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

Author Topic: Fr. Caldern Refutes Bishop Fellay  (Read 18861 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Maria Auxiliadora

  • Supporter
  • ***
  • Posts: 1432
  • Reputation: +1367/-143
  • Gender: Female
Fr. Caldern Refutes Bishop Fellay
« Reply #15 on: July 05, 2015, 05:43:07 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: PapalSupremacy
    ----------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.----------

     :laugh1: 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.


    Yes...YOU!

    Quote from: 1983 CCL and is the same in the 1917

    Can.  927 It is absolutely forbidden, even in extreme urgent necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other or even both outside the eucharistic celebration.


    I repeat, it is this kind of theology that makes the Novus Ordo corruption possible.
    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 PapalSupremacy

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 115
    • Reputation: +89/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Fr. Caldern Refutes Bishop Fellay
    « Reply #16 on: July 05, 2015, 09:22:04 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora
    Quote from: 1983 CCL and is the same in the 1917

    Can.  927 It is absolutely forbidden, even in extreme urgent necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other or even both outside the eucharistic celebration.


    By quoting this you actually refute your own case, and confirm mine - that it is possible for consecration to occur "outside the eucharistic celebration" (or "outside the Mass", as the 1917 Code says).

    Neither of the codes says "attempt to consecrate" or a similar expression which would denote a failure to effect the sacrament. Both simply say that it is forbidden to consecrate outside the Mass, by which they are implicitly admitting that such a consecration would be valid (but gravely illicit).

    P.S. In the 1917 Code it is Canon 817.
    He that reigneth on high, to whom is given all power in heaven and earth, has committed One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation, to one alone upon earth, namely to Peter, the first of the apostles, and to Peter's


    Offline Centroamerica

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2671
    • Reputation: +1684/-444
    • Gender: Male
    Fr. Caldern Refutes Bishop Fellay
    « Reply #17 on: July 05, 2015, 09:33:12 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: PapalSupremacy
    Quote from: Centroamerica
    Quote from: PapalSupremacy
    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?


    No (and if that is a way of asking me if I consider the new rite of episcopal consecration certainly invalid, as SVs do, I don't).



    Thanks for your response PS.  I will try to set some time aside to translate the Fr. Calderón study, if a translation does not exist.  Texts like that require patience because it has to be a careful translation, and I wanted to be sure that there were no motives behind asking that it be translated.


    I think that the some of the comments here regarding a valid consecration border on heresy.  The professor of sacramental theology in La Reja, Fr. Calderón, states: "If a priest, in mocking the Sacrament, wanted to consecrate all of the bread in a bakery, he would do it validly."

    We conclude logically that religion can give an efficacious and truly realistic answer to the great modern problems only if it is a religion that is profoundly lived, not simply a superficial and cheap religion made up of some vocal prayers and some ceremonies...

    Offline cathman7

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 815
    • Reputation: +883/-23
    • Gender: Male
    Fr. Caldern Refutes Bishop Fellay
    « Reply #18 on: July 05, 2015, 10:48:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What we have displayed here is the age old confusion regarding validity and liceity. It really isn't that difficult to understand. Something may be valid but not licit. Consecrating outside of Mass is not licit under normal circuмstances but it may be valid provided all the conditions are met.

    Fr. Gregory Hesse:

    Quote
    Valid vs. Licit:
     
    Valid means it takes place, it happens.  Licit means that it is allowed or legal.  For instance the Roman Catholic church has always recognized the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church has all seven sacraments, valid but not licit since they are heretics and schismatics.  Heretic because they say the Pope is not infallible and schismatic because they say the Pope does not have the primacy.


    http://catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/docuмents.htm

    Offline PapalSupremacy

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 115
    • Reputation: +89/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Fr. Caldern Refutes Bishop Fellay
    « Reply #19 on: July 05, 2015, 12:57:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Centroamerica
    Quote from: PapalSupremacy
    Quote from: Centroamerica
    Quote from: PapalSupremacy
    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?


    No (and if that is a way of asking me if I consider the new rite of episcopal consecration certainly invalid, as SVs do, I don't).



    Thanks for your response PS.  I will try to set some time aside to translate the Fr. Calderón study, if a translation does not exist.  Texts like that require patience because it has to be a careful translation, and I wanted to be sure that there were no motives behind asking that it be translated.


    I think that the some of the comments here regarding a valid consecration border on heresy.  The professor of sacramental theology in La Reja, Fr. Calderón, states: "If a priest, in mocking the Sacrament, wanted to consecrate all of the bread in a bakery, he would do it validly."



    Thank you for your work for Tradition. I understand some Spanish so I was able to read the study. I can't say that I agree with everything Fr. Calderon says, but I agree with a lot of it, and I think he has made several very astute observations. My only motives in asking for a translation are the same as yours - that it may be to the benefit of faithful Catholics. When you translate it, I hope you will send it to the Resistance priests and especially the bishops, since being certain in the validity of the orders of our priests is paramount, and such a study is necessary to establish a policy based on principle towards those priests who come from the NO, and towards the NO sacraments, e.g. the old "Catechism of the Crisis in the Church" says that NO Masses in which the wrong translation "for all" is used are of doubtful validity - how many people who follow the Society (or followed it before 2012) do you think know this? I would say few.
    He that reigneth on high, to whom is given all power in heaven and earth, has committed One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation, to one alone upon earth, namely to Peter, the first of the apostles, and to Peter's


    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1432
    • Reputation: +1367/-143
    • Gender: Female
    Fr. Caldern Refutes Bishop Fellay
    « Reply #20 on: July 05, 2015, 08:00:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: PapalSupremacy
    Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora
    Quote from: 1983 CCL and is the same in the 1917

    Can.  927 It is absolutely forbidden, even in extreme urgent necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other or even both outside the eucharistic celebration.


    By quoting this you actually refute your own case, and confirm mine - that it is possible for consecration to occur "outside the eucharistic celebration" (or "outside the Mass", as the 1917 Code says).

    Neither of the codes says "attempt to consecrate" or a similar expression which would denote a failure to effect the sacrament. Both simply say that it is forbidden to consecrate outside the Mass, by which they are implicitly admitting that such a consecration would be valid (but gravely illicit).

    P.S. In the 1917 Code it is Canon 817.


    Quote from: Can.  927 (1983) or Can. 817 (1917)
    It is absolutely forbidden, even in extreme urgent necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other or even both outside the Eucharistic Celebration.


    You have misunderstood the point.  The question of sacrilege is secondary and not necessarily even pertinent.  Even a priest with the best of intentions cannot simply say the words of consecration and confect the sacrament outside of Mass and/or confect the sacrament with only one species.  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 laws, precepts, commands, injunctions, etc. do not bind in cases of necessity or impossibility? The exception to this rule is invalidating laws.  Only invalidating laws admit no exception whatsoever, either because of the act itself or the person doing the act render it necessarily invalid.  

    Bishop Fellay, and apparently you, believe that bread alone can be consecrated by simply saying, ‘This is My Body,’ or wine alone can be consecrated by simply saying, ‘This is My Blood.’  And you and Bishop Fellay believe that this is all that is necessary to effect the consecration and the sacrifice, all the rest being non-essential accidents to the validity of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  But why limit it to only a single bakery or single wine cellar.  According to Bishop Fellay’s theology, a priest could consecrate all the wine in Italy or all the bread in Russia with only pronouncing the form of the sacrament for that particular species.   Bishop Fellay is a bishop and therefore his ignorance is inexcusable.  But he is not alone.  This is the theology that has given the Church the Novus Ordo, and it is the obtuseness of purely mechanical Catholics that make correcting the problem difficult.
    You should begin be admitting this fact of law and use it as a limit for your theological speculations.
     
    Quote
    The essence of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist consists precisely in the Consecration, whereby, in virtue of the words of Jesus Christ, His Body and Precious Blood are placed really on the holy Table, mystically separated under the species of bread and wine. By this action taken precisely, and without anything added by the priest, Jesus Christ is really offered to His Father, inasmuch as His Body and His Blood are placed before Him, actually clothed with the signs representing His Death. As this consecration is done in the Name, in the Person, and through the words of Jesus Christ, it is He in truth Who both consecrates and offers, and the priests are only simple ministers.
    Bossuet

     
    Matter of the sacrament is bread AND wine, not bread OR wine. This is a dogma of faith.  Without the necessary matter, the sacrament cannot be confected.  Can.  927 (1983) or Can. 817 (1917)  forbids two different acts.  This prohibition by the canon is an invalidating law as a matter of revealed truth.  That 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 exception of necessity.  

    Let me suggest why this is so.  The essence of the sacrifice is the consecration of the bread and wine but it alone must not be sufficient to form the proper intention.  The reason that any Catholic does 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 confect the sacrament without the rite.
    This may be because when the priest consecrates in the Mass he consecrates in the person of Jesus Christ.  The form and matter alone do not demonstrate the intention of the priest.  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.

    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 in invalidity of Anglican orders.  One of these reasons was that the Anglican rite itself 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 directly denied.  Bishop Fellay would believe that a validly ordained Anglican or Catholic priest would validly consecrate in an Anglican communion service because the form and matter is all that is necessary.  This is not true.  The rite itself can invalidate a proper sacramental form and matter.

    The Novus Ordo was initially and officially defined as a memorial meal.  Fr. James Wathen said many years ago that even when the words of consecration in the Novus Ordo are corrected as recommended 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 sacrifice.  For it is the rite that shows the intent of the priest, not just the words of consecration because only in the rite itself is the priest speaking in his own person.Why does attendance at Mass to fulfill the Sunday obligation require more than being present for only the consecration?
    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 Centroamerica

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2671
    • Reputation: +1684/-444
    • Gender: Male
    Fr. Caldern Refutes Bishop Fellay
    « Reply #21 on: July 05, 2015, 11:26:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • 1)

    a.  Just to clarify, the only point being made here is if Bishop Fellay said something erroneous in the beginning of the video.  

    b.  This is the statement in question:
     "...a priest, he went into a bakery and he consecrated the whole bakery, another one went into the cellar of the bishop and he consecrated all the wine; it is sacrilegious, but it's valid."

    c.  What he states is theologically correct.  The consecration is valid.


    2)    The professor of sacramental theology in La Reja, Fr. Calderón, states: "If a priest, in mocking the Sacrament, wanted to consecrate all of the bread in a bakery, he would do it validly." - P. Calderón: "si un sacerdote, por burlarse del sacramento, quisiera consagrar todo el pan de una panadería, lo haría válidamente".


    3) Fr. Calderón: "Una species valide consecratur sine altera, sed jure divino illicitum est sic conse­crare"...

    "One species is validly consecrated without the other, but by divine Law it is illicit to do so..."

    4)   Summa Theologiae Moralis de Noldin-Schmit (Vol. 3, The Sacraments):
    "The consecration of one species without the other is valid, if the priest, by mistake or on purpose, consecrates only one species, provided that he has the proper intention of consecrating. So, if one consecrates only one of the two species, without the other, the sacrament certainly takes place, but it does not offer the complete sacrifice" (cf. Roman Missal, De Defectibus IV, 5.8). "...But by divine and ecclesiastical law, it is never licit to consecrate a single species, not even for a serious reason."

    5) Canons  927 (1983) and 817 (1917) are not laws which invalidate the consecration.  They are laws which refer to the illicitness and not the validity.


    6)   That a valid but illicit consecration invalidates the "Sacrifice of the Mass" is another matter. Bishop Fellay speaks only of the "validity" of the "consecration", not the "validity" of the "Sacrifice." Fr. Calderon says that the common judgement is that it is likely that when one species is consecrated without the other "sacrificium incruentum Missae ut esse invalidum institutum Christo" (the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass as it was instituted by Christ is invalid) (Dogmatic Theology course, the sacraments, the Eucharist).


    We conclude logically that religion can give an efficacious and truly realistic answer to the great modern problems only if it is a religion that is profoundly lived, not simply a superficial and cheap religion made up of some vocal prayers and some ceremonies...

    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1432
    • Reputation: +1367/-143
    • Gender: Female
    Fr. Caldern Refutes Bishop Fellay
    « Reply #22 on: July 06, 2015, 06:58:24 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Centroamerica

    1)

    a.  Just to clarify, the only point being made here is if Bishop Fellay said something erroneous in the beginning of the video.  

    b.  This is the statement in question:
     "...a priest, he went into a bakery and he consecrated the whole bakery, another one went into the cellar of the bishop and he consecrated all the wine; it is sacrilegious, but it's valid."

    c.  What he states is theologically correct.  The consecration is valid.


    2)    The professor of sacramental theology in La Reja, Fr. Calderón, states: "If a priest, in mocking the Sacrament, wanted to consecrate all of the bread in a bakery, he would do it validly." - P. Calderón: "si un sacerdote, por burlarse del sacramento, quisiera consagrar todo el pan de una panadería, lo haría válidamente".


    3) Fr. Calderón: "Una species valide consecratur sine altera, sed jure divino illicitum est sic conse­crare"...

    "One species is validly consecrated without the other, but by divine Law it is illicit to do so..."

    4)   Summa Theologiae Moralis de Noldin-Schmit (Vol. 3, The Sacraments):
    "The consecration of one species without the other is valid, if the priest, by mistake or on purpose, consecrates only one species, provided that he has the proper intention of consecrating. So, if one consecrates only one of the two species, without the other, the sacrament certainly takes place, but it does not offer the complete sacrifice" (cf. Roman Missal, De Defectibus IV, 5.8). "...But by divine and ecclesiastical law, it is never licit to consecrate a single species, not even for a serious reason."

    5) Canons  927 (1983) and 817 (1917) are not laws which invalidate the consecration.  They are laws which refer to the illicitness and not the validity.


    6)   That a valid but illicit consecration invalidates the "Sacrifice of the Mass" is another matter. Bishop Fellay speaks only of the "validity" of the "consecration", not the "validity" of the "Sacrifice." Fr. Calderon says that the common judgement is that it is likely that when one species is consecrated without the other "sacrificium incruentum Missae ut esse invalidum institutum Christo" (the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass as it was instituted by Christ is invalid) (Dogmatic Theology course, the sacraments, the Eucharist).





    The second red quote is the million dollar question.


    Quote from: Fr, Calderon's source
    http://www.mercaba.org/TEOLOGIA/Noldin/de_la_eucaristia_como_sacramento.htm#CUESTI%C3%93N%20PRIMERA
    Extracto de Summa Theologiae Moralis Noldin-Schmit Vol. Tercero Los Sacramentos

    111. Para consagrar válidamente se requieren dos condiciones: a. que la materia que debe consagrarse esté presente físicamente (no sólo intencionalmente); b. que sea determinada (concreta).
     
    1. En primer lugar se requiere que la materia esté presente físicamente al sacerdote consagrante. Esto es evidente por la institución de Cristo, pues Cristo sólo dio a los apóstoles la potestad de hacer lo que El hizo en la última cena, y Cristo consagró la materia presente. Lo mismo exige el sentido obvio de las palabras de la consagración, pues los pronombres esto y éste (hoc et hic), no demuestran sino una materia presente.
     
    Para tener esta presencia física se requiere ciertamente que la materia de algún modo esté delante del sacerdote y que no diste mucho; sin embargo, no se requiere que sea percibida en algún sentido por el sacerdote, sino que es suficiente que la materia, a juicio prudente de los hombres, es decir, por los pronombres esto y éste, suficientemente se puedan señalar.
     
    a. De aquí que se consagran válidamente todas las hostias que se encuentran acuмuladas en el copón, aunque las inferiores no puedan ser vistas; también, en cuanto a la presencia se refiere, las hostias que están en un copón cerrado o cubierto con una palia, el vino que esté en un cáliz no descubierto, es más, también el vino puesto en un vaso el pan encerrado en un canastillo, porque la materia, por razón del vaso en el que se contiene y el cual se destina a contener la materia, está lo suficientemente presente como para que pueda ser una cosa presente, y que pueda concretarse por las palabras éste y esto. Por el uso común, tiene esta posibilidad de que el que contiene y el contenido se puedan demostrar a la manera de una misma cosa con el pronombre esto, así como en el caso de las monedas guardadas en el bolsillo (o en la bolsa) decimos: esto es oro, y del licor encerrado en una jarra afirmamos que es vino. Y estas cosas son ciertas verdaderamente, por cuyo motivo no debe ser repetida la consagración si, por ejemplo, el copón permaneciese cerrado por olvido durante la consagración.
     
    b. Pero no valdría la consagración si la materia (aun sabiéndolo el sacerdote), estuviese detrás del altar o detrás de la tabla que se dice del canon, o a espaldas del celebrante, porque no está tan presente allí como para que por el pronombre esto o éste se puedan demostrar (enseñar), pues el cuerpo que se interpone impide que puedan ser demostradas así (por ejemplo, con la mano). Por esta misma razón, a saber, por defecto de presencia, no puede consagrarse válidamente una materia que dista diez pasos (otros dicen veinte). Si la hostia estuviese oculta bajo el corporal o en el misal, o bajo o dentro del misal, o si estuviese escondida bajo el mantel del altar, o bajo el "cussino", o bajo el pie del cáliz, la consagración sería dudosa, porque la hostia allí oculta apenas podría ser demostrada (enseñada) por el pronombre hoc, que expresa esto. Y aunque sea consagrada válidamente una hostia situada en un tabernáculo (sagrario) abierto, la consagración sería al menos dudosa si el sagrario estuviese cerrado.
     
    112. 2. Después se requiere que la materia destinada a ser consagrada esté determinada en un individuo, en una unidad concreta, por la intención, al menos habitual, del consagrante; porque cualquier acción debe tener un término determinado (finalidad, objeto) del cual se ocupe; además, por la palabra o pronombre hoc (esto) y hic (éste), no puede ser designada sino una materia determinada. Por lo mismo, así como para consagrar se requiere intención de consagrar, así para consagrar una materia determinada se requiere intención de consagrar aquella materia determinada.
     
    a. Por lo tanto, lo que de ninguna manera, ni explícita ni implícitamente ha sido determinado como objeto de consagración por la intención del sacerdote, no está consagrado; pero lo que de alguna manera, al menos implícitamente (p. ej., pensando en lo que tengo en las manos, en lo que hay en el corporal), está determinado por la intención como objeto de consagración, se juzga estar consagrado.
     
    b. De aquí que si después de la consagración el sacerdote advierte que hay más hostias de las que había calculado puestas por él o por otro, o que hay dos adheridas, no hay ninguna duda de que todas están consagradas, porque tuvo intención actual o virtual de consagrar la materia presente, pues el error del consagrante acerca de la cantidad de la materia no impide la intención determinada.
     
    c. Pero si de un montón de hostias sólo quisiese consagrar cinco, o solamente la mitad, ninguna quedaría consagrada. De la misma manera no están consagradas las hostias que, sin saberlo el sacerdote, fueron puestas en el altar, e incluso en el corporal, si él no tuvo intención de consagrar todo cuanto fuese consagrable en el corporal o en el altar.
     
    113. Para consagrar lícitamente se requiere que la materia: a. esté en el altar, b. sobre el corporal o, c. en la piedra consagrada, d. o inmediatamente en el corporal o en las manos del consagrante, o en un vaso sagrado pero estando abierto.
     
    Por lo tanto, si el sacerdote está celebrando en un altar portátil y las hostias pequeñas están, no solas en el corporal, sino dentro de un copón (ciborrio), éste debe colocarse dentro de la consagración, de tal manera que alguna parte, al menos del pie del copón, esté colocada dentro de la piedra consagrada. Sin embargo este asunto no debe ser causa de escrúpulos, con tal que el copón esté en el corporal. De aquí se deduce también que el sacerdote pecaría gravemente si a sabiendas consagrase una materia que estuviese fuera del altar o fuera del corporal o en copón no sagrado, pero sólo pecaría venialmente quien voluntariamente no abriese el vaso sagrado.
     
    114. Cuestiones sobre la consagración. 1. Para preparar el camino, con el fin de resolver muchas cuestiones sobre este tema, hay que anotar lo siguiente: Supuesto que es apta la presencia de la materia que debe ser consagrada, todo el problema depende esencialmente de la intención del consagrante, con la cual se determina la materia que va a ser consagrada en concreto. Ahora bien, cualquier sacerdote que va a celebrar, en primer lugar tiene intención de celebrar, la cual, por su naturaleza es intención de celebrar como Cristo lo instituyó y la Iglesia lo entendió. Ahora se busca cuál y cuánta sea la fuerza de esta intención.
     
    a. Esta intención es y debe ser absoluta, y por eso no puede ser restringida lícitamente por ninguna condición, a no ser que se dude del valor de la consagración.
     
    Hay autores moralistas que opinan que la intención del consagrante, y en general de todo aquel que confecciona (o realiza) un sacramento, es una intención condicionada, ya que se debe presumir que el consagrante y en general todo aquel que realiza un sacramento, no quiere consagrar o confeccionar un sacramento, a no ser que eso pueda realizarse sin pecado (material). Pero este principio no puede ser admitido sin que en la práctica se produzcan muchos y graves incomodos que a todo trance deben evitarse. Porque si suponemos que el sacerdote utiliza por inadvertencia un cáliz no consagrado, o bautiza con agua notablemente fétida, no hay ninguna consagración e igualmente ningún bautismo, sin que el sacerdote o los fieles sepan algo de la nulidad del sacramento. Las cuales cosas son ciertamente incomodidades y gravemente ilícitas. Y esta es la razón por la cual la intención de consagrar debe ser absoluta, a no ser que la duda sea sobre el valor de la consagración (cf. Ballerini-Palmieri IV. n.856ss.).
     
    b. En fuerza de esta intención sólo se consagra la hostia que se encuentra en las manos del sacerdote y el vino que está en el cáliz; pero en fuerza de esta intención tampoco se consagra la partícula u hostia pequeña que, ya sea por inconsciencia del sacerdote o también estando él advertido, pero no pensando sobre la consagración de la partícula que está puesta en el corporal.
     
    c. En fuerza de esta intención probablemente no es consagrada sino la materia que exhibe a los sentidos una cosa continua, porque no puede suponerse que sea ésta la mente de la Iglesia, a saber, que también se consagre esa cosa que no puede ser consagrada sin manifiesto peligro de dispersión y, por lo tanto, de irreverencia.
     
    2. El sacerdote, además de la intención general de celebrar, debe tener la intención de consagrar todavía otra materia, por ejemplo, las migas, o sea hostias pequeñas que están puestas en el corporal o se contienen en el copón. También esta intención es y debe ser absoluta, no restringida por ninguna condición, a no ser que al duda sea sobre el valor de la consagración. Ahora bien, en virtud de esta intención, expresamente emitida ya sea antes de la misa o durante ella, queda consagrada válidamente cualquier materia a la que se refiera aquella intención emitida, aunque el sacerdote, en el momento de la consagración, no tenga su atención puesta en ella, con tal que esté físicamente presente en el ara. Pues la doble condición que para la válida consagración se refiere, existe sin duda en este caso, puesto que la materia que debe ser consagrada en el acto de la consagración, perdura todavía virtualmente. También se juzga que tiene intención expresa de consagrar a cualquier sacerdote que, o él lleva las hostias pequeñas personalmente al ara para consagrarlas después, o a quien dentro de la misa, advirtiendo que el copón "que debe ser consagrado" está colocado en el ara, se propone consagrarlo, o al que antes de la misa es avisado sobre el copón que debe ser consagrado en la misa y asiente a ello, aunque después no preste atención a lo prometido, pues, por lo mismo que asiente a la consagración cuando es avisado, emite su intención afirmativa de consagrar las hostias pequeñas que se deben poner en el ara. En todas estas últimas veces en que aparece la palabra "partículas", debe entenderse no sólo las partes pequeñísimas de hostia que suelen separarse, por su mínimo tamaño, de las formas grandes, sino sobre todo las hostias de menor tamaño que las del sacerdote y que reciben los fieles cuando comulgan.
     
    115. Corolarios de las anteriores declaraciones. 1. Las pequeñas gotas de vino que se adhieren interiormente al cáliz, si el sacerdote no emite hacia ellas una intención especial, no parece que quedan consagradas, porque la intención general de celebrar, y por lo tanto de consagrar, se restringe a la materia que, a manera de una cosa continua, se encuentra en el cáliz en el momento de la consagración.
     
    Las pequeñas gotas de vino adheridas al exterior del cáliz, sean o no sean consagradas, a no ser que el sacerdote tuviese una peculiar intención sobre ellas, después de la consagración dichas gotitas no deben ser secadas, sino que deben ser sumidas con la preciosísima Sangre o con la purificación de ellas. Pero si se encuentran antes de la consagración, o deben ser unidas con la materia que se va a consagrar, o deben ser secadas si esto puede hacerse fácilmente.
     
    2. Las migas de pan que, separadas de la hostia grande, se adhieren a esa hostia en el momento de la consagración, no parece igualmente que estén consagradas, porque la intención del sacerdote parece restringirse a la materia que exhibe una cosa continua. Las migas que haya separadas de la hostia, en el corporal o en el copón, no están consagradas si el sacerdote no intentó nada expresamente, pues la intención de consagrar la materia presente no se extiende a las migas separadas, por el peligro de irreverencia.
     
    3. El copón, puesto en el corporal, que en el momento de la consagración permaneció cerrado por inadvertencia, está consagrado si en el consagrante hubo suficiente intención de consagrarlo, pero si acerca de él (o sobre él), no intentó nada ni explícita ni implícitamente, no se juzga consagrado, porque por la intención general de consagrar el copón no se concreta suficientemente el objeto de la consagración.
     
    4. Pero el copón que en el momento de la consagración permaneció por olvido fuera del corporal, debe ser juzgado como consagrado por la intención virtualmente perdurante, con tal que el sacerdote hubiese tenido intención explícita o implícita de consagrarlo.
     
    Hay escritores que dudan si este copón ha sido consagrado, porque piensan que en este caso el consagrante no tuvo la intención de consagrar, aunque antes la hubiese expresado, porque la intención objetivamente es gravemente ilícita. Esta opinión se funda en el principio de que la intención del celebrante no es absoluta, sino condicionada, esto es, que se debe presumir que el consagrante no lo quiso consagrar, si esto se pudiese hacer sin pecado. Pero esto no se debe admitir (cf. n.114).
     
    Nota. Para precaver las dudas sobre la consagración, muchos autores aconsejan rectamente a los neosacerdotes que expresen sus intenciones de una vez para siempre: a. de consagrar todas las hostias situadas en el corporal; b. de no consagrar las gotas de vino adheridas interiormente al cáliz; c. de no consagrar las migas adheridas a la hostia; d. de no consagrar las migas separadas de la hostia, ya estén en el copón, ya en el corporal. Expresadas estas intenciones, es cierto que por la fuerza de la intención de no celebrar, nada fuera de las hostias puestas en el corporal se consagra, sino aquello que a la manera de una cosa única y continua existe en la hostia o en el cáliz.
     
    116. De las partículas que deben ser consagradas y puestas en el ara. Las hostias que deben ser consagradas deben ser puestas en el ara al principio de la misa o, al menos, a no ser que una causa justa lo excuse, deben estar presentes al ofertorio, para que con la materia del sacrificio con el cual son consagradas, también sean ofrecidas a la vez. Por causa razonable pueden consagrarse lícitamente las hostias que sean llevadas después del ofertorio, con tal que estén presentes antes del prefacio y se haga mentalmente su oblación. Por causa grave (si, p. ej., de lo contrario se quedarían sin comunión uno o muchos o deberían esperar demasiado tiempo), pueden ser consagradas también las hostias traídas después del prefacio, pero antes de comenzar el canon; y por causa gravísima (para dar la comunión a un enfermo o si, de lo contrario, una gran multitud de fieles, no sin grave molestia, o fuesen privados de la comunión, o debiesen esperar demasiado), pueden ser consagradas lícitamente las hostias traídas también iniciado ya el canon, antes de la consagración del pan. Pero, sin embargo, si de lo contrario solamente uno debiese ser despachado sin comunión, una vez ya comenzado el canon ya no debería ser consagrada para él una hostia, sino más bien debería serle entregada una partícula (parte) de la hostia, partida de la hostia del sacerdote.
     
    La razón de esta prescripción debe ser tomada del orden de la misa que, después de los ritos preparatorios, sólo contiene dos partes, la oblación (ofertorio) y la consagración con la comunión. Así pues, el acto litúrgico de la oblación comienza con el ofertorio y se termina con las oraciones secretas, pero el acto litúrgico de la consagración empieza con el prefacio. Por lo tanto, el orden de la misa se trastorna si después de comenzar la oblación, todavía se lleva sobre el ara una materia para consagrar, que todavía antes debe ser ofrecida, por lo cual el trastrueque del orden es tanto mayor cuanto más tarde fuese llevada dicha materia. De aquí proviene el que antes del prefacio todavía se admita una materia para ser consagrada (unas hostias), por causa razonable, porque todavía no ha sido iniciado el acto litúrgico de la consagración; pero después de comenzado el prefacio, sólo se admite por causa grave, porque el acto litúrgico de la consagración ya ha comenzado ciertamente, aunque solamente todavía por el prefacio introductorio al acto de la consagración; sin embargo, comenzado el canon, algunos canonistas y moralistas no admiten materia para consagrar por ninguna razón, otros sólo lo admiten por una causa gravísima, porque el canon pertenece ya al acto litúrgico mismo de la consagración.
     
    117. Cantidad que debe ser consagrada. De la misma manera que la cantidad de pan y de vino, cualquiera sea, aun la muy grande, puede ser consagrada válidamente y de hecho lo es, con tal que por el pronombre esto se pueda demostrar suficientemente, así también cualquier cantidad, aunque sea mínima (una miga de pan o una gotita de vino), se consagra válidamente, con tal que pueda ser percibida por el sentido humano. Pero una materia tan diminuta que no pueda ser percibida por el sentido humano, no puede ser consagrada válidamente, tanto porque tal materia no puede ser demostrada por el pronombre esto, como porque todo sacramento generalmente es signo sensible que, por lo tanto, por su propia naturaleza exige una materia sensible. Pero para una consagración lícita se requiere aquella cantidad de pan o de vino que convenga al fin, uso y reverencia de tan santo e importante sacramento.

    118.
    Notas. 1. Si las partículas (hostias pequeñas de los fieles o partes menores de las hostias), fueron consagradas dudosamente, se debe distinguir un triple caso:
     
    a. Si no se trata de partículas que deben distribuirse enseguida y si son pocas, se tomen por el celebrante después de las sagradas especies, antes de la purificación final, o se guarden en un vaso hasta su corrupción; b. si son muchas y no van a ser distribuidas enseguida, estas partículas dudosamente consagradas deben consagrarse bajo condición en otra misa; c. si se trata de partículas que deben distribuirse necesariamente ahora, y no se celebra después ninguna otra misa, el autor de esta "Suma de Teología Moral" había permitido en las primeras ediciones de este libro (ciertamente sólo entre la consagración y la comunión, cuando la misa no está íntegramente completa), que fuesen consagradas de nuevo bajo condición. Porque tal consagración, aunque no fuese válida, no podría llevarse a la práctica, puesto que no es cierto si la comunión de los fieles es razón suficiente, y si no, daría fácilmente lugar a abusos.
     
    2. Si a las partículas consagradas se mezclan las partículas no consagradas, todo el cúmulo de ellas debe ser llevado al altar y ser consagrado, o con intención de consagrar las partículas no consagradas o con intención de consagrar todo el cúmulo, bajo condición, si no estuviesen consagradas (San Alfonso, n.216; Lugo, De euchar. disp.4. n.133ss.). También si a un vino consagrado se le mezcla un vino no consagrado, toda la cantidad que se contiene en el cáliz debe ser consagrada con la intención de consagrar todo lo que haya no consagrado en el cáliz o lo que exista en el cáliz que sea consagrable.
     
    Sin embargo, el moralista de Lugo piensa que el primer modo de consagrar no es suficiente, porque las hostias que deben ser consagradas no están suficientemente determinadas (concretadas) por la intención del consagrante, de forma que puedan demostrarse con el pronombre esto. Pero, así como nada impide el que puedan ser consagradas a la vez que otras, bajo condición, porque todas están presentes y pueden ser mostradas, así nada impide el que pueda consagrarse todo cuanto no esté consagrado en el copón, porque todo ello puede ser designado suficientemente por medio del pronombre esto. Porque, aunque el mismo hombre no conozca esta materia y, por lo tanto, ni siquiera podría designarla, sin embargo esa materia de hecho existe y puede ser designada objetivamente.

    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 Centroamerica

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2671
    • Reputation: +1684/-444
    • Gender: Male
    Fr. Caldern Refutes Bishop Fellay
    « Reply #23 on: July 06, 2015, 08:53:02 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0



  • I don't think it was honest to put Fr. Calderón's name on that post as his source.  I have never seen or quoted Fr. Calderón as using that source.

    It isn't a very good approach to the question.
    We conclude logically that religion can give an efficacious and truly realistic answer to the great modern problems only if it is a religion that is profoundly lived, not simply a superficial and cheap religion made up of some vocal prayers and some ceremonies...

    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1432
    • Reputation: +1367/-143
    • Gender: Female
    Fr. Caldern Refutes Bishop Fellay
    « Reply #24 on: July 06, 2015, 09:28:38 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Centroamerica

    1)

    a.  Just to clarify, the only point being made here is if Bishop Fellay said something erroneous in the beginning of the video.  

    b.  This is the statement in question:
     "...a priest, he went into a bakery and he consecrated the whole bakery, another one went into the cellar of the bishop and he consecrated all the wine; it is sacrilegious, but it's valid."

    c.  What he states is theologically correct.  The consecration is valid.


    2)    The professor of sacramental theology in La Reja, Fr. Calderón, states: "If a priest, in mocking the Sacrament, wanted to consecrate all of the bread in a bakery, he would do it validly." - P. Calderón: "si un sacerdote, por burlarse del sacramento, quisiera consagrar todo el pan de una panadería, lo haría válidamente".


    3) Fr. Calderón: "Una species valide consecratur sine altera, sed jure divino illicitum est sic conse­crare"...

    "One species is validly consecrated without the other, but by divine Law it is illicit to do so..."

    4)   Summa Theologiae Moralis de Noldin-Schmit (Vol. 3, The Sacraments):
    "The consecration of one species without the other is valid, if the priest, by mistake or on purpose, consecrates only one species, provided that he has the proper intention of consecrating. So, if one consecrates only one of the two species, without the other, the sacrament certainly takes place, but it does not offer the complete sacrifice" (cf. Roman Missal, De Defectibus IV, 5.8). "...But by divine and ecclesiastical law, it is never licit to consecrate a single species, not even for a serious reason."

    5) Canons  927 (1983) and 817 (1917) are not laws which invalidate the consecration.  They are laws which refer to the illicitness and not the validity.


    6)   That a valid but illicit consecration invalidates the "Sacrifice of the Mass" is another matter. Bishop Fellay speaks only of the "validity" of the "consecration", not the "validity" of the "Sacrifice." Fr. Calderon says that the common judgement is that it is likely that when one species is consecrated without the other "sacrificium incruentum Missae ut esse invalidum institutum Christo" (the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass as it was instituted by Christ is invalid) (Dogmatic Theology course, the sacraments, the Eucharist).




    Quote from: Centroamerica
    I don't think it was honest to put Fr. Calderón's name on that post as his source. I have never seen or quoted Fr. Calderón as using that source.

    It isn't a very good approach to the question.


    Dishonest  :confused1:  The source is excellent. I put the link to the source you provided. Above the link I provided on my previous post says:"Extracto de Summa Theologiae Moralis Noldin-Schmit Vol. Tercero Los Sacramentos". My post should be sufficient for the faithful to make up their mind whether such "consecration" as mentioned by +Fellay could possibly be valid. I don't believe it.

    I posted in haste before going to Mass and just noticed I posted it in Spanish. I will try to find it in English.
    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 Centroamerica

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2671
    • Reputation: +1684/-444
    • Gender: Male
    Fr. Caldern Refutes Bishop Fellay
    « Reply #25 on: July 06, 2015, 10:19:54 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0



  • Each number is seperate from the other.  I thought the bold would bring this out and be well understood by all.   Just as number 5 refers to the canon law and has no direct relation with what is cited in number 4, number 4 stands by itself and has no direct relation with the previous quotes in #2 and #3, other than that they all deal with the same subject.  
    We conclude logically that religion can give an efficacious and truly realistic answer to the great modern problems only if it is a religion that is profoundly lived, not simply a superficial and cheap religion made up of some vocal prayers and some ceremonies...


    Offline Centroamerica

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2671
    • Reputation: +1684/-444
    • Gender: Male
    Fr. Caldern Refutes Bishop Fellay
    « Reply #26 on: July 06, 2015, 11:29:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "a. De aquí que se consagran válidamente todas las hostias que se encuentran acuмuladas en el copón,"


    The idea is the same, "all of the hosts"... "all of the bread in the bakery"...there is no need to know how many there are, but the intention is part of the necessary element.  


    The quote that you have cited is not part of any quote or work of Fr. Calderón, and this needs to be clarified.

    Also, the work that you cited explains the intention of the formula is what is necessary, as I showed above.
    We conclude logically that religion can give an efficacious and truly realistic answer to the great modern problems only if it is a religion that is profoundly lived, not simply a superficial and cheap religion made up of some vocal prayers and some ceremonies...

    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1432
    • Reputation: +1367/-143
    • Gender: Female
    Fr. Caldern Refutes Bishop Fellay
    « Reply #27 on: July 06, 2015, 01:42:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Centroamerica
    "a. De aquí que se consagran válidamente todas las hostias que se encuentran acuмuladas en el copón,"


    The idea is the same, "all of the hosts"... "all of the bread in the bakery"...there is no need to know how many there are, but the intention is part of the necessary element.  


    The quote that you have cited is not part of any quote or work of Fr. Calderón, and this needs to be clarified.

    Also, the work that you cited explains the intention of the formula is what is necessary, as I showed above.


    I quoted the source you gave: Summa Theologia Moralis De  Nolden Schmit and put the link to it. Because you mentioned Father Calderon, I understood the Summa quote came from him. I apologize if it was understood that my long post was written by Father Calderon. Still, it is an excellent informative source.

    I have no intention to post more on this subject. I still do not believe a whole bakery or celllar can be "consecrated". If I scandalized, I'm sorry.
    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 Maria Auxiliadora

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1432
    • Reputation: +1367/-143
    • Gender: Female
    Fr. Caldern Refutes Bishop Fellay
    « Reply #28 on: July 06, 2015, 06:22:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora
    Quote from: Centroamerica
    "a. De aquí que se consagran válidamente todas las hostias que se encuentran acuмuladas en el copón,"


    The idea is the same, "all of the hosts"... "all of the bread in the bakery"...there is no need to know how many there are, but the intention is part of the necessary element.  


    The quote that you have cited is not part of any quote or work of Fr. Calderón, and this needs to be clarified.

    Also, the work that you cited explains the intention of the formula is what is necessary, as I showed above.


    I quoted the source you gave: Summa Theologia Moralis De  Nolden Schmit and put the link to it. Because you mentioned Father Calderon, I understood the Summa quote came from him. I apologize if it was understood that my long post was written by Father Calderon. Still, it is an excellent informative source.

    I have no intention to post more on this subject. I still do not believe a whole bakery or celllar can be "consecrated". If I scandalized, I'm sorry.


    I RETRACT my apology. I cannot in good conscience let it go. I did it after receiving this:

    Quote from: PM (Name withheld)
    I must send you a message to let you know that you have scandalized several, including a priest of the resistance, with your attitude. I am not a theologian, and admit that I don't understand the subject very well, but I stand by what I wrote, and for obvious reasons. I just want to suggest that you take a different (perhaps humbler approach) to this topic. There seems to be a unanimous consent among all clergy that "all the bread in a bakery" could be consecrated with the intention and form being present, and not necessarily wine present. The clergy do not agree with your opinion, as for as I understand it, so I wouldn't want to push the issue. It isn't good.

    I hope you can understand.



    Quote
    Can.  927 It is absolutely forbidden, even in extreme urgent necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other or even both outside the eucharistic celebration.


     
    Canon 927 (1983) [817 (1917)] is an invalidating law.  This is evident for two reasons either one of which is sufficient to prove the point.  Firstly, the law admits no exception “even in extreme urgent necessity.”  The maxim is ‘necessity knows no law.’  If a law admits no exception “even in extreme urgent necessity,” it is necessarily an invalidating law.  Secondly, it is a matter of divine and Catholic faith, that is, a matter of defined dogma.  A sacrament is the form and matter by definition.  Without the form and the matter there is no sacrament for a thing cannot be and not be at the same time.  The matter for the Holy Eucharist is bread AND wine and we know this as a revealed truth of our faith.  Without the matter, there is no sacrament.  Therefore we know by divine and Catholic faith that Canon 927 is an invalidating law therefore, by the nature of the act itself or by the nature of the agent of the act itself renders the act always and everywhere invalid.

     
    Bishop Fellay does not believe in dogma.  In other exchanges we have seen how he professes that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church.  He believes that devout good willed Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Protestants, etc. are saved as Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Protestants, etc.  He believes that they are members of the Catholic Church even if they do not know it by virtue of ‘baptism of implicit desire.’  This is just another example of Bishop Fellay ignoring divinely revealed truth when it conflicts with his religious sentiments.
    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 PapalSupremacy

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 115
    • Reputation: +89/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Fr. Caldern Refutes Bishop Fellay
    « Reply #29 on: July 06, 2015, 10:49:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora
    Canon 927 (1983) [817 (1917)] is an invalidating law.  This is evident for two reasons either one of which is sufficient to prove the point.  Firstly, the law admits no exception “even in extreme urgent necessity.”  The maxim is ‘necessity knows no law.’  If a law admits no exception “even in extreme urgent necessity,” it is necessarily an invalidating law.  Secondly, it is a matter of divine and Catholic faith, that is, a matter of defined dogma.  A sacrament is the form and matter by definition.  Without the form and the matter there is no sacrament for a thing cannot be and not be at the same time.  The matter for the Holy Eucharist is bread AND wine and we know this as a revealed truth of our faith.  Without the matter, there is no sacrament.  Therefore we know by divine and Catholic faith that Canon 927 is an invalidating law therefore, by the nature of the act itself or by the nature of the agent of the act itself renders the act always and everywhere invalid.


    Your private opinion is not dogma. You have no way of proving that consecrating bread without wine, or wine without bread, is invalid. In fact, Centro gave you a quote from a pre-Conciliar theologian which says it would be valid.

    Here is that quote in its full context from the site you linked to, but failed to provide this:

    Quote
    103. De la consagración de una especie sin la otra. [On the consecration of one species without the other] Por motivo de esta declaración, deben ser explicados de antemano estos puntos. Por voluntad e institución de Cristo, no puede ser consagrado el sacramento de la Eucaristía sino durante el sacrificio eucarístico; pues Cristo quiso que sólo entonces se consagrase cuando se ofrece el sacrificio, y viceversa, que el sacrificio fuese ofrecido siempre que se haga la consagración. [By the will and institution of Christ, the sacrament of the Eucharist cannot be consecrated except during the eucharistic sacrifice; because Christ wished that one consecrates only when the sacrifice is offered, and vice versa, that the sacrifice was? offered always when the consecration is made] Por lo tanto, la razón de sacramento de la Eucaristía, por voluntad de Cristo, no puede ser separada de la razón de sacrificio, del mismo modo exactamente que, por voluntad del mismo Cristo Señor, la razón de sacramento para los fieles no puede ser separada de la razón de contrato matrimonial. Por lo tanto, cuantas veces se ofrece el sacrificio, por voluntad e institución de Cristo se requiere la consagración de ambas especies, pues Cristo en la última cena, consagrando ambas especies, mandó: Haced esto en conmemoración mía (1 Cor 11, 24 y 25; cf. cn.817 del Código anterior y 927 del actual). Luego manda a los apóstoles y a todos sus sucesores en el orden sacerdotal, que consagren bajo ambas especies. Es más, apenas no es cierto que la consagración bajo las dos especies se requiere para la misma esencia del sacrificio eucarístico, como se dirá abajo en el n.164.

    Luego la misma razón de sacrificio, no sólo el mandato de Cristo, exige la consagración de ambas especies. Pero la razón de sacramento en la Eucaristía no postula la consagración de ambas especies, pues el sacramento no es un signo que conmemora y representa el sacrificio de la cruz, signo que es un signo que representa y realiza la alimentación (la nutrición) del alma; es así que esto se obtiene una sola especie también, como dijo el Señor: el que come este pan, vivirá para siempre. Es más, la forma con la cual se consagra una especie significa y causa su efecto independientemente de la otra, por esto, el pan es consagrado válidamente antes de que se consagre el vino. Por lo cual, una especie sin la otra puede sin ninguna duda ser consagrada válidamente. Y si se consagra solamente una especie, ciertamente se ofrece el sacrificio, pero sólo incoado e imperfecto, que debe ser completado y perfeccionado por la consagración de la segunda especie. [Therefore, one species can without a doubt be validly consecrated without the other. And if only one species is consecrated, the sacrifice is certainly offered, but only inchoate and imperfect, which must be completed and perfected by the consecration of the second species.] Por lo tanto,

    1. Es válida la consagración de una especie sin la otra, si el sacerdote, por error o adrede, consagra solamente una especie, con tal que tenga la debida intención de consagrar. Así pues, si uno consagra una sola de las dos especies, sin la otra, realiza ciertamente el sacramento, pero no ofrece completo el sacrificio (cf. el Misal romano, De defectibus IV, 5.8) [This is the quote Centro gave, and which you did not refute: The consecration of one species without the other is valid, if the priest, by mistake or on purpose, consecrates only one species, provided that he has the proper intention of consecrating. So, if one consecrates only one of the two species, without the other, the sacrament certainly takes place, but he does not offer the complete sacrifice.]

    Hay algunos teólogos a los que no les parece totalmente cierta la consagración de una especie sin la otra, cuando el sacerdote intenta solamente consagrar una sola especie. Pero el valor de esta consagración no se puede dudar, ya se diga que para la consagración válida es suficiente que el ministro pronuncie la fórmula sobre la materia con intención de consagrar [There are some theologians for whom the consecration of one species without the other does not seem completely certain, when the priest intends to only consecrate one species. But the value of this consecration cannot be doubted, it is said that for a valid consecration it is sufficient that the minister pronounce the formula over the matter with the intention to consecrate], ya se diga que para la consagración válida se requiere intención de ofrecer el sacrificio, pues, quien intenta consagrar como consagró otras hostias, o como Cristo lo instituyó, tiene intención de sacrificar cuanto puede, es decir, tiene intención, al menos, de incoar el sacrificio.

    2. Pero por derecho divino y eclesiástico nunca es lícito consagrar una sola especie, ni por una gravísima causa [But by divine and ecclesiastical law it is never licit to consecrate only one species, not even for a grave cause], por ejemplo, para dar la comunión a un enfermo que, de lo contrario, moriría sin el viático (cn.817 del Código anterior y 927 del actual, en los cuales se dice: "Está prohibido terminantemente, aun en caso de extrema necesidad, consagrar una materia sin la otra; también ambas fuera de la celebración eucarística". Sin embargo, en cierto caso la Iglesia no sólo permite, sino que también ordena, la consagración de una sola especie, puesta ya la esencia del sacrificio por la consagración de ambas, es decir, si después de la consagración la santa sangre se derramase, de tal manera que nada permanezca, con lo cual pudiesen ponerse (realizarse) las ceremonias siguientes integrantes, en este caso, la Iglesia manda que se ponga al lado vino nuevo y que luego se consagre (Miss. rom de def. tit.10 n.13). Por lo tanto parece que la prohibición absoluta vale sólo para la consagración fuera de la misa, pero no antes de la comunión. Es más, tan grave les parece a los teólogos este precepto de consagrar ambas especies, que dicen que la Iglesia nunca en esta materia ni dispensó ni puede dispensar, porque ella no puede cambiar la naturaleza del sacrificio instituido por Cristo. [However, in one case the Church not only permits, but also orders, the consecration of only one species ... if after the consecration the Holy Blood is spilled, so that none is left ... in this case the Church commands that new wine is taken and then consecrated. Therefore, it seems that the absolute prohibition only applies for consecration outside of Mass, but not before communion. Indeed, the precept of consecrating both species seems so grave to theologians that they say the Church has never dispensed nor can dispense in this matter, because it cannot change the nature of the sacrifice instituted by Christ.]

    Si realizada la consagración, por razón de la materia nace la duda de la validez de la consagración de la otra especie, debe ser tomada la otra materia, la cual, absolutamente, pueda ser consagrada. Ciertamente, en absoluto, para que el sacerdote sepa qué hostia debe ser sumida antes de la sagrada sangre. Ni se diga que si la primera especie, de cuya válida consagración se duda, haya sido consagrada válidamente después, que con esta nueva y absoluta consagración se incoa un nuevo sacrificio que permanece incompleto contra un precepto divino. Porque esta nueva consagración, que es coherente con la primera con nexo necesario, no debe ser considerada como incoación de un sacrificio nuevo, sino como complemento del sacrificio ya realizado (cf. Missale rom., De defect. tit.3 n.6.7, tit.4 n.5).

    3. Accidentalmente, empero, a veces sucede que realmente es consagrada una especie sin la otra: a. si un peligro de muerte, por ejemplo, seas inminente, de repente, por un incendio o por ruina del templo; b. si el sacerdote descubre que en la consagración no se empleó vino y que allí ya no existe vino (no es encontrado vino); c. si el sacerdote hubiese consagrado agua en vez de vino y no advirtiese el defecto sino cuando ya se ha retirado del altar, ni ya no pudiese completar lo que falta sin escándalo o sin irreverencia; d. si el sacerdote muriese después de haber consagrado la hostia y no haya otro sacerdote que complete el sacrificio.


    According to this, it is possible to validly consecrate one species without the other, but it is not possible to consecrate outside the Mass.

    Quote
    Bishop Fellay does not believe in dogma.


    That is not true.

    Quote
    In other exchanges we have seen how he professes that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church.  He believes that devout good willed Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Protestants, etc. are saved as Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Protestants, etc. He believes that they are members of the Catholic Church even if they do not know it by virtue of ‘baptism of implicit desire.’  This is just another example of Bishop Fellay ignoring divinely revealed truth when it conflicts with his religious sentiments.


    First of all, explicit BOD is infallible Catholic doctrine and cannot be denied, and implicit BOD is also a doctrine taught by the Church.
    Bp. Fellay believes that some Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Protestants etc. can be in the Church through BOD, if they are in invincible ignorance. He is correct in the example of the Protestants, but in error in the example of the Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc., because those who explicity reject Christ or the Holy Trinity, or those who worship devils, cannot have the Catholic Faith, which is necessary for salvation. However, Bp. Fellay is not alone in this error, nor has it been invented by him, it has been advanced even by a few theologians. In fact, even Abp. Lefebvre believed this (e.g. he wrote about it in his "Letter to Confused Catholics")
    He that reigneth on high, to whom is given all power in heaven and earth, has committed One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation, to one alone upon earth, namely to Peter, the first of the apostles, and to Peter's