http://sedevacantist.com/newmass/qtvjmcn.htm

APPENDIX 4

INVALID CONSECRATION OF THE WINE INVALIDATES
OR AT LEAST CASTS DOUBT UPON THE CONSECRATION OF THE BREAD

By Rev. Lawrence S. Brey

     1)  INTRODUCTION.  Even if the Consecration of the Wine is invalid by reason of defect of form, and therefore the entire Mass is invalid, does the priest nevertheless truly consecrate the bread in such a Mass?  Even if the wine does not become truly consecrated, would we not at least have validly consecrated Hosts, the true Eucharistic Body of Christ, provided that the Consecration of the Bread be performed using the proper matter and form?  And therefore could not our people at least be certain they are receiving the true Body and Blood of Jesus at Communion time in such a Mass?

     The answer to these questions is a qualified no, for one could not be certain that the hosts are truly consecrated; at least there is a real and practical doubt.  In fact, some theologians hold with certainty that under such circuмstances the bread is not validly consecrated.

     2)  NO SACRIFICE WITHOUT BOTH CONSECRATIONS.  In the first place, the sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord was given to us only and exclusively in the context of the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ.  "As often as the sacrifice is offered, the consecration of both species is required, according to the Will and institution of Christ.  For Christ at the Last Supper, consecrating each (both) species, commanded: 'do this in commemoration of Me'  (Cf. I Cor. 11, 24-25) ... (and) the very notion of sacrifice ... demands the consecration of both species."  (De Eucharistia, Noldin-Schmitt, S.J., in "SUMMA THEOLOGIAE MORALIS," III Innsbruck, 1940).

     For the Consecration re-enacts and commemorates the Sacrifice of the Cross, in that the separate consecration of both species produces the mystical separation of Christ's Body and Blood.  "The consecration of both species is required by Divine Law for the essence of the Sacrifice: this We know from Christ's very (words of) Institution, and from the precept and practice of the Church, so that it is necessary in order that a true representation of the Sacrifice of the Cross be had." (Brevior Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae, Tanquerey - Bord, Paris, 1952).

     3)  IF NO SACRIFICE, THEN NO SACRAMENT.  Nor is there any indication anywhere that Christ willed the sacrament of the Eucharist to be confected apart from the propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass.  Indeed, the notion of the sacrament in the Eucharist, according to the Will of Christ, cannot be separated from the notion of the sacrifice."  (Noldin-Schmitt, loc. cit).  Indeed, in practice, Church law absolutely forbids, without any exception, the consecration of only one species without the other.  Canon 817 of the Code of Canon Law states: "It is forbidden, even in extreme cases of necessity, to consecrate one species without the other ... "  The Roman Missal, in its section, "De Defectibus," prescribes that a Mass interrupted after the Consecration of the Host (because of illness or death of the celebrant) must be continued by another priest, i.e., that the wine must be consecrated to complete and effect the Sacrifice  (Cf. De Defectibus, x, 3).

     4)  CONSECRATION OF ONLY ONE SPECIES RENDERS VALIDITY AT LEAST DOUBTFUL.  As for the validity of the Consecration of the Bread in a case where the Wine is for some reason not consecrated, theologians agree that such a Consecration of the Bread would be valid only if the celebrant had the intention of performing the second Consecration (that of the Wine), but had become incapacitated or for some reason unable to perform it.  "One species is validly consecrated without the other, if the celebrant has the intention of offering sacrifice [but then is interrupted] ...  But it is never licit to consecrate one species if the celebrant foresees a defect in the other species, because from the Will of Christ the Consecration of the Eucharist must simultaneously be also the complete Sacrifice, which certainly would not be the case unless both species are consecrated." (Epitome Theologiae Moralis Universae, ed. Dr. Carolo Telch, Innsbruck, 1924).

     Thus, if the celebrant did not have the intention of properly consecrating the wine, the Consecration of the Bread would be in doubt.  Some theologians, indeed, hold that it is certain, in such a case that the bread would not be truly consecrated.  For, a priest not having the intention of consecrating the wine (or of properly consecrating it) would ipso facto not have the intention of offering the true Sacrifice or of consecrating according to the Mind of Christ.

     5)  DE LA TAILLE'S OPINION.  Maurice de la Taille, S.J. is one such modern theologian of note, who believed that such a single consecration of bread (alone) would be certainly invalid.  In his treatise on the Mass, he observes: "[T]he conclusion of St. Thomas stands: that the determination of the propitiatory virtue enters into the form of the second consecration [by means of the words: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins], but not of the first [i.e., the consecration of the Bread].  Moreover, because in the Roman Canon no such determination of propitiatory intention is expressed over the Body, for this reason St. Thomas very rightly taught that our form of consecration in the Mass in respect of the Blood would be deficient, and so ineffective, if the rest of the words [i.e., which shall be shed or you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins] were not added."  (De la Taille, "The Mystery Of Faith," Book II, p. 444, n. 1).

     "But this which we have shown to be sufficient to indicate the propitiatory intention [i.e., the more determinate form: which shall be shed or you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins] is also absolutely necessary for the completion of the form: for, meantime, until this designation is given [expressing the purpose or end for which Christ shed His Blood], the formula does not yet express all that must be expressed, and so does not accomplish anything: for here in reality the effect and what is signified by the formula are indivisible." (De la Taille, op. cit., p. 443, emphasis added).

     "What then would happen," asks de la Taille, "if a priest, while consecrating the Body by the Roman rite, had the intention of pronouncing over the chalice only the words: This is the chalice of my blood?  According to our argument he would not so consecrate even the body validly.  The reason is that no one consecrates the Body validly unless he has at least the intention of consecrating the Blood also ... because no one consecrates validly without having at least the implicit intention of offering sacrifice.  But the priest who excludes the intention of applying this more determinate form, of which we have been speaking, in respect of the Blood, actually thereby excludes the intention of valid consecration, from what we have said above.  Therefore he excludes the intention of offering the sacrifice.  Hence he does not even consecrate the Body validly."  (De la Taille, op. cit., pp. 444-5, n. 1, emphasis added).

     6)  THE CASE OF THE NEW ENGLISH CANON.  Now, if the new English form of Consecration has been so mutilated (and this appears to be the case) as to change the meaning and intent of the form of consecration and to alter substantially the meaning of the propitiatory element of the form (by substituting "for all men so that ..."), thus invalidating the Consecration of the Wine, we have a situation tantamount to that described by de la Taille.  The celebrant, even though he uses the complete (English) form of consecration, is thereby using a "form" with a mutilated propitiatory element, and therefore he neither truly intends to nor does he actually offer true Sacrifice.  And thus his consecration of even the Bread is doubtful; and, according to some theologians (as we have seen), he certainly does not validly consecrate the Bread.

     Adding more weight to this thesis is the following consideration: Such a "Mass" (involving only one consecration instead of the dual consecration) would be entirely foreign to the intent of Christ and His institution of the Sacrament and Sacrifice via the valid dual Consecration of Bread and Wine.  Such a "Mass" would indeed be a sacrilegious monstrosity.  It is difficult to conceive that Christ would permit the presence of His Eucharistic Body to be effected under such circuмstances.

     7)  CONCLUSION.  In practice, then, those who are aware of the fact that there is at least a real doubt as to the valid consecration of hosts "consecrated" in Masses using the "new English Canon" (or any other "Canon" embodying similar mutilations of the Consecration form), could not in conscience participate in such a "Mass" or receive Communion with a host consecrated at such a Mass.

L.S.B.
May 5, 1968
Feast of St. Pius V

The changing of "for many" into "for all" does not necessitate a change in meaning (or change in signification) for two reasons:

First, because it can be understood to mean for all the Elect, or for all who are cleansed by the Precious Blood of Christ, and does mean such when supplied a Catholic understanding, as Vatican I demands.

Second, because "all" has been used in the Anaphoras of three Eastern Catholic Rites that have been accepted as valid by the Church.

The validity of a non-traditional formula can never be infallibly known.  You can speculate all you want on it but unless God gives some special revelation showing a sign of His approval you will not know with certainty.  That's why tradition is so important.  It is the only way to be sure that our worship is pleasing to Him.

Is this the same Fr. Lawrence Brey who last had a private chapel near St. Cloud, MN until his death in the mid-2000's?

Pope Paul VI didn't make any changes to the Tridentine Latin Rite. The Novus Ordo is a completely new rite of Mass promulgated by the Pope, and established and propagated across the Latin Church after Vatican II.

If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be disdained or omitted by the minister without sin and at pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones: let him be anathema.

Ref: Session Vll (March 3, 1547), Canons on the Sacraments in General, Canon 13.
See Denzinger 856

There are also 2 anaphoras more used in the Syro-Antiochene Rite which also say "all" instead of many:

- The Anaphora of St. John the Apostle and Evangelist:
"This is the chalice of my blood of the New Testament: Take, drink ye of it: this is shed forth for the life of the world, for the expiation of transgressions, the remission of sins to ALL that believe in him forever and ever.”

- The Anaphora of St. Mark the Evangelist:
“This is my blood of the New Testament: Take, drink ye all of it, for the remission of sins of you and of ALL the true faithful, and for eternal life.

... and in both instances the meaning of "all" is qualified, which serves to nullify Cantarella's argument.

Agree with Vinny and Cantarella. Fr. Garrigou Lagrange writing before the modern controversy arose says that the sacred words Hoc est enim Corpus Meum i.e. This is My Body and Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis Mei i.e. This is the Chalice of My Blood independently of those that follow are necessary and sufficient to effect transubstantiation. Father even says, "For the many, also signifies, for all sufficiently ... That is, for all sufficiently, for many efficaciously".Besides the many authorities including St. Thomas he cites as teaching this opinion, he also advances theological reasoning in proof of it.

But what is necessary for simple validity on the one hand and for the integrity of the sacrament on the other, as Abp. Lefebvre explains, are two vastly different things.

Must one conclude further that all these Masses are invalid? As long as the essential conditions for validity are present (matter, form, intention, and a validly ordained priest), I do not see how one can affirm this.

The prayers at the Offertory, the Canon, and the Priest’s Communion which surround the words of Consecration are necessary, not to the validity of the Sacrifice and the Sacrament, but rather to their integrity. When the imprisoned Cardinal Mindszenty, desiring to nourish himself with the Body and Blood of Our Lord, and to escape the gaze of his captors, pronounced solely the words of Consecration over a little bread and wine, he most certainly accomplished the Sacrifice and the Sacrament.

Quote from: Cantarella

There are also 2 anaphoras more used in the Syro-Antiochene Rite which also say "all" instead of many:

- The Anaphora of St. John the Apostle and Evangelist:
"This is the chalice of my blood of the New Testament: Take, drink ye of it: this is shed forth for the life of the world, for the expiation of transgressions, the remission of sins to ALL that believe in him forever and ever.”

- The Anaphora of St. Mark the Evangelist:
“This is my blood of the New Testament: Take, drink ye all of it, for the remission of sins of you and of ALL the true faithful, and for eternal life.

... and in both instances the meaning of "all" is qualified, which serves to nullify Cantarella's argument.

Correct; all the true faithful and all that believe in Him.