Your reply to Maria Auxiliadora:
Re: Consecration = valid Mass?
« Reply #28 on: Today at 10:02:44 AM »
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora on Today at 06:28:37 AM
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."
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.
Quote from Angelus:
Re: Consecration = valid Mass?
« 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?
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:
Quote from: Angelus on July 26, 2023, 09:21:27 PM
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 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.
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
Topic: Consecration = valid Mass? (Read 145690 times)