Author Topic: Are NO consecrations really invalid? (Read 1240 times)

Pelly · « **on:** February 27, 2013, 05:11:04 AM »

Regarding the NO Essential Canon, one might question their validity. As I know it is invalid, because they have tampered with. But to my knowledge, it seems like that they modified only the consecration of the wine, by adding the "do this in rememberance of Me" part to the end, and changing the "pro multis" to "pro omnis". What about the consecration of the bread?

TKGS · « **Reply #1 on:** February 27, 2013, 06:52:23 AM »

IF the Novus Ordo is the Roman Rite, then the consecration at the service is invalid, for the consecration formula used is not the form used in the Roman Rite.

IF the Novus Ordo is a new rite, then the consecration at the service could be valid provided:

a. The form used in the vernacular language is the same as the form established by Paul VI. Until recently, it was not. Frankly, I don't even know what they say anymore so I can't make any sort of judgment today.

b. The matter used is bread made from wheat and water and wine from crushed grapes with no foreign additives. This used to be a problem in a great many Novus Ordo parishes. I don't know if this is still a problem or not.

c. The person pronouncing the words of consecration is a valid priest. The Novus Ordo rites of ordination of priests and consecration of bishops was changed in the late 1960s. While the new ordination formula for priests is probably valid, there are grave doubts concerning the validity of the new consecration formula for bishops. The SSPX seems to have evolved their theology on this matter over the years, but their defense of the new rite is very complex and I am unable to comprehend it. On the other hand, the condemnations of the new consecration rite are quite clear, concise, and compelling. A priest ordained by a bishop who, himself, is consecrecated in the new rite is still a layman and cannot pronounce a valid consecration.

d. The intention of the priest at the service has to be to offer the Sacrifice of Calvary, i.e., to do as the Church does. In his book, Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Archbishop Lefebvre lamented the poor seminary training for Novus Ordo priests and doubted that many priests ordained after such training can actually have the proper intention to validly say Mass. In my experience, there are many Novus Ordo priests who, when pressed on the issue, really don't have any intention of offering a sacrifice but, rather, intend to offer a simply a memorial meal.

Note that the Consecration of both bread and wine are necessary for validity. While we perceive the two separate consecrations in the space of time, the two consecrations are also made in eternity where they are both ever present. If the consecration of the wine is absolutely invalid, there can be no valid consecration of the bread. In any event, this is, of course, especially true if any of the last three points listed above are true, which is, I think, more the norm than the exception.

Pelly · « **Reply #2 on:** February 28, 2013, 05:17:45 AM »

I meant that whether the bread is consecrated.

TKGS · « **Reply #3 on:** February 28, 2013, 06:52:27 AM »

Please refer to my last paragraph above:

Quote

Note that the Consecration of both bread and wine are necessary for validity. While we perceive the two separate consecrations in the space of time, the two consecrations are also made in eternity where they are both ever present. If the consecration of the wine is absolutely invalid, there can be no valid consecration of the bread. In any event, this is, of course, especially true if any of the last three points listed above are true, which is, I think, more the norm than the exception.

Though I cannot prove it by references to the theologians, I simply do not believe that the bread can be validly consecrated when the wine is not.

I simply do not believe that a priest can offer only half the sacrifice of Calvary. Without the blood sacrifice, there is no forgiveness of sins.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #4 on:** February 28, 2013, 07:14:29 AM »

Quote

I simply do not believe that the bread can be validly consecrated when the wine is not.

So if the mass is interrupted after "This is my body" there is no transubstantiation?

It doesn't seem likely to me. Perhaps intending to carry out a mutilated mass would invalidate the whole?

TKGS · « **Reply #5 on:** February 28, 2013, 11:57:30 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote
I simply do not believe that the bread can be validly consecrated when the wine is not.

So if the mass is interrupted after "This is my body" there is no transubstantiation?

It doesn't seem likely to me. Perhaps intending to carry out a mutilated mass would invalidate the whole?

The papal bull De Defectibus requires the Mass to be completed:

Quote

33. If before the Consecration the priest becomes seriously ill, or faints, or dies, the Mass is discontinued. If this happens after the consecration of the Body only and before the consecration of the Blood, or after both have been consecrated, the Mass is to be completed by another priest from the place where the first priest stopped, and in case of necessity even by a priest who is not fasting. If the first priest has not died but has become ill and is still able to receive Communion, and there is no other consecrated host at hand, the priest who is completing the Mass should divide the host, give one part to the sick priest and consume the other part himself. If the priest has died after half-saying the formula for the consecration of the Body, then there is no Consecration and no need for another priest to complete the Mass. If, on the other hand, the priest has died after half- saying the formula for the consecration of the Blood, then another priest is to complete the Mass, repeating the whole formula over the same chalice from the words Simili modo, postquam cenatum est; or he may say the whole formula over another chalice which has been prepared, and consume the first priest's host and the Blood consecrated by himself, and then the chalice which was left half-consecrated.

This is an absolute and is identified as a "Defect occurring during the rite itself". If, for some reason, the Mass cannot be completed, then I believe it is an absolute defect known by God from the beginning of time.

Again, I can't identify any theologians who hold this view only because I don't think such a situation has ever even been contemplated by the theologians. I offer no evidence of my claim but I continue to believe it unless evidence to the contrary is proffered.

Each reader may take these comments for what they're worth--which is not very much.

Nishant · « **Reply #6 on:** March 01, 2013, 11:39:56 PM »

There are some theologians who defend the short form of the consecration as being sufficient. The reason offered by them is that the divine power is such that God cannot declare something without making it so. As when He said, "Let there be light" that was necessary and sufficient to create light out of nothing, so when He says, "This is My body" and likewise "This is My blood" that is necessary and sufficient to bring about respectively the transubstantiation of the species f bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.

In this view, the other words found in the traditional Roman rite pertain to the integrity of the form, and are therefore very important, but their absence does not invalidate the rite since they are not of the essence of the form. Now, this is not universally conceded of course, and even among Thomists, there is some disagreement about the statements of the Angelic Doctor. Here is Fr. Garrigou Lagrange offering a brief summation on the same

Quote

Secondly, it is proved from the liturgies of the Greeks. The Greeks preserve the essential form, for they validly consecrate, as all confess. But they do not mention the words: of the new and eternal testament, etc.

Thirdly, it is proved by theological reason: Those words alone are essential which signify the real presence of the blood of Christ. But the aforesaid words independently from those following signify this real presence, no less than “this is my body,” in dependently from the following, that is handed over for you. Therefore the last words of the consecration of the wine are not for it’s essence, but for it’s integrity.

... the second consecration produces, by the power of the words the presence of the blood only, so that the body of Christ is not there save concomitantly, the sacramental pouring out of blood is already expressed, because the mass is sacramental and unbloody sacrifice.

Lastly, St. Thomas himself, in our question, a. 1 c. et ad 4 says, “if the priest would mention only the aforesaid words (this is my body and this is my blood, with the intention of confecting the sacrament, this sacrament would be accomplished.”

Indeed, in our article 3, St. Thomas says “through the first words ‘this is the chalice of my blood’ the very conversion into blood is signified. But through the words following, the power of the blood poured out in the passion is designated.” Therefore through the last words the very conversion is not signified, which was already effected by the prior words which signify it.

Moreover, as we have noted, a little while before, St. Thomas said: these words following pertain to the integrity of the form, and he generally distinguishes the integrity of a thing from its essence; e.g. the foot and hand pertain to the integrity of man, not to his essence.

...

For the many, also signifies, for all sufficiently, as is explained in the treatise concerning the one God, where there is treated concerning the universal salvific will, c.f. 1a q. 19, a. 6 ad 1, c.f. 1 Tim. 11:5: “Christ gave himself a ransom for all.” That is, for all sufficiently, for many efficaciously as St. Thomas explains in the Commentary on the Epistle to Timothy in the same place. Likewise St. Paul 2. Cor. 5:15, “Christ died for all;” Romans 5:18 “As by the sin of one it is all men unto condemnation, so also through the justice of one is is to all men unto justification of life.”

This is a solid pre-Vatican II theological treatise from an outstanding theologian on the basis of which it can be easily maintained that the words used in the new mass pose no problem so far as simple validity is concerned. One further consideration may be added to this, in His sublime Eucharistic discourse in St. John chapter 6, the Savior says He will give His flesh as life "for ... the world"

Finally, as I think TKGS noted in passing, the Latin words of consecration remain the same. When for example the new Mass is said in Latin say in Rome the words are still "pro multis" and it was merely translated incorrectly in some languages in the vernacular. When asked, Rome responded that it was valid although an incorrect translation, and this translation has now been corrected.

Pelly · « **Reply #7 on:** March 02, 2013, 05:09:46 AM »

I don't know whether these consecrations are invalid, but it is for sure that the Masons have accomplished some goals for the elimination of the Mass and finally, the Eucharist. I've read that they'll give out unconsecrated hosts. Also, according to Trosch (a sedeprivationist), there is a big corruption in the host bakeries by making hosts from whole-grain flour, especially from chaff, which symbolizes sin. Also, hosts (particles) became thicker which elongates the Presence but increases the possiblity of a future desecration.

OHCA · « **Reply #8 on:** March 02, 2013, 10:37:02 AM »

Quote from: Pelly

I don't know whether these consecrations are invalid, but it is for sure that the Masons have accomplished some goals for the elimination of the Mass and finally, the Eucharist. I've read that they'll give out unconsecrated hosts. Also, according to Trosch (a sedeprivationist), there is a big corruption in the host bakeries by making hosts from whole-grain flour, especially from chaff, which symbolizes sin. Also, hosts (particles) became thicker which elongates the Presence but increases the possiblity of a future desecration.

During my youth in conciliarism we frequently went to "mass" at the parish my mother's family attended, and there was a distinct difference in the hosts there compared to our home parish. The ones at the parish my mother's family attended had some light brown mingled in them and a distinctly different taste. This was in the early/mid 1980s. I now believe that posed a serious issue.

Also, I have attended "masses" in traveling where I consciously thought fαɢɢօt priests were accomplishing something, transubstantiation, which they didn't even believe themselves. Now I realize that they probably were not accomplishing anything now that I understand the result of defect of intent means no sacrament.