Author Topic: Fr. Caldern Refutes Bishop Fellay (Read 18891 times)

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #30 on:** July 07, 2015, 06:46:28 AM »

First of all, any BOD discussion will have to go to the proper section.

I will work on a full reply as soon as I have an entire translation of 103, 111-113.

111-112 On conditions for a valid consecration.
113- On conditions for a licit consecration.
103- Consecration of one specie without the other.

This assumes the conditions for valid or licit are met. Your 1/2 translation is disingenuous. In fact, a whole translation would settle the question.

The SSPX defends the validity of the "consecration" of a whole bakery/wine cellar and apparently has been the teaching at their seminaries, which could not possibly be valid!

AJNC · « **Reply #31 on:** July 07, 2015, 07:15:15 AM »

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

First of all, any BOD discussion will have to go to the proper section.

I will work on a full reply as soon as I have an entire translation of 103, 111-113.

111-112 On conditions for a valid consecration.
113- On conditions for a licit consecration.
103- Consecration of one specie without the other.

This assumes the conditions for valid or licit are met. Your 1/2 translation is disingenuous. In fact, a whole translation would settle the question.

The SSPX defends the validity of the "consecration" of a whole bakery/wine cellar and apparently has been the teaching at their seminaries, which could not possibly be valid!

The celebrant must intend to do what the Church does. The Church has never intended to consecrate all the bread in a bakery. Likewise, some of us have discussed whether a priest actually confects at a Black Mass since his intent is to have a host to be used in demonic worship - something the Church can never intend.

PapalSupremacy · « **Reply #32 on:** July 07, 2015, 09:21:36 AM »

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

First of all, any BOD discussion will have to go to the proper section.

I will work on a full reply as soon as I have an entire translation of 103, 111-113.

111-112 On conditions for a valid consecration.
113- On conditions for a licit consecration.
103- Consecration of one specie without the other.

This assumes the conditions for valid or licit are met. Your 1/2 translation is disingenuous. In fact, a whole translation would settle the question.

The SSPX defends the validity of the "consecration" of a whole bakery/wine cellar and apparently has been the teaching at their seminaries, which could not possibly be valid!

You don't even know what it says yet, and yet you call my translation "disingenuous". I am just an amateur when it comes to Spanish, but I did my best and I am sure my translation was accurate (except the one word I put a "?" next to). When you receive the translation of 103 you are waiting for, I will expect a public apology for that rash accusation against my character.

If the SSPX theologians have been in error regarding the validity of consecration outside of Mass, then it is merely a small error on a matter of speculative theology which perhaps not even all theologians agree on. I am sure there are more important and serious errors you could focus on.

P.S. I have no wish to discuss BOD with you. I was just replying to your accusation.

PapalSupremacy · « **Reply #33 on:** July 07, 2015, 09:25:02 AM »

Quote from: AJNC

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora
First of all, any BOD discussion will have to go to the proper section.

I will work on a full reply as soon as I have an entire translation of 103, 111-113.

111-112 On conditions for a valid consecration.
113- On conditions for a licit consecration.
103- Consecration of one specie without the other.

This assumes the conditions for valid or licit are met. Your 1/2 translation is disingenuous. In fact, a whole translation would settle the question.

The SSPX defends the validity of the "consecration" of a whole bakery/wine cellar and apparently has been the teaching at their seminaries, which could not possibly be valid!

The celebrant must intend to do what the Church does. The Church has never intended to consecrate all the bread in a bakery. Likewise, some of us have discussed whether a priest actually confects at a Black Mass since his intent is to have a host to be used in demonic worship - something the Church can never intend.

If that's what you want to believe, I can't stop you. But I recommend reading a theology book first.

Stubborn · « **Reply #34 on:** July 07, 2015, 09:41:19 AM »

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

First of all, any BOD discussion will have to go to the proper section.

I will work on a full reply as soon as I have an entire translation of 103, 111-113.

111-112 On conditions for a valid consecration.
113- On conditions for a licit consecration.
103- Consecration of one specie without the other.

This assumes the conditions for valid or licit are met. Your 1/2 translation is disingenuous. In fact, a whole translation would settle the question.

The SSPX defends the validity of the "consecration" of a whole bakery/wine cellar and apparently has been the teaching at their seminaries, which could not possibly be valid!

I do not think that in this case, the SSPX defends the validity. Validity is, at best, doubtful - but because under the circuмstances, validity is impossible to know for sure, they are taking the precaution of collecting all the bread *in case* it was valid.

The story Fr. Ward was told by his seminary professor he believed to be a true story, was about a newly ordained priest who was fooling around and said the words of consecration while at the bakery. Fr. Ward never mentioned anything about wine.

The conversation I mentioned with Fr. Ward started because they were discussing the validity of NO consecrations - that's when he spoke about there being no way of knowing for sure about the validity and used his seminary professor's story as an example.

Tom · « **Reply #35 on:** July 07, 2015, 11:00:41 AM »

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

Canon 927 (1983) [817 (1917)] is an invalidating law.

No it isn't. Invalidating laws apply solely to juridic acts. Unlike, say, baptism the Eucharist is not a juridic act.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #36 on:** July 07, 2015, 11:17:29 AM »

The sacraments were instituted by Jesus Christ. There are seven of them and no more. Each sacrament has a form and matter. The form and the matter is the sacrament by definition. The form the Holy Eucharist are the words of Christ and the matter is bread AND wine. This truth is of divine and Catholic faith even if you do not believe it. It is your theology that believes that the pope can do whatever he wants regarding the sacramental form and matter, and regard the rite of the sacrament as accidental and entirely immaterial to the validity of the sacrament that is entirely responsible for the Novus Ordo corruption in Catholic faith and the corruption of Catholic morals that flow from the corruption of faith. God said that, “He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Matt 5:19. It should be a warning to all that the commentary on this scripture quotation referenced in Lapide’s Great Commentary says that to be “least in the kingdom of heaven” means they will not inherit the kingdom of heaven at all.

PapalSupremacy, Your private opinion is not dogma. You have no way of proving that consecrating bread without wine, or wine without bread, is valid.

Your protest that I cannot prove that there is no consecration would be laughable if the subject matter was not so serious. You cannot prove that there is a consecration. As St. Thomas says the senses are deceived, all we rely upon is the divinely revealed truth. That is the ground of my faith but is it not the ground for yours or Bishop Fellay’s. I quote to you DOGMA you reply with drivel.

I have attended from time to time when necessary, indult Masses. It is instruction to see that the majority of the faithful in attendance will invariably enter the communion line to receive from the ciborium that was consecrated at that Latin Mass and avoid the line from which communion is distributed from a ciborium taken from the tabernacle. These Catholics have at least a correct sense of the necessity of the proper form, matter, intention, and rite that you seem ignorant or indifferent about.

Tom · « **Reply #37 on:** July 07, 2015, 12:01:12 PM »

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

The form the Holy Eucharist are the words of Christ and the matter is bread AND wine.

During the Middle Ages, in England (possibly elsewhere), Fr. Adrian Fortescue writes:
So also on Good Friday they insist that the wine is not consecrated, that the priest should not say : " Haec commixtio et consecratio etc."

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #38 on:** July 07, 2015, 12:01:36 PM »

The sacraments were instituted by Jesus Christ. There are seven of them and no more. Each sacrament has a form and matter. The form and the matter is the sacrament by definition. The form the Holy Eucharist are the words of Christ and the matter is bread AND wine. This truth is of divine and Catholic faith even if you do not believe it. It is your theology that believes that the pope can do whatever he wants regarding the sacramental form and matter, and regard the rite of the sacrament as accidental and entirely immaterial to the validity of the sacrament that is entirely responsible for the Novus Ordo corruption in Catholic faith and the corruption of Catholic morals that flow from the corruption of faith. God said that, “He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Matt 5:19. It should be a warning to all that the commentary on this scripture quotation referenced in Lapide’s Great Commentary says that to be “least in the kingdom of heaven” means they will not inherit the kingdom of heaven at all.

Quote from: PapalSupremacy

Your private opinion is not dogma. You have no way of proving that consecrating bread without wine, or wine without bread, is invalid.

Your protest that I cannot prove that there is no consecration would be laughable if the subject matter was not so serious. You cannot prove that there is a consecration. As St. Thomas says the senses are deceived, all we rely upon is the divinely revealed truth. That is the ground of my faith but is it not the ground for yours or Bishop Fellay’s. I quote to you DOGMA you reply with drivel.

I have attended from time to time when necessary, indult Masses. It is instruction to see that the majority of the faithful in attendance will invariably enter the communion line to receive from the ciborium that was consecrated at that Latin Mass and avoid the line from which communion is distributed from a ciborium taken from the tabernacle. These Catholics have at least a correct sense of the necessity of the proper form, matter, intention, and rite that you seem ignorant or indifferent about.

Stubborn · « **Reply #39 on:** July 07, 2015, 12:24:08 PM »

6. Taking up now the question of the validity of the Sacrament:
According to the theology of the True Mass, the presence of Christ corporeally is absolutely necessary, in order that under the species of bread and wine His Body and Blood might be offered in expiation for sin, and the Eucharist might be received as nourishment for the soul.

And, in case there is the need for a reminder: the mystery of transubstantiation does not occur accidentally, as a matter of course, or because it is generally assumed; it must be fully intended, by one who has the power to effect it; and that which Christ and His Church have stipulated must be done, or nothing happens. In the New Rite, it is a matter of little consequence whether transubstantiation takes place at all. Proof of this contention is to be found in the following facts:....... - Fr. Wathen

Centroamerica · « **Reply #40 on:** July 07, 2015, 12:39:08 PM »

A quote from the famous Spanish theologian, Fr. Antonio Royo Marín O.P., Teología Moral para Seglares, (classic, famous pre-conciliar text), Tomo II, no. 81, 1st:

Quote from: Fr. antonio Royo Marín O.P.

The consecration of both species (bread and wine),during the sacrifice of the Mass, is required for the lawfulness of the Eucharistic consecration by Divine Law and by ecclesiastical law, the observance of the established rites and ceremonies by the Church.

(...)
By Divine Law, the consecration of both species is required during the sacrifice of Mass.

This is a very serious condition and a failure to fulfill this is a horrendous sacrilege, of the most serious that could be committed. (...) This condition, because it is from Divine Law, cannot be dispensed of by anyone- not even the Pope- not even in cases of extreme or urgent necessity. (cf. cn. 817).
Moreover, the consecration of one matter without the other is valid (...) even if it is done voluntarily and intentionally. Because, in all of the sacraments, when the form of the words of consecration are pronounced on the matter, the sacrament takes place ipso facto (...) It is not even worth arguing if the minister that knowingly intends to consecrate only one species has the intention of offering the Eucharistic sacrifice (...) and, therefore, [if] he doesn't consecrate only the one species (...).

Corollary. Then the consecration of all the bread in a bakery would be a horrendous sacrilege, but it would be valid.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #41 on:** July 07, 2015, 12:42:47 PM »

Quote from: Tom

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora
The form the Holy Eucharist are the words of Christ and the matter is bread AND wine.

During the Middle Ages, in England (possibly elsewhere), Fr. Adrian Fortescue writes:
So also on Good Friday they insist that the wine is not consecrated, that the priest should not say : " Haec commixtio et consecratio etc."

In the traditional Latin Mass there is no consecration at all on Good Friday because they offer the Mass of the Pre-sanctified.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #42 on:** July 07, 2015, 12:50:29 PM »

Quote from: Tom

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

Canon 927 (1983) [817 (1917)] is an invalidating law.

No it isn't. Invalidating laws apply solely to juridic acts. Unlike, say, baptism the Eucharist is not a juridic act.

Juridic acts change the judicial status of the recipient within the Church. An invalidating act is any act that by the nature of the act itself or the actor is intrinsically invalid and can never be valid regardless of circuмstances. The issues are not necessarily related. The canon in question does not permit any exception under any circuмstances whatsoever. This fact is characteristic of invalidation laws only. Any other law, precept, command, injunction, etc., human or divine, does not bind in cases of impossibility or necessity.

Again, we know by divine and Catholic faith that the matter for the Holy Eucharist is bread AND wine. It is not bread OR wine. Our belief in the True Presence is grounded in divine revelation. Any belief in the True Presence that is divorced from divine revelation is superstition. Those who believe that a priest can simply walk into a bakery and say ‘this is my body’ and thereby transubstantiate all the bread in the bakery are simply superstitious. Our faith is not grounded in superstition.

PapalSupremacy · « **Reply #43 on:** July 07, 2015, 01:39:54 PM »

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

The form the Holy Eucharist are the words of Christ and the matter is bread AND wine. This truth is of divine and Catholic faith even if you do not believe it.

Of course I believe it. I see you like to throw very serious accusations around lightly.

Quote

It is your theology that believes that the pope can do whatever he wants regarding the sacramental form and matter, and regard the rite of the sacrament as accidental and entirely immaterial to the validity of the sacrament...

So now you are going to tell me what I believe? I see you've already done it twice in this comment alone.
Naturally, I don't believe anything of which you've accused me here.

Quote

As St. Thomas says the senses are deceived, all we rely upon is the divinely revealed truth. That is the ground of my faith but is it not the ground for yours or Bishop Fellay’s. I quote to you DOGMA you reply with drivel.

Will your rash accusations never cease?

Also, an eminent theological manual is not drivel.

Quote

These Catholics have at least a correct sense of the necessity of the proper form, matter, intention, and rite that you seem ignorant or indifferent about.

To answer my own question above, obviously not.

You have been presented with quotes from two theological manuals approved by the Church and written by eminent theologians, which refute your position. There is no more to be said, except an apology on your part to all those you have falsely accused. I can hope for it because I know God can melt even the hardest of hearts.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #44 on:** July 07, 2015, 01:47:31 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

A quote from the famous Spanish theologian, Fr. Antonio Royo Marín O.P., Teología Moral para Seglares, (classic, famous pre-conciliar text), Tomo II, no. 81, 1st:
Quote from: Fr. antonio Royo Marín O.P.

The consecration of both species (bread and wine),during the sacrifice of the Mass, is required for the lawfulness of the Eucharistic consecration by Divine Law and by ecclesiastical law, the observance of the established rites and ceremonies by the Church.

(...)
By Divine Law, the consecration of both species is required during the sacrifice of Mass.

This is a very serious condition and a failure to fulfill this is a horrendous sacrilege, of the most serious that could be committed. (...) This condition, because it is from Divine Law, cannot be dispensed of by anyone- not even the Pope- not even in cases of extreme or urgent necessity. (cf. cn. 817).
Moreover, the consecration of one matter without the other is valid (...) even if it is done voluntarily and intentionally. Because, in all of the sacraments, when the form of the words of consecration are pronounced on the matter, the sacrament takes place ipso facto (...) It is not even worth arguing if the minister that knowingly intends to consecrate only one species has the intention of offering the Eucharistic sacrifice (...) and, therefore, [if] he doesn't consecrate only the one species (...).

Corollary. Then the consecration of all the bread in a bakery would be a horrendous sacrilege, but it would be valid.

You are quoting from a priest who cannot draw proper conclusions from his own evidence. Did you stop to consider why Fr. Marin has no history of doing anything to oppose the Novus Ordo revolution in the Church? He died in 2005.

Fr. Marin confirms the fact that bread AND wine is the necessary matter of the sacrament. He confirms that this matter is required by both Divine and Ecclesiastical Law. He also confirms that this Divine Law permits no exceptions of any kind under any circuмstances WHATSOEVER. Any and every law, command, precept, injunction, etc., whether Divine or Ecclesiastical, does not bind in cases of impossibility or necessity except invalidating laws.

Fr. Marin did not oppose the Novus Ordo corruption because his theology is part of Novus Ordo problem.