This is certainly interesting. I have often wondered if any of the traditional groups performed exorcisms. I wonder if the SSPX has ever done them?
Luke
Bishop Pivarunas has been given the rosary of Juacinta, the child at Fatima.
Bishop Pivarunas has been given the rosary of Juacinta, the child at Fatima.[/quote
He also has an Agnus Dei from Pope Leo XIII from a Papal paschal candle
I have heard that Bishop Mckenna had performed exorcisms, but this is the first time I have heard that the CMRI did exorcisms. I am glad it worked. I have heard that exorcisms required jurisdiction from the hierarchy, though it seems in this case supplied jurisdiction works.
He revealed it in a Sermon. It happened last Spring and two CMRI priests were involved. He did not reveal any more details as the Exorcism up until then was a rumor several of us had heard about. The subject matter of the sermon was regarding the roles of Angels - therefore he didnt dwell on that. But the fact that
Bishop Pivarunas revealed it as true , thats good enough for me.
Quote from: Malleus 01He revealed it in a Sermon. It happened last Spring and two CMRI priests were involved. He did not reveal any more details as the Exorcism up until then was a rumor several of us had heard about. The subject matter of the sermon was regarding the roles of Angels - therefore he didnt dwell on that. But the fact that
Bishop Pivarunas revealed it as true , thats good enough for me.
I am not doubting the veracity. I am just wondering out of curiousity.
There was a news item a few months back saying that Fr. Gabriele Amorth, the Vatican exorcist, had become "fed up" with all the failed attempts in recent years using the "updated form" of exorcism" [....]  I heard Msgr. Perez The "validity"? Hah!  Had you missed the posting where someone already asserted, nearly 2 weeks ago (albeit in another topic 
- describe an exorcism he was a WITNESS to some months ago, in which it was successful, and in which he received personal confirmation of the power of the devil in that case, but I'm not going to describe it since there are members here who will howl and whine over the validity of Orders.
To presume that "supplied jurisdiction" is sufficient might
be the occasion for a very serious mistake, it would seem. But again,
I am not passing any judgment, just looking for answers. In any
case, serious exorcisms in serious cases are not something to be
treated with ANY DEGREE of cavalier attitude. If there was ever a
thing that is SERIOUS BUSINESS, this is IT.
Quote from: Neil ObstatTo presume that "supplied jurisdiction" is sufficient might
be the occasion for a very serious mistake, it would seem. But again,
I am not passing any judgment, just looking for answers. In any
case, serious exorcisms in serious cases are not something to be
treated with ANY DEGREE of cavalier attitude. If there was ever a
thing that is SERIOUS BUSINESS, this is IT.
The Church does supply jurisdiction for exorcisms provided the Priests are valid and fulfill the requirements found in the Rituale Romanum.
If the contrary view is taken, then one would logically question whether Catholic traditionalist Priests can validly bless Rosary beads, invest the faithful with Scapulars, &c., since blessings and investitures into Confraternities (such as in the case with the Brown Scapular) rely solely on the possession of jurisdiction. There are, moreover, some blessings specially reserved for certain Sacramentals to certain Religious Orders, such as the Holy Rosary (Dominicans), the Stations of the Cross (the Franciscans), &c., so that these could not be done by just any Priest in the past.
A Priest ordinarily would have needed the requisite faculties granted by the local Ordinary or Religious Superior to validly perform any blessing, and for certain blessings an Apostolic indult or dispensation would have been required. Since this is no longer the case for the sedevacantist Priest, the Church supplies jurisdiction for each Sacramental in question.
An exorcism is not a Sacrament, but belongs rather to the category of Sacramentals, and if supplied jurisdiction suffices for blessings found in the Roman Ritual then it would suffice for exorcisms if the spiritual good of the faithful require it, according to the spirit of epikeia. However, in the case of exorcisms, the stringent requirements of the Roman Ritual are to be followed with unrelenting scrupulosity and not just any Priest should even be considered as a candidate for the role of exorcist. A Priest must have had many years of experience, extraordinary personal sanctity and probity of life, renown for exemplary conduct and sound doctrine, &c., to have been considered as a possible exorcist by the local Ordinary in the past.
This subject has nothing to do with jurisdiction.
There is no such thing as an "invalid" exorcism.
Nor is the effect of an exorcism intrinsically tied to other things the CMRI priests are doing religiously, etc.
It does have to do with having permission, so the exorcism might be sinfully performed by a priest and thus be "illicit", though it still can have its good effect.
Epikeia is what comes into play here. It means going against the letter of the law, but virtuously performing the spirit of the law by necessity. That necessity can only exist if the legitimate law giver is inaccessible and there is an immediate need.
This subject has nothing to do with jurisdiction.
There is no such thing as an "invalid" exorcism.