Author Topic: The most overlooked heresy of VII. (Read 1202 times)

Raoul76 · « **on:** January 21, 2010, 11:15:58 PM »

Perhaps the most overlooked heresy of the Modernist usurpers has nothing to do with the New Mass, but the Assyrian "Anaphora of Addai and Mari." I know just reading that will probably make people start to feel sleepy, but keep reading...

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/docuмents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html

This is an encyclical telling Catholic Chaldeans that it's okay to go to the Assyrian Anaphora. Why is this bad? Because the Assyrians say nothing whatsoever during the consecration of the body and blood.

Vatican II literally has said that a Mass is valid where there is NO FORM FOR CONSECRATION WHATSOEVER, neither long nor short. This is like saying a baptism is valid if someone is dipped in water silently.

Not to mention the usurpers approved the faulty translation of "for all" in the Consecration of the Wine in countries like the U.S. and Italy. This approval came straight from the top.

CM · « **Reply #1 on:** January 22, 2010, 12:48:46 AM »

The jury is out on whether "for all" causes a defect in intention in the sacrament. I've read information provided by both Gladius (Omlor) and Stevus Magnus, and so far I have to say Stevus' info was stronger.

I am refraining from judgment on this point.

pax · « **Reply #2 on:** January 22, 2010, 08:17:31 AM »

Quote from: Raoul76

Perhaps the most overlooked heresy of the Modernist usurpers has nothing to do with the New Mass, but the Assyrian "Anaphora of Addai and Mari." I know just reading that will probably make people start to feel sleepy, but keep reading...

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/docuмents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html

This is an encyclical telling Catholic Chaldeans that it's okay to go to the Assyrian Anaphora. Why is this bad? Because the Assyrians say nothing whatsoever during the consecration of the body and blood.

Vatican II literally has said that a Mass is valid where there is NO FORM FOR CONSECRATION WHATSOEVER, neither long nor short. This is like saying a baptism is valid if someone is dipped in water silently.

Not to mention the usurpers approved the faulty translation of "for all" in the Consecration of the Wine in countries like the U.S. and Italy. This approval came straight from the top.

If I was a deaf-mute, and I baptized somebody, saying the words in my heart, the Baptism would be valid.

The form of the Roman Rite is not the only valid form in the world.

Clovis · « **Reply #3 on:** January 22, 2010, 08:28:59 AM »

Quote from: pax

If I was a deaf-mute, and I baptized somebody, saying the words in my heart, the Baptism would be valid.

The form of the Roman Rite is not the only valid form in the world.

While the invocation of the Holy Ghost upon the gifts is "more important" than the consecration in the Bzyantine and Coptic rites both feature the words of consecration which have always been seen in both the Latin, Greek, Syriac and Coptic worlds as vital.

The Assyrians have other very strange things about them traditionally...Such as hereditary Bishops.

Interesting to note the Vatitican had started to get on very well with the anti-Chalcedonians until the latter noticed that the former was saying very different things to the Assyrians and prompting decided that you can trust Rome about as far as you can throw it.

Belloc · « **Reply #4 on:** January 22, 2010, 08:31:15 AM »

Note, it is only out of necessity that Catholics can attend....just like if, I was in Russ8ia, it was Sunday and through no fault of mine own, could not get to Catholic Mass, could possibly attend Orthodox, though the Russians are very anti-Catholic, could attend and receive as it is a schismatic congregation, but, the liturgy and sacrements are valid and they are of Apostolic origin......

Not sure who these Assyrians are, but sounds like they re generally, orthodox and indendant of the Pope...necessity only would make one go...

the lack of consecration words are troubling, but one has to wonder and study..that is why we have an authoratitive church though ,t oguide...

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #5 on:** January 23, 2010, 12:09:29 PM »

Quote from: pax

If I was a deaf-mute, and I baptized somebody, saying the words in my heart, the Baptism would be valid.

Source?

Quote

The form of the Roman Rite is not the only valid form in the world.

No one is arguing that it is.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #6 on:** January 23, 2010, 12:11:03 PM »

Bp Sanborn hammered this point in an article/newsletter at the time of the amazingly absurd announcement.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #7 on:** January 23, 2010, 12:21:16 PM »

Quote from: CM

The jury is out on whether "for all" causes a defect in intention in the sacrament.

What, of Omlor's work, did you read?

QTV is still available online (it is 68 pages or so):

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/newmass/qtvjmcn.htm

Here is his one treatment of how the "res sacramenti" gets obliterated by "for all" being used. It is NOT Omlor's version (it is by a Fr. Meuli), but it may prove useful. I will try to find Omlor's explanation (which I quoted at length in threads at FE).

http://ressacramenti.homestead.com/files/ResSacramentiAbsolutelyComplete.htm

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #8 on:** January 23, 2010, 12:27:34 PM »

This is not the particular article for which I was looking, but it is by Mr. Omlor and is excellent:

http://sedevacantist.com/newmass/necessig.htm

Caminus · « **Reply #9 on:** January 23, 2010, 02:34:29 PM »

CM, I'm am amazed at your considered restraint. Good for you. Raoul, this matter is a bit tricky. They're not saying that no form is needed, rather they're claiming that it's there in a "euchological" way, whatever that means. Thus, they do not deny anything in theory, but err as to a matter of fact. Whether or not these particular words suffice for a valid consecration. Since their minds are vitiated, having abandoned sound principles, they make the mistake of thinking this anaphora suffices. Sorry to burst your bubble again, but if you persist in making public commentary and announcing grand sentences, it would be wise for you to look things over a bit more carefully so as to be able to indentify the precise nature of the problem.