Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: Consecration = valid Mass?  (Read 139096 times)

0 Members and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline SimpleMan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5132
  • Reputation: +2007/-248
  • Gender: Male
Re: Consecration = valid Mass?
« Reply #15 on: November 13, 2025, 03:17:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on November 13, 2025, 03:06:39 PM
    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.

    I would compare that with an example that would be entirely benign in its intent, but still forbidden by canon law, such as a priest who is tending to someone who needs Viaticuм, but he has no way to get the Blessed Sacrament and doesn't have time or wherewithal to offer an entire Mass, even a rapid-fire, bare-bones sacrifice.  He has some bread (or perhaps wine) close at hand that would otherwise be valid matter, and needing Viaticuм is an entirely legitimate reason, nonetheless, he still may not do it, even if, arguendo, he could consecrate validly.  The dying person will just have to do without Viaticuм.  Viaticuм is not absolutely necessary for salvation.
    Logged

    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1445
    • Reputation: +1380/-144
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Consecration = valid Mass?
    « Reply #16 on: Yesterday at 09:43:38 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Angelus on November 13, 2025, 10:19:30 AM
    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.

    Logged
    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47513
    • Reputation: +28118/-5250
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Consecration = valid Mass?
    « Reply #17 on: Yesterday at 10:54:47 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Yes ... Pope Leo XIII clearly taught that even IF the essential form happens to be correct, if the intention of the Rite runs counter to the intention of the Church, it would render the essential form invalid.  But SSPX have played this game of wanting to have their cake and eat it too, where they can conditionally ordain but still hold that the Rite is (basically) valid.

    I do believe if a priest, in some circuмstance, e.g. cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ, performed a consecration without an integral Mass, he might commit sin, per Canon Law, but it would be valid, if his intention was clearly to do the consecration.

    Conversely, a priest can perform the entire Rite, but if it's in am movie or a demonstration ... it's still invalid.

    BUT if a priest took that consecration, which may be valid standalone and tried to use it within the context of a non-Catholic Rite (Protestant service), the context of the non-Catholic intention of the Rite would invalidate it (per Leo XIII).

    So I do believe if you had a Catholic priest just using the essential form "standalone", it would be valid, but the context (non-Catholic Rite, movie, goofing around, or standing in front of a bakery) ... the context would invalidate it if from the context it's clear that he's not trying to do what the Church does.  Priest in the cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ could be intending to do what the Church does, but just part of it ... though I think it's debatable even there, since you could argue that the Church never intends for consecration to take place outside of a Mass.

    Logged

    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1445
    • Reputation: +1380/-144
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Consecration = valid Mass?
    « Reply #18 on: Yesterday at 11:56:43 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora on Yesterday at 09:43:38 AM
    "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.
    Logged
    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)

    Online Angelus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1368
    • Reputation: +613/-115
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Consecration = valid Mass?
    « Reply #19 on: Yesterday at 04:09:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora on Yesterday at 11:56:43 AM

    Correction: The Open Letter linked was written in 2023, not 2018 as indicated above.

    I quoted Canon Law and the instruction in every Missale Romanum since Pius V. And you think your Open Letter hold more authority.

    God gave everyone free will. You are free to continue in your errors.
    Logged

    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1445
    • Reputation: +1380/-144
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Consecration = valid Mass?
    « Reply #20 on: Yesterday at 06:44:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Angelus on November 13, 2025, 10:19:30 AM
    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

    And below is my husband's reply to you on Canon 817 (1983 CIC 927) on the thread: 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/msg895974/#msg895974


    Logged
    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)

    Offline SimpleMan

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5132
    • Reputation: +2007/-248
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Consecration = valid Mass?
    « Reply #21 on: Yesterday at 07:06:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on November 13, 2025, 03:11:29 PM
    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

    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.
    Logged

    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1445
    • Reputation: +1380/-144
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Consecration = valid Mass?
    « Reply #22 on: Yesterday at 07:21:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Angelus, here is the Open Letter on those canons, for the benefit of others:

    Quote

    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...

    Logged
    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47513
    • Reputation: +28118/-5250
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Consecration = valid Mass?
    « Reply #23 on: Yesterday at 09:18:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SimpleMan on Yesterday at 07:06:16 PM
    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.

    Yes, that's why I added the "LOL" in the last post.
    Logged

    Online Angelus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1368
    • Reputation: +613/-115
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Consecration = valid Mass?
    « Reply #24 on: Yesterday at 10:44:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora on Yesterday at 07:21:56 PM
    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."
    Logged

    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1445
    • Reputation: +1380/-144
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Consecration = valid Mass?
    « Reply #25 on: Today at 06:28:37 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Angelus 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?

    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."

    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
     
    SSPX teaches:
    Quote
    "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

    And 

    Quote
    Fr. Paul-Isaac Franks, interview, Crisis in the Church, episode 26  
    Crisis in the Church #26 SSPX at the 34:35 time But as you said to me: "God gave everyone free will. You are free to continue in your errors".
     
    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".



    Logged
    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47513
    • Reputation: +28118/-5250
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Consecration = valid Mass?
    « Reply #26 on: Today at 06:59:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Angelus on Yesterday at 10:44:48 PM
    "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."

    So, it says right here ... that it's prohibited because even to ATTEMPT it would be a sacrilege, and just as I was saying about, quite possibly invalid, since it's not consistent with the intention of the Church, since the Church intends that consecration occur during the Mass.

    I would hold that a priest who's doing it for an otherwise proper intention for some reason he incorrectly deemed to be sufficient (someone dying, needed for Viaticuм) to be doubtfully valid but not certainly invalid.  That's a gray area where it's not clear that what he's doing is contrary to the Church's intention, but in a gray area.  Yes, the Church forbids it, but it what he's attempting contrary to the Church's intention for the Sacrament per se, rather than for the proper confection of the Sacrament.  If a priest were to baptize with just the essential form, that would be valid ... though the Blessed Sacrament is admittedly somewhat different.  But that, if done with otherwise correct intention ... I think it would possibly be valid, and unlike with most Sacraments where you presume invalidity in the practical order if there's positive doubt ... here I would treat the host as if it had been validly consecrated.  I would certainly not be so sure of it that I would just toss the host in the trash.

    Now this, the essential form in isolation, is different than the essential form in a context that's clearly contrary to the Church's intention, such as a non-Catholic Rite.  And this is where the Novus Ordo would come in.  Pope Leo XIII taught the principle that a Rite with a non-Catholic intention would in fact invalidate a Sacrament even if the essential form, taken in isolation, were technically correct.

    And the bakery example would clearly be invalid, since that's quite obviously contrary to the Church's intention, and entirely different from a priest reverently making a consecration in order to provide Viaticuм to someone who's dying and may not make it very much longer.

    So much of the Church's attitude boils down to COMMON SENSE.  If I look at something going on, what does common sense tell me?  I see a priest doing the bakery thing.  Common Sense clearly tells me that, "nah, that's not what the Church intends."  Priest bowing reverently, saying the words of consecration, out of love for a dying soul ... borderline and positivley doubtful, IMO.
    Logged

    Offline SimpleMan

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5132
    • Reputation: +2007/-248
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Consecration = valid Mass?
    « Reply #27 on: Today at 08:36:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Angelus 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?

    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

    I didn't know there was a commentary (Bachofen) other than the Woywod/Smith commentary (Herder, 1943), which I have in my home library.  I looked it up there, and the authors are silent on the possibility of a valid consecration for reasons (1) and (2) above.
    Logged

    Online Angelus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1368
    • Reputation: +613/-115
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Consecration = valid Mass?
    « Reply #28 on: Today at 10:02:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora on Today at 06:28:37 AM
    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
     
    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".

    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."
    Logged
    Pages: 1 [2]
    « previous next »