CathInfo.com

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: PapalSupremacy

If anyone would translate this whole study by Fr. Calderon, it would be to the great benefit of the whole Resistance in treating Conciliar consecrations, and consequently ordinations and confirmations made by bishops consecrated in the new rite.

Here, download this PDF.  It deals with the matter from a thorough perspective and is written by a Dominican of Avrillé Fr. Pierre Marie, O.P., and is from the Angelus.  I would recommend it.

http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/sedevacantism/validity_of_episcopal_consecrations.pdf

I am aware of that study, but this new one by Fr. Calderon reaches a different conclusion, and that is its importance - that the new rite of episcopal consecration is "probably valid", which in sacramental theology would be no different than saying "doubtful", because Catholics may only administer and receive "certainly valid" rites. Fr. Calderon says that because there is no certainty the priests coming from the NO should be conditionally ordained in the traditional rite.

Are you a sedevacantist?

Quote from: PapalSupremacy

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

In the first minute of this video (2009) you can see the extent of +Fellay's sacramental theology. ABL should have tested him before making him a bishop, or even a priest. With what he believes, he could not possibly object to the N.O. Mass. He must think the words of consecration are magic words. Listen carefully to the first minute. It is truly an embarrassment.



This video is divided in many 15 min. sections.

Actually, what +Fellay said is not new, I remember not long after Fr. Anthony Ward was ordained that he told a similar story that +Fellay tells in the opening minute of that video - that was back in 1972 or so. Fr. said he learned it from his  seminary professor, which is probably the same story all the seminarians were taught back then.

The jist was, to err on the side of caution, validity was presumed.  

   

To think that a priest, with the wrong intention (mad at his bishop), most likely the wrong form and matter can "consecrate  all the bread in the bakery" or "all the wine in the cellar", outside of the Sacrifice of the Mass, is simply madness.

Leavened wheat bread is still valid matter, and so is any wine without added sugar or other additives. The valid form we all know, and the valid intention of doing what the Church does, theologians say, is very easy to have.
So yes, a priest who wanted to spite his bishop would be able to consecrate a whole bakery, or even a whole wine cellar (it would be a sacrilege), and if externally he followed the form, validity indeed would be presumed for obvious reasons (erring on the side of caution).

Without the sacrifice there is no consecration. It is absurd to believe that a bakery or a wine cellar can be consecrated independent of the Mass and independent of the entire matter of bread of the sacrament of both bread and wine being present.  Even canon law specifically 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.  It is instructive that canon law admits no exception whatsoever, not even in the case of imminent death, because no law can bind unconditionally unless the thing itself is impossible.  Not even divine law binds in cases of impossibility.  The only reason canon law can permit no exception whatsoever is because it is impossible to do.  The intention to do what the Church does in confecting a sacrament is the same intention of Jesus Christ who instituted the sacrament for when a priest consecrates he does so in the person of Jesus Christ.  Furthermore, at the very moment that Jesus Christ instituted the sacrament of His Body and Blood, He made the Apostles priests.  It is Jesus Christ who bound the sacrament, the sacrifice and the priesthood.  Those whose theology permits divorcing what Christ has bound together are committing a grave error. To believe that a priest can enter a bakery and turn all the bread into the Blessed Sacrament while intending to do what Jesus Christ did, displays a profound ignorance of sacramental theology.  It is an ignorance so profound that it is frightening to know that he was negotiating with Rome on behalf of traditional Catholics.

I should add that it is this kind of theology that makes the Novus Ordo corruption possible. The Novus Ordo denies the idea of sacrifice.

----------Without the sacrifice there is no consecration.----------

The consecration is precisely what makes the One Sacrifice present. So, what you should have said is - without the consecration there is no sacrifice.

----------It is absurd to believe that a bakery or a wine cellar can be consecrated independent of the Mass and independent of the entire matter of bread of the sacrament of both bread and wine being present.----------

The Mass is essentially expressed in and by the words of consecration. As for the matter, I already told you which type of bread and wine found in those places is valid matter. If you don't believe me, you are free to check.

----------Even canon law specifically 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.  It is instructive that canon law admits no exception whatsoever, not even in the case of imminent death, because no law can bind unconditionally unless the thing itself is impossible... The only reason canon law can permit no exception whatsoever is because it is impossible to do.----------

  With such logic, I should not be surprised of your statements. Od course the law forbids it without exception. We are forbidden from committing any sacrilege (which is what this example would be), without exception, and yet we are perfectly able to commit the sacrilege, it is by no means impossible.
The same can be said for any crime.

----------The intention to do what the Church does in confecting a sacrament is the same intention of Jesus Christ who instituted the sacrament for when a priest consecrates he does so in the person of Jesus Christ.  Furthermore, at the very moment that Jesus Christ instituted the sacrament of His Body and Blood, He made the Apostles priests.  It is Jesus Christ who bound the sacrament, the sacrifice and the priesthood.  Those whose theology permits divorcing what Christ has bound together are committing a grave error. To believe that a priest can enter a bakery and turn all the bread into the Blessed Sacrament while intending to do what Jesus Christ did, displays a profound ignorance of sacramental theology.----------

Methinks you should look for profound ignorance somewhere else.
There are unfortunately priests who consecrate precisely in order to commit sacrilege.