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.
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.
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?