09-23-2017, 09:04 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(09-23-2017, 05:52 PM)maso Wrote: 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 Ritual Romanum, from which the traditional rite of exorcism explicitly forbids such a use of the Eucharist. 

In the rite's instructions (Rit. Rom., cap. tit. XI, cap. 1, no. 13) we find : "One should not hold the holy Eucharist over the head of the person or in any way apply it to his body, owing to the danger of desecration."

There are alleged stories of exorcisms that involved the use of the Blessed Sacrament (such as Nicola Aubrey in 1565).

In that latter case, it was well before there was a uniform Rituale Romanum (which was promulgated in 1614). Still, that use is certainly not sanctioned now. If it were done by an exorcist nowadays, it would constitute a grave violation of Church law, and doing his own things, rather than relying on the Church and Christ through the proper rites, is most certainly something the Ritual warns the priest against (Ibid., no. 20).

Regarding what the mystic seer Marie Julie Jahenny foretold for a next coming future, I believe that we are on the verge of seing its fulfilment. We know that Francis promulgated some days a go a motu proprio that grants the local bishops conference all freedom to adapt the mass liturgy to their local customs. There is the true danger of the implementation of invalid masses in certain countries while remaining valid in other ones.
Reply
#25
(09-24-2017, 06:36 AM)maso Wrote: Regarding what the mystic seer Marie Julie Jahenny foretold for a next coming future, I believe that we are on the verge of seing its fulfilment. We know that Francis promulgated some days a go a motu proprio that grants the local bishops conference all freedom to adapt the mass liturgy to their local customs. There is the true danger of the implementation of invalid masses in certain countries while remaining valid in other ones.

That motu proprio (Magnum principium) does not give "all freedom", but deals with translations only. Heretofore a translation was made by a bishops' conference, submitted to the Holy See and checked by the Congregation for Divine Worship and then the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. If they were acceptable they were approved and then could be used. It required a positive approval before use. Now the bishops' conferences can make their own translations and promulgate them, they also submit them to Rome and Rome's job looks for problems, and demands a change if they see problems. It's now a negative approval—the bishops approve it themselves a Rome just looks at it if they think there may be problems.

There is not that much more risk to invalidity of Masses or rites than we had before. Recall that the Holy See, even under the more rigorous standards allowed "pro multis" to be rendered "for all" in at least a half-dozen languages. We couldn't trust even the Holy See to protect the rites from doubts about the translations and thus validity.

I understand your points, but both before and here again you've overstated your case to the point of falsity. If you insist on doing that among a less welcoming crowd, they will use your error as proof that you are misleading them.
Reply
#26
(09-24-2017, 06:24 AM)maso Wrote:
(09-23-2017, 09:04 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(09-23-2017, 05:52 PM)maso Wrote: 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 Ritual Romanum, from which the traditional rite of exorcism explicitly forbids such a use of the Eucharist. 

In the rite's instructions (Rit. Rom., cap. tit. XI, cap. 1, no. 13) we find : "One should not hold the holy Eucharist over the head of the person or in any way apply it to his body, owing to the danger of desecration."

There are alleged stories of exorcisms that involved the use of the Blessed Sacrament (such as Nicola Aubrey in 1565).

In that latter case, it was well before there was a uniform Rituale Romanum (which was promulgated in 1614). Still, that use is certainly not sanctioned now. If it were done by an exorcist nowadays, it would constitute a grave violation of Church law, and doing his own things, rather than relying on the Church and Christ through the proper rites, is most certainly something the Ritual warns the priest against (Ibid., no. 20).

 "One should not hold the holy Eucharist over the head of the person or in any way apply it to his body, owing to the danger of desecration."
Yes of course, applying the Eucharist on the head or the body is an awful desecration (like is holding it in one's palm during communion), but never is forbidden the exorcist in the Rituale to present the host in  a pyxide in front of the possessed person. Even if many exorcists don't use  the Eucharist in their exorcisms, certainly those who use it that way would have noticed that the N.O. hosts don't scare the devils if they were invalidly consecrated.
And the late Fr Amorth who was a very holy and trad priest never spoke about it.

Again the Ritual only permits two uses of the Eucharist : Communion and Benediction.

A priest or deacon, therefore may only use the Eucharist in the context of these two approved functions. Outside of this he would be gravely sinning to invent his own usage. He may only take the Eucharist in a pyx when he is bringing communion to someone who has a good change of receiving.

In Communion outside of Mass, if the priest is bringing Communion to several people and going from place to place and there are hosts remaining, after the Communion instead of giving his own blessing, he blesses the sick person with the pyx.

At Benediction, the priest may use the monstrance (for a significant number of faithful — usually considered more than 20), or may use a pyx or ciborium for a more private benediction. In such the ritual demands he have an altar, a tabernacle, a corporal, and follow the ritual which include using incense at exposition, singing the Tantum Ergo, imposing incense again, singing the prayer, giving benediction, then putting away the host in the tabernacle.

Those are the only two uses permitted.

Now, if an exorcist brought a person to a church, and there decided to hold a simple benediction with the ciborium or pyx, fine. If in a state of calm, he brought them communion and had left over hosts he blessed them, then that's also fine.

What you are describing, however, is (1) not found in the Ritual anywhere, much less in the exorcism rite; (2) precisely what the Ritual forbids (bringing a pyx to bless "holding over the head", and then if you don't have a tabernacle and altar, precisely where does the Blessed Sacrament go when the priest is done—It sits on a side table somewhere?). 

For a priest to do such would be gravely sinful for two reason : He would be inventing his own rites, he would be violating Church law regarding custody of the Eucharist.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#27
(09-24-2017, 03:01 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Again the Ritual only permits two uses of the Eucharist : Communion and Benediction.

A priest or deacon, therefore may only use the Eucharist in the context of these two approved functions. Outside of this he would be gravely sinning to invent his own usage. He may only take the Eucharist in a pyx when he is bringing communion to someone who has a good change of receiving.

In Communion outside of Mass, if the priest is bringing Communion to several people and going from place to place and there are hosts remaining, after the Communion instead of giving his own blessing, he blesses the sick person with the pyx.

At Benediction, the priest may use the monstrance (for a significant number of faithful — usually considered more than 20), or may use a pyx or ciborium for a more private benediction. In such the ritual demands he have an altar, a tabernacle, a corporal, and follow the ritual which include using incense at exposition, singing the Tantum Ergo, imposing incense again, singing the prayer, giving benediction, then putting away the host in the tabernacle.

Those are the only two uses permitted.

Now, if an exorcist brought a person to a church, and there decided to hold a simple benediction with the ciborium or pyx, fine. If in a state of calm, he brought them communion and had left over hosts he blessed them, then that's also fine.

What you are describing, however, is (1) not found in the Ritual anywhere, much less in the exorcism rite; (2) precisely what the Ritual forbids (bringing a pyx to bless "holding over the head", and then if you don't have a tabernacle and altar, precisely where does the Blessed Sacrament go when the priest is done—It sits on a side table somewhere?). 

For a priest to do such would be gravely sinful for two reason : He would be inventing his own rites, he would be violating Church law regarding custody of the Eucharist.

Not to argue but what about Eucharistic processions?
Surréxit Dóminus vere, Alleluia!
Reply
#28
(09-24-2017, 07:51 PM)Dominicus Wrote: Not to argue but what about Eucharistic processions?

I would think, but if I'm wrong, I'm sure MM will correct me, that since an Eucharistic Procession includes Benediction, as did the one I marched in today, that it would fall under the Benediction rubric.
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
#29
(09-24-2017, 07:56 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(09-24-2017, 07:51 PM)Dominicus Wrote: Not to argue but what about Eucharistic processions?

I would think, but if I'm wrong, I'm sure MM will correct me, that since an Eucharistic Procession includes Benediction, as did the one I marched in today, that it would fall under the Benediction rubric.

Yes. Processions are extended Expositions and Benedictions at different places. They are all modeled off the Corpus Christi procession, but the liturgical aspect of them is the Benediction.

Historically these processions would start at one Church (Exposition) and finish at a second Church where Benediction was given.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)