Author Topic: Fr. Caldern Refutes Bishop Fellay (Read 20171 times)

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #15 on:** July 05, 2015, 05:43:07 AM »

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.----------

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.

PapalSupremacy · « **Reply #16 on:** July 05, 2015, 09:22:04 AM »

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.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #17 on:** July 05, 2015, 09:33:12 AM »

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."

cathman7 · « **Reply #18 on:** July 05, 2015, 10:48:41 AM »

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

PapalSupremacy · « **Reply #19 on:** July 05, 2015, 12:57:19 PM »

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.