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.

Such intention is clearly impossible with the bakery nonsense.

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

Quote from: Tom

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

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.

Marie, with all respect you don't understand what an invalidating law is. Can I ask that you go and read Canon 10 of the 1983 code.

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.

Can. 10 Only those laws must be considered invalidating or disqualifying which expressly establish that an act is null or that a person is effected.

I am familiar with Canon 10. The operative word is "must." It does not say that every invalidating laws is always "expressly established." It only says that those that are "expressly established" "must" always be considered as "invalidating."

An invalidating law is a law that concerns a prohibited act that is invalid always and everywhere because of the nature of the act or the nature of the actor. This is not an argument. It is a definition which I have repeated several times. If you think that this definition is improper, than you must explain why and produce supporting evidence.

It is also a fact that any Divine or Ecclesiastical Laws, precepts, commands, injunctions, etc. do not bind in cases of necessity or impossibility. This is again not an opinion or argument, but a fact of law. The highest law of the Church is the salvation of souls and any law that conflicts with the salvation of souls is necessarily suspended.

It is again a fact that the canon in question admits of no exception under any kind of circuмstances, or any conditions, or of any kind of necessity whatsoever. This fact is only possible if the act itself is necessarily invalid or if the person doing the act cannot by his very nature do the act validly. Not even for the salvation of souls can this law be suspended. If the highest law in Church cannot suspend this law than this law must necessarily be an invalidating law.

The consequences of Bishop Fellay’s sacramental theology is what makes the Novus Ordo possible. If a priest can walk into a bakery and simply say, ‘this is my body’, or a wine cellar and say, ‘this is my blood’, and thereby validly consecrate then the necessary matter of the sacrament becomes bread OR wine and the dogmatic canon is wrong. If the same thing can be done without the liturgical rite then the Mass is reduced to an accidental disciplinary matter that is open to the free and independent will of the legislator to do with as he pleases. The theology expressed in the Mass becomes a matter of indifference unrelated to the sacrament. Then the dogmatic canons on the ‘received and approved’ immemorial rite of Mass are wrong and the reason given for the invalidity of Anglican orders is wrong. This is the Bugnini formula for liturgical and sacramental destruction. It is an utterly false theology that ultimately holds the dogmatic canons of our faith in complete contempt.

Dogma is the formal object of divine and Catholic faith. It represents the direct divine revelation. Dogma is the limit of theological speculation. When dogma is treated merely as a human axiom that provides guidelines for launching theological daydreams you end up with this nonsense of Bishop Fellay.

Why should Bishop Fellay stop at a single bakery or a lone wine cellar. According to his theology a priest wishing the salvation of souls could consecrate all the bread in the world and everyone could have daily communion with an Egg McMuffin. He could consecrate all the wine in the world and every bum wine drunkard would be receiving the sacrament with every swig. How could anyone be so obtuse to the sacramental intention? Remember, it is Jesus Christ who does the consecration through the intermediary of the priest. The priest must enter into the intent of Jesus Christ which is not simply to produce His sacramental presence but to separate His body and blood in a sacrificial oblation the His eternal Father.

The intention that the priest must have is to do what the Church does. The Church's intention is the same intention of Christ and since Christ is the person doing the consecration through the ministration of the priest, he must have the same intention of Christ to offer the Body and Blood separate from each other as a victim of propitiation offered to the eternal Father.

Such intention is clearly impossible with the bakery nonsense.

No you are not. I suggest you go here and try to understand the commentary: Canon 10

“A law is implicitly invalidating or disqualifying when it has no explicit reference to validity or capability.  However, an invalidating or disqualifying intent can be demonstrated from the text and context of the law, parallel places in the law, the purpose and circuмstances of the law, the mind of the legislator and/or reference to the canonical tradition.”

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

This reference provided by you supports exactly what I have said.  It confirms my understanding that Canon 10 simply says that all laws that are clearly stated to by invalidating laws “must” always be treated as invalidating laws.  Your reference makes it clear that there exists invalidating laws that are not referred to specifically but only “implicitly” as invalidating laws.  The fact that a law is an invalidating law can be proven in the manner that I have done so.  

If this is the best you can do please do not waste my time.

Marie, you seem to be struggling. The very first paragraph provides a definition of an invalidating law:

Invalidating laws (leges irritantes) establish the necessary requirements of a juridic act, such that their non-fulfillment would render the act invalid, null and void, not recognized as legally existing.

(p.s.. To give you a hint I've underlined part of it)

“Canon 10 refers only to the ecclesiastical law, not to requirements for requirements for validity that are of the divine law. Sometimes the canons give divine law requirements for validity without any express mention of this, while at other times the canons expressly mention that a requirement of the divine law is for validity or capability.”

De Defectibus agrees.

VII - Defect of intention

23. The intention of consecrating is required. Therefore there is no consecration in the following cases: when a priest does not intend to consecrate but only to make a pretense;.....

Granted, De Defectibus is speaking about defects that could occur in the celebration of the Mass, but I gotta agree with Marie Auxiliadora. There is a whole laundry list agreeing with Marie Auxiliadora in that link.

Per De Defectibus, I fail to see how the heck +Fellay, Fr. Ward or anyone can think transubstantiation could have happened under such dubious circuмstances.

 

Quote from: PapalSupremacy

Quote from: Stubborn

De Defectibus agrees.

VII - Defect of intention

23. The intention of consecrating is required. Therefore there is no consecration in the following cases: when a priest does not intend to consecrate but only to make a pretense;.....

Granted, De Defectibus is speaking about defects that could occur in the celebration of the Mass, but I gotta agree with Marie Auxiliadora. There is a whole laundry list agreeing with Marie Auxiliadora in that link.

Per De Defectibus, I fail to see how the heck +Fellay, Fr. Ward or anyone can think transubstantiation could have happened under such dubious circuмstances.

 

First of all, the example of the priest in the bakery does not involve pretense (like e.g. an actor mocking the sacrament), it involves the priest truly intending to consecrate out of spite, anger or some other reason.

Secondly, not all defects listed in De defectibus are invalidating, as it says in Art 1: "There are other defects, however, which may involve sin or scandal, even if they do not impair the validity of the Sacrament."
For some examples, see Art. 31, all of which refers to valid but gravely illicit acts.

The example Fr. Ward gave was of a newly ordained priest standing outside the bakery with 3 other newly ordained priests, one of them jokingly said the words of consecration while looking at the cakes on display in the window.

Hard to believe anyone, especially a newly ordained priest, would ever do something so stupid to begin with, but that priest said it as a joke. Per De defectibus, no way was there any possibility of consecrating everything in the bakery.

Now I am no baker, but I am pretty confident that there are a lot of other non-wheat ingredients like salt and sugar in all the baked goods in a bakery, which in and of itself adulterates the "matter", per De defectibus........."3. If the bread is not made of wheat flour, or if so much other grain is mixed with the wheat that it is no longer wheat bread, or if it is adulterated in some other way, there is no Sacrament."

So if the story about a priest joking, or about a priest mad at his bishop is even true at all, then per Per De defectibus, the defect of matter dictates that no consecration took place.