The mass is more than just the consecration. Canon Law lays out multiple “what ifs” for if a priest dies right after the consecration. The mass is not complete.But would the Eucharist be valid in such an instance. Basically my question is: Is it possible to just pronounce the words of Consecration over the bread and wine, with the proper intention, and get the Eucharist? Whether it’s in the context of an incomplete Mass or not.
But would the Eucharist be valid in such an instance. Basically my question is: Is it possible to just pronounce the words of Consecration over the bread and wine, with the proper intention, and get the Eucharist? Whether it’s in the context of an incomplete Mass or not.That's a complex question:
I’ve seen various opinions on this topic, from theologians, priests, and people I know. I’m not sure which one is true. If a priest has the correct intention and matter, and pronounces the words of Consecration over the bread and wine, does that suffice for a valid Mass, even if it would be an illicit Mass? Or is that simply a valid Consecration? Is it possible to separate the Consecration from the Mass (I.E. have just a valid Consecration of the Eucharist without having a valid Mass)?In an interview (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/sedeprivationism-anathematized-by-vatican-i/msg662164/?topicseen#msg662164), Fr. Wathen spells it out the clearest I've ever seen.....
But would the Eucharist be valid in such an instance. Basically my question is: Is it possible to just pronounce the words of Consecration over the bread and wine, with the proper intention, and get the Eucharist? Whether it’s in the context of an incomplete Mass or not.
The answer to your question is straightforward. Yes, it is possible for a priest to pronounce the words of Consecration, inside or outside of Mass, and actually consecrate the Sacrament. Here is the Canon Law prohibiting that very thing (note the verb "consecrate" not "attempt to consecrate" is used):This makes sense, thank you.
Canon 817 (1983 CIC 927)
It is nefarious, even if urged by extreme necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other, or even both outside of the celebration of Mass.
https://cdn.restorethe54.com/media/pdf/1917-code-of-canon-law-english.pdf
Furthermore, the instruction De defectibus explains all of the ways in which a Mass can be illicit or valid. It is included in every traditional Roman Missal since Pius V.
http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Pope/St_Pius_V/De_Defectibus.html
Yes. But to reiterate to the OP...This is very true.
1) Valid does not mean holy.
2) Valid does not mean pleasing to God.
3) Valid does not mean providing grace.
A holy, pleasing and grace-filled mass must be valid, and licit, and moral.
The answer to your question is straightforward. Yes, it is possible for a priest to pronounce the words of Consecration, inside or outside of Mass, and actually consecrate the Sacrament. Here is the Canon Law prohibiting that very thing (note the verb "consecrate" not "attempt to consecrate" is used):
Canon 817 (1983 CIC 927)
It is nefarious, even if urged by extreme necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other, or even both outside of the celebration of Mass.
The mass is essentially a sacrifice. It gets more interesting if we ask: even if (big if) the Novus Ordo has a valid Eucharist, is it a sacrifice? I would guess not.Bingo.
As I understand it, a valid Eucharist doesn't necessarily mean that the mass, the sacrifice, is valid.
I have wondered if it is more a case of "we just don't know". I've heard the hoary old story (probably apocryphal, may not have happened, hope not) of an apostate priest who went into a bakery, pronounced the words of consecration, and consecrated every loaf of bread in the place (assuming it was valid matter in the first place, a lot of it wouldn't be, material addition of things such as sugar, milk, in some cases nuts and spices, and so on, or made out of rye flour or other things that are not wheat).
I have to wonder if such an attempted consecration would be valid outside of the Eucharistic sacrifice. Whether it would be the pars tutior to assume it is valid, or that it is not valid, is something that could be debated either way. That may be one reason the Church uses the term nefas est, which I have heard loosely translated as "don't even think of doing that!".
The mass is essentially a sacrifice. It gets more interesting if we ask: even if (big if) the Novus Ordo has a valid Eucharist, is it a sacrifice? I would guess not.
As I understand it, a valid Eucharist doesn't necessarily mean that the mass, the sacrifice, is valid.
I’ve seen various opinions on this topic, from theologians, priests, and people I know. I’m not sure which one is true. If a priest has the correct intention and matter, and pronounces the words of Consecration over the bread and wine, does that suffice for a valid Mass, even if it would be an illicit Mass? Or is that simply a valid Consecration? Is it possible to separate the Consecration from the Mass (I.E. have just a valid Consecration of the Eucharist without having a valid Mass)?
Yes, that's a famous, or, rather, infamous example among the casuists ... and I doubt anything even remotely like this ever happened. Assuming he wasn't insane, and this was a human act ...
this would be invalid, not simply an invalid Mass, but an invalid consecration, meaning no Blessed Sacrament ... quite simply because he wasn't intending to DO what the Church does. Church intends for there to be a Rite celebrated in a solemn manner. Nobody would confuse this activity with something the Church intends to DO. It's like if you were to see an actor in a play performing the ritual that normally accompanies the Sacrament of Baptism. Due to the context, they're clearly not intending to do what the Church does, but are intending to ... put on a play.
The answer to your question is straightforward. Yes, it is possible for a priest to pronounce the words of Consecration, inside or outside of Mass, and actually consecrate the Sacrament. Here is the Canon Law prohibiting that very thing (note the verb "consecrate" not "attempt to consecrate" is used):
Canon 817 (1983 CIC 927)
It is nefarious, even if urged by extreme necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other, or even both outside of the celebration of Mass.
https://cdn.restorethe54.com/media/pdf/1917-code-of-canon-law-english.pdf
Furthermore, the instruction De defectibus explains all of the ways in which a Mass can be illicit or valid. It is included in every traditional Roman Missal since Pius V.
http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Pope/St_Pius_V/De_Defectibus.html
"Valid consecration" just by doing the words of consecration independently of the Sacrifice of the Mass is an error taught by the SSPX which you have endorsed in previous discussions and is fully addressed in the link below. It is a very dangerous "teaching" because when the SSPX Prelature is in effect for the purpose of bringing conservatives and SSPXers back to the Novus Ordo, their argument will be that they have validly ordained priests and since all is needed are the words of consecration, the Rite of Mass is of no importance and the Novus Ordo will do.
http://saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/Bakery_Wine_Cellar_Consecrations_Why%20the%20SSPX%20Cannot%20Defend%20the%20Catholic%20Faith.htm
The link was posted and discussed
on CathInfo on the 2018 link I brought back today:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/why-sspx-cannot-defend-catholic-tradition-bakery-wine-cellar-consecrations/105/
The faithful have to inform themselves so they won't be mislead.
Correction: The Open Letter linked was written in 2023, not 2018 as indicated above.
The answer to your question is straightforward. Yes, it is possible for a priest to pronounce the words of Consecration, inside or outside of Mass, and actually consecrate the Sacrament. Here is the Canon Law prohibiting that very thing (note the verb "consecrate" not "attempt to consecrate" is used):
Canon 817 (1983 CIC 927)
It is nefarious, even if urged by extreme necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other, or even both outside of the celebration of Mass.
https://cdn.restorethe54.com/media/pdf/1917-code-of-canon-law-english.pdf
Furthermore, the instruction De defectibus explains all of the ways in which a Mass can be illicit or valid. It is included in every traditional Roman Missal since Pius V.
http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Pope/St_Pius_V/De_Defectibus.html
If a priest dropped dead just before receiving Holy Communion, another priest would have to receive the consecrated Blessed Sacrament. As per usual, to heck with the faithful, since we don't count. LOL
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/why-sspx-cannot-defend-catholic-tradition-bakery-wine-cellar-consecrations/
...Canon law is instructive on this question. Canon 927 (1983 code) [or 817 (1917 code)] states that under no circuмstances whatsoever may any priest attempt consecration outside of the sacrifice of the Mass, or consecration of only bread or wine alone in a Mass. Canon law is clear that this is not permitted under any circuмstances whatsoever, none whatsoever, not even in extreme necessity including danger of death. Why is this so since all laws, precepts, commands, injunctions, etc. do not bind in cases of necessity or impossibility? The exception to this rule is invalidating laws. An invalidating law is a law that concerns a prohibited act that is invalid always and everywhere because of the nature of the act or the nature of the actor and thus, invalidating laws admit no exceptions whatsoever.
It is a Dogma of faith that the matter of the sacrament is bread AND wine, not bread OR wine. Without the necessary matter, the sacrament cannot be confected. Can. 927 (1983) [or Can. 817 (1917)] forbids two different acts. It prohibits the attempt to consecrate only one species of the sacrament. This prohibition by the canon is an invalidating law as a matter of revealed truth, of divine and Catholic faith. The second prohibition of attempting a consecration outside of Mass is of the same nature, and that can be deduced from these two facts: It is cited in a single canon with a prohibition that is known to be invalidating by Catholic dogma, and secondly, if it were not an invalidating law, it would necessarily admit exceptions in the case of necessity or impossibility.
Let me suggest why this is so. The essence of the sacrifice is the consecration of the bread AND wine but it alone cannot be sufficient to form the proper intention. The reason the faithful do not have to question a priest after he administers a sacrament to determine if he, in fact, had the right intention is because his intention is demonstrated by using the proper form and matter in the context of the proper rite. In all the sacraments except the Holy Eucharist, the priest performs the form and matter in his own person, and in these cases, for a sufficiently grave reason, the Church permits the sacrament without the rite. This is not so in regard to the Holy Eucharist in which no exception is permitted whatsoever to attempt to consecrate the sacrament without the rite. This may be because when the priest consecrates in the Mass he consecrates in persona Christi. The form and matter alone do not demonstrate the intention of the priest but the intention of Christ. The priest’s intention in the Holy Eucharist is demonstrated by both the proper form and matter and by the proper rite but it is only in the rite that the priest speaks in his own person and expresses his own intention.
Furthermore, the rite itself can invalidate a sacrament even if the correct from and matter are used. There were two reasons given, each one sufficient in itself, for the invalidity of Anglican orders. One concerned the form and matter of the sacrament, and the other concerned deficiencies in the Anglican rite itself. The rite did not demonstrate a proper intention in itself and in its historical setting. The valid form and matter are used in many Protestant communion services where the theology of sacrifice is denied. The SSPX would believe that a validly ordained Catholic priest would validly consecrate in an Protestant communion service because the form and matter is all that is necessary with the intent to consecrate. This is not true. The rite itself can invalidate a proper sacramental form and matter by defect of intent.
The Novus Ordo was initially officially defined as a memorial meal. Fr. James Wathen said many years ago that were the mistranslated form of consecration of the wine in the Novus Ordo be corrected, as explained by Patrick Henry Omlor, the fact that the Novus Ordo itself offers only the “fruit of the earth and the work of human hands” remains a serious argument against validity. It is the rite itself for the Holy Eucharist that determines intent of the minister and that is at least one reason why the rite is necessary for a valid sacrament.
The SSPX sacramental theology is what makes the Novus Ordo possible. If a priest can walk into a bakery and simply say, ‘this is my body’, or into a wine cellar and say, ‘this is my blood’, and thereby validly consecrate all the bread in the bakery or all the wine in a wine cellar, then the necessary matter of the sacrament becomes bread OR wine and the dogmatic canon is wrong. If the same thing can be done without the liturgical rite, then the Mass is reduced to an accidental disciplinary matter that is open to the free and independent will of the legislator to do with as he pleases. The theology expressed in the Mass becomes a matter of indifference unrelated to the sacrament. The dogmatic canons on the ‘received and approved’ immemorial rite of Mass are meaningless and the reason given for the invalidity of Anglican orders is doubtful. This is the Bugnini formula for liturgical and sacramental destruction. It is an utterly false theology that ultimately in a practical sense holds the dogmatic canons of our faith in contempt. When dogma is treated merely as a human axiom that provides guidelines for launching theological daydreams you end up with this nonsense of bakery and wine cellar consecrations...
I know you know this, but the priest has to consume the Sacred Species to complete the sacrifice. Nobody except the priest ever has to receive communion at any given Mass.
Angelus, here is the Open Letter on those canons, for the benefit of others:
I am simply saying that the Church recognizes that it is possible for a Priest to do the things stated in Canon 817 (1917). Otherwise, why would the Church have a Canon prohibiting something that is impossible in the first place?
The Commentary on the 1917 Code gives a few scenarios: 1) consecrating one species without the other inside the Mass (valid); 2) Consecrating only one species only, presumably outside of Mass, for Viaticuм (valid); 3) consecrating outside of the Mass, presumably for some sacrilegous reason (probably invalid).
https://archive.org/details/1917CodeOfCanonLawCommentary/page/n1475/mode/1up?q=817
"The first of these clauses touches the very essence of the Mass, which most probably consists in the consecration of both species. However, theologians " generally admit, following the Missale Romanum, that the consecration of one species would be valid without the consecration of the other. This might happen if a priest would grow seriously ill after the consecration of one species, or if, by mistake, he would consecrate water and no wine would be at hand, or danger of death would immediately follow the consecration of one species. Yet all these are merely physical accidents. Intentionally to consecrate only one species is never allowed, not even to provide the Viaticuм, although such consecration would be valid.
"To consecrate outside the Mass would not only be a sacrilege, but probably also an attempt at invalid consecration. The priest would certainly not perform that action in the person of Christ, nor according to the intention of the Church, which is restricted to the celebration of the Mass."
"The priest was mad at the bishop. He went into a bakery and consecrates the whole bakery. Another went into the cellar of the bishop and he consecrates all the wine. It's sacrilegious but its valid. The bishop had to buy the bread, that was no longer bread, of this bakery. It's stupid, it's crazy but it is valid." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AshtjLRr6Y8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AshtjLRr6Y8)
Fr. Paul-Isaac Franks, interview, Crisis in the Church, episode 26
Crisis in the Church #26 SSPX at the 34:35 time (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLzLwnCzMoE) But as you said to me: "God gave everyone free will. You are free to continue in your errors".
"To consecrate outside the Mass would not only be a sacrilege, but probably also an attempt at invalid consecration. The priest would certainly not perform that action in the person of Christ, nor according to the intention of the Church, which is restricted to the celebration of the Mass."
I am simply saying that the Church recognizes that it is possible for a Priest to do the things stated in Canon 817 (1917). Otherwise, why would the Church have a Canon prohibiting something that is impossible in the first place?
The Commentary on the 1917 Code gives a few scenarios: 1) consecrating one species without the other inside the Mass (valid); 2) Consecrating only one species only, presumably outside of Mass, for Viaticuм (valid); 3) consecrating outside of the Mass, presumably for some sacrilegous reason (probably invalid).
https://archive.org/details/1917CodeOfCanonLawCommentary/page/n1475/mode/1up?q=817
Angelus,
You have a habit of responding without reading. My previous post quoting the Open Letter answers your question ( "...why would the Church have a canon prohibiting something that is impossible in the first place?)
by addressing invalidating laws.
I will link all of my husband's replies to you personally where you are fully quoted on the thread https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/why-sspx-cannot-defend-catholic-tradition-bakery-wine-cellar-consecrations/
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/why-sspx-cannot-defend-catholic-tradition-bakery-wine-cellar-consecrations/msg896075/#msg896075
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/why-sspx-cannot-defend-catholic-tradition-bakery-wine-cellar-consecrations/msg896119/#msg896119
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/why-sspx-cannot-defend-catholic-tradition-bakery-wine-cellar-consecrations/msg896306/#msg896306
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/why-sspx-cannot-defend-catholic-tradition-bakery-wine-cellar-consecrations/msg896334/#msg896334
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/why-sspx-cannot-defend-catholic-tradition-bakery-wine-cellar-consecrations/msg896398/#msg896398
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/why-sspx-cannot-defend-catholic-tradition-bakery-wine-cellar-consecrations/msg896408/#msg896408
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/why-sspx-cannot-defend-catholic-tradition-bakery-wine-cellar-consecrations/msg896428/#msg896428
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/why-sspx-cannot-defend-catholic-tradition-bakery-wine-cellar-consecrations/msg896442/#msg896442
This one is directed to all:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/why-sspx-cannot-defend-catholic-tradition-bakery-wine-cellar-consecrations/msg900020/#msg900020
Fr. Gregory Hesse (https://youtu.be/UcYXC6DCgIA?t=1074)
https://youtu.be/UcYXC6DCgIA?t=1074 (https://youtu.be/UcYXC6DCgIA?t=1074)
SSPX teaches:
And
Our disagreement is not a question of free opinion on open and unsettled theological controversies. You are defending a proposition that is heretical and based upon a theology that is demonic that reduces the Catholic priest to the level of a sorcerer as described by my husband in the links above.
But as you said to me: "God gave everyone free will. You are free to continue in your errors".
Your reply to Maria Auxiliadora:
Re: Consecration = valid Mass? (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/consecration-valid-mass/msg1006098/#msg1006098)
« Reply #28 on: Today at 10:02:44 AM »
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora on Today at 06:28:37 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/consecration-valid-mass/msg1006083/#msg1006083)
First, you seem to want to believe that I think the "Bakery consecrations" are good and defensible. I don't think that at all. I think that they would be probably invalid as the Code commentary suggests because of lack of proper intention "to do what the Church does."
Regardless the Church absolutely forbids that a priest do those things that Canon 817 references regardless of whether they are "valid" or not. I don't care about Bakery consecrations. I don't care what the SSPX says. I agree that the SSPX sacramental theology is not consistent with traditional sacramental theology. You seem to want to argue with me for no reason.
Second, your husband wants to focus everything on a straw man, the "bakery consecrations" and claim that any change to the liturgy would automatically invalidate any and all consecrations. I am saying that is not necessarily true in all cases. And those cases in which one consecration would be achieved but the other not achieved were quite common in the early days of the Novus Ordo, which means horrible sacrileges were committed because of the change to the "Form" of the Consecration of the Wine.
In that previous thread from years back, I was discussing the possibility of a valid consecration inside the Novus Ordo that uses the traditional Canon (EPI). The Priest (assuming he is valid) would say the words of Consecration of the Host using the same words and context as those used in the TLM. Therefore, applying the scenarios listed in the Commentary on Canon Law, this act by a valid Priest would constitute a valid consecration of that species. I was arguing that because of the change to the "Form" of the Consecration of the Wine in the Novus Ordo, that the second consecration that consummates the Sacrifice itself is defective because of the defective "Form" in that second consecration introduced by the Novus Ordo.
So, a situation was created, intentionally, by Bugnini in the Novus Ordo to cause a sacrilege to be committed even when a valid Priest (of which there were still many in the early 1970s and 1980s) when those valid Priests said the Novus Ordo. They would validly consecrate one species (the Host) but not validly consecrate the other species (the Wine). Since the Double Consecration is necessary to consummate the Sacrifice, no Sacrifice would take place in any Novus Ordo, but in some cases where there was a valid priest and the Canon was used, a sacrilegious Sacrament of the Eucharist would be validly confected.
Again, I am not talking about "bakery consecrations." That is your obsession. I am only concerned with what I just explained. So if we are going to talk further, FWIW, I agree with your and your husband about "bakery consecrations."
Quote from Angelus:
Re: Consecration = valid Mass? (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/consecration-valid-mass/msg1006064/#msg1006064)
« Reply #24 on: Yesterday at 10:44:48 PM »
I am simply saying that the Church recognizes that it is possible for a Priest to do the things stated in Canon 817 (1917). Otherwise, why would the Church have a Canon prohibiting something that is impossible in the first place?
Quote from: Angelus on July 26, 2023, 09:21:27 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/why-sspx-cannot-defend-catholic-tradition-bakery-wine-cellar-consecrations/msg896127/#msg896127)
1. Sadly, you still think that both consecrations are necessary to confect a valid Eucharist. You are wrong. Both consecrations are not necessary to validly confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist. However, both consecrations are necessary to accomplish the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar. And to consecrate one Eucharistic species without the other Eucharistic species OR to consecrate both outside of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a horrible sacrilege. That is my position because it is the teaching of the Church.
2. I must be obtuse because I don't understand your question about the hypothetical priest. All I know is that the Roman Catholic Church deemed it necessary to explain what to do in the situation where a priest dies while saying Mass. The hypothetical priest discussion can be found in your nearest traditional Altar Missal or you can just read De defectibus (http://www.dailycatholic.org/defectib.htm) translated online.
3. You admitted in a previous post that the requirements for a valid consecration are three-fold: form, matter, and intention of the valid minister. Now you add to that another requirement. You say that, for validity, the consecration must also be done inside the Mass. That is not Catholic teaching.
Angelus,
The OPEN LETTER was written because, as Archbishop Vigano recognizes, the SSPX is being positioned by Rome to exercise organizational control of all traditional Catholics. They are being set up by Rome as the spokesman and defenders of Catholic faith and worship. I affirm that the SSPX has taken theological positions that make them wholly unfit for this task. It is impossible for them to defend Catholic doctrine and worship and every one of the faithful had better well recognize this fact.
Your argument is: Since canon law forbids an act, the act is therefore valid or they would not prohibit it. Your conclusion does not follow as a necessary legal or even a necessary logical conclusion. This has been addressed to you before but made no impression. You are in fact denying the existence of invalidating laws which are by definition laws that prohibit an act that is always invalid by the nature of the act itself or the actor. This example was previously given: The Church has moral prohibitions against a layman impersonating a priest and hearing confessions. In such a case there is no sacramental absolution taking place. So to answer your question: "Why would the Church have a Canon prohibiting something that is impossible in the first place?" Because as Canon Hesse said addressing the canon in question, "The act itself is nefas." Nefas, a very strong word rarely used in canonical prohibitions, meaning that it is not just wrong, it is an extreme abomination, sin, atrocity, and wickedness because it profanes what is holy.
The SSPX affirms that Bakery and Wine Cellar consecrations are valid. I argue that they cannot be as a necessary conclusion that follows from Catholic DOGMA. You have been arguing in defense of the SSPX opinion. In your own name you have affirmed the validity of consecrations of bread without wine, wine without bread, and either wine or bread without the Mass. This is their theological opinion that makes Bakery and Wine Cellar consecrations valid. It is an theological opinion that if denied would disqualify a SSPX seminarian from ordination. There is no "straw man" argument for this is what the SSPX has said and what you have said. In your previous post you offered a summary of your position which was exactly the position of the SSPX:
(https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/why-sspx-cannot-defend-catholic-tradition-bakery-wine-cellar-consecrations/msg896127/#msg896127)
This is your position and this is the position of the SSPX. It is contemptible and the purpose of my OPEN LETTER explains why. It is disingenuous to claim now that, "I don't care about Bakery consecrations. I don't care what the SSPX says. I agree that the SSPX sacramental theology is not consistent with traditional sacramental theology." If you do not want to defend the SSPX's sacramental theology then stop doing it. It is absurd for you now to accuse me of, "(wanting) to focus everything on a straw man, the 'bakery consecrations' and claim that any change to the liturgy would automatically invalidate any and all consecrations. I am saying that is not necessarily true in all cases." You and the SSPX are on record of affirming the validity of Bakery and Wine Cellar consecrations and the sacramental theology that underpins this belief. That is not something I made up which is what a "straw man" argument is. As to the charge that I claim that "any change to the liturgy would automatically invalidate any and all consecrations," is a claim of attribution without evidence. I have never said anything of the sort. Either produce your evidence or produce your apology.
So my opposition to the demonic sacramental theology of the SSPX is characterized by you as an "obsession" while you excuse yourself saying, "I don't care what the SSPX says." You had better give some "care" to what the SSPX says because they will be your spokesman in Rome. They are incapable of defending Catholic dogma, they are incapable of defending the Catholic sacraments, and they are incapable of defending the "received and approved" immemorial Roman rite of Mass for if a priest can consecrate all the bread in a bakery or all the wine in a wine cellar, the rite of Mass does not make any difference whatsoever. I am "obsessed" with defending the crown jewel of the Catholic Church from those who want to destroy it and I have been doing that for more than fifty years. I am not counting on any help from the SSPX. If this is a prizefight, they are the punching bag.
Drew
You seem to not get the fundamental distinction in sacramental theology between an ILLICIT consecration of the species and an INVALID consecration of the Eucharistic species.
Here is the proof of your ignorance. You say,
"You are in fact denying the existence of invalidating laws which are by definition laws that prohibit an act that is always invalid by the nature of the act itself or the actor. This example was previously given: The Church has moral prohibitions against a layman impersonating a priest and hearing confessions. In such a case there is no sacramental absolution taking place."
But, Drew, Canon 817 does not say that the act of consecrating one species without the other is "invalid." It says it is "nefas," not invalid by the act itself. You are just making up your own Canon and sacramental theology.
The example you then give proves your ignorance even further. You suggest that the consecration of one species without the other would be identical to "a layman impersonating a priest and hearing confessions."
No, Drew the two acts are completely different. A real priest could validly but illicitly consecrate one species without the other because he is a real priest. The layman could not validly consecrate any species of the Eucharist because he does not have the power of priestly Holy Orders. We don't even need to get into whether it is licit or illicit for a layman to attempt the Eucharistic consecration. The layman even attempting that is a dud from the get go. The layman is shooting blanks.
But the real priest absolutely can, sacrilegiously and illicitly, consecrate one species without the other, under certain circuмstances. He should never do it. We agree on that. That is why Canon 817 is included in Canon Law to try to make sure that it doesn't happen.
Some of the situations in which a priest could validly, but illicitly consecrate one species without the other are. Here is what I provided for you to read earlier:
The Commentary on the 1917 Code gives a few scenarios: 1) consecrating one species without the other inside the Mass (valid); 2) Consecrating only one species only, presumably outside of Mass, for Viaticuм (valid); 3) consecrating outside of the Mass, presumably for some sacrilegous reason (probably invalid).
https://archive.org/details/1917CodeOfCanonLawCommentary/page/n1475/mode/1up?q=817 (https://archive.org/details/1917CodeOfCanonLawCommentary/page/n1475/mode/1up?q=817)
Angelus,
Your are referencing a commentary on canon law to overturn Catholic Dogma. It is dogma, that is, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith that the matter for the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is bread AND wine. This dogma is affirmed by both the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent. You like the SSPX do not believe that dogma has to be taken literally. The definition of a heretic is a Catholic who rejects dogma.
From dogma, other necessary truths can be deduced with certainty. The canon in question forbids the consecration of a single species. This is an invalidating law because Catholic dogma affirms the truth that bread AND wine are the necessary matter of the sacrament. The other canonical prohibition of forbidding consecration outside of the holy sacrifice of the Mass is also invalidating law because, firstly, it is in the same canon with a known invalidating law, and secondly, the law permits no exceptions whatsoever. No law, order, command, injunction, proscription, etc., etc. binds in cases of necessity or impossibility. The maxim is 'Necessity known no law' and this truth is affirmed in canon law and Catholic moral theology. The only exception to this maxim is invalidating laws and this can be known by the fact the the law permits no exceptions whatsoever.
What you have proposed is a corruption of law and a corruption of divinely revealed Catholic truth. What you propose is a lie. It is just as serious a lie to corrupt the hierarchical order of truth as to deny a specific truth. You have a gross disordered sense of proportion when you appeal to a human opinion to overturn God's truth.
The SSPX has denied all the Catholic dogmas the pertain to what is necessary for salvation as a necessity of means. They believe that any "good-willed" pagan, Hindu, Jew, Moslem, heretic, or schismatic can be saved by virtue of his belief in a 'god who rewards and punishes' without the belief in any divinely revealed truth, without the reception of any sacrament, without being a subject of the Roman pontiff, and without membership in the Catholic Church. This denial of the literal meaning of Catholic dogma is again seen in their defense of Bakery and Wine Cellar consecrations where they have corrupted Catholic dogmas on the sacraments, driven a wedge between the sacrifice of the Mass the the Sacrament, and corrupted the nature of the priesthood itself from a participation in the divine priesthood of Jesus Christ to sorcerer.
This is what you believe, what you have defended and what you deserve.
Drew
P.S. In your previous post, you attributed to me something I never said. In this post you have not corrected or apologized for your lie. It matters not to me but others should know who you are.