Author Topic: Fr. Caldern Refutes Bishop Fellay (Read 22754 times)

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #55 on:** July 07, 2015, 07:26:11 PM »

Quote from: Tom

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)

Quote from: Reference provided by Tom

“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.”

The question at hand concerns the necessary dogmatically defined matter for a sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ. That is therefore a matter of Divine Law.

Just take Bishop Fellay with you and you can go to Dunkin Donuts for your next communion?

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #56 on:** July 08, 2015, 03:43:48 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

Such intention is clearly impossible with the bakery nonsense.

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.

Thank you.

PapalSupremacy · « **Reply #57 on:** July 08, 2015, 04:10:13 AM »

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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #58 on:** July 08, 2015, 05:01:19 AM »

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.

PapalSupremacy · « **Reply #59 on:** July 08, 2015, 06:03:46 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

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.

Well, if the example Fr. Ward gave was of a priest joking, then of course there was no consecration.

But in the example given by others - that of a priest mad at his bishop who to spite him and to cause trouble truly intends to consecrate all the bread or all the wine - than maybe there could be a valid consecration. And even if there wasn't, there is nothing wrong with erring on the side of caution.

Obviously if the bread is adulterated, there is no consecration. The example assumes that the bread found in the bakery is not adulterated (as was the case until a few decades ago).