Author Topic: Fr. Caldern Refutes Bishop Fellay (Read 20177 times)

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #65 on:** July 08, 2015, 01:47:35 PM »

Quote from: Tom

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora
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.”
[/s]

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?

Marie, your argument was bsed on a false understanding of what n invalidating law is. I've already provided you with an example of how one species is consecrated on its own on Good Friday.

GIRM, No. 324, in which for some reason the wine was not properly consecrated:

"If the priest notices after the consecration or as he receives Communion that not wine but only water was poured into the chalice, he pours the water into some container, then pours wine with water into the chalice and consecrates it. He says only the part of the institution narrative related to the consecration of the chalice, without being obliged to consecrate the bread again."

The same principle would be applied if, as has happened, a parishioner informs a priest after Mass that he forgot to consecrate the wine. This process is necessary in order for the sacrifice, and hence the Mass, to be complete.

De Defectibus is referring to the "celebrant" of the Holy Sacrifice being offered, not to the "consecrating" of an "entire wine cellar or bakery". The comparison is plain ridiculous.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #66 on:** July 08, 2015, 01:51:43 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from Fr. Garrigou Lagrange, one of the greatest Thomist theologians of the twentieth century:
Quote from: Fr. Garrigou Lagrange

"Una species valide consecratur sine altera, sed jure divino illicitum
est sic consecrare"(One species is validly consecrated without the other, but by divine law it is unlawful to do so.") Reginalidus Garrigou Lagrange OP, "Commentarius in Summam theologicam S. Thomae"

Will you presume to know more about theology than Fr. Garrigou Lagrange?

Carry on.

:scratchchin:

Tom · « **Reply #67 on:** July 08, 2015, 02:08:50 PM »

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

What exactly a juridic act is, is open to opinion. It is not defined in 1917 code of canon law or the 1983 edition even though the latter has a section on juridic acts. Suffice to say, a juridic act must have juridic effect and the juridic effect of denial of Catholic dogma is ipso facto excommunication. I just want you to understand that your belief that the only necessary matter for the sacrament of Holy Eucharist is either bread OR wine is in direct contradiction to Catholic dogma and has serious consequences.

Wow, you really are quite emotional and all I've done is quote the commentary from a book on canon law.

Not really, there is a general consensus and the commonly accepted one: "an externally manifested act of the will by which a certain juridic effect is intended."

The eucharist is not a juridic act and you won't find any source that states it is (and I think you know this). Have you actually thought about what you wrote: the will of celebrant must intend to 'excommunicate' himself... The mind boggles. Anyway, I notice you keep ignoring my Good Friday reference, I wonder why...

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

Whatever argument you are attempting to construct in this current post is not going to convince anyone. All it says is that if a priest fails to consecrate the wine he has to correct it. No surprise here. That is common knowledge among faithful Catholics. But you on the other hand, would be satisfied if he did not because you do not believe that the wine has to be consecrated at all for a valid sacrifice.

I thought it obvious, redistribution of communion is not required, because...

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #68 on:** July 08, 2015, 02:57:27 PM »

Quote from: Tom

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

What exactly a juridic act is, is open to opinion. It is not defined in 1917 code of canon law or the 1983 edition even though the latter has a section on juridic acts. Suffice to say, a juridic act must have juridic effect and the juridic effect of denial of Catholic dogma is ipso facto excommunication. I just want you to understand that your belief that the only necessary matter for the sacrament of Holy Eucharist is either bread OR wine is in direct contradiction to Catholic dogma and has serious consequences.

Wow, you really are quite emotional and all I've done is quote the commentary from a book on canon law.

Not really, there is a general consensus and the commonly accepted one: "an externally manifested act of the will by which a certain juridic effect is intended."

The eucharist is not a juridic act and you won't find any source that states it is (and I think you know this). Have you actually thought about what you wrote: the will of celebrant must intend to 'excommunicate' himself... The mind boggles. Anyway, I notice you keep ignoring my Good Friday reference, I wonder why...

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

Whatever argument you are attempting to construct in this current post is not going to convince anyone. All it says is that if a priest fails to consecrate the wine he has to correct it. No surprise here. That is common knowledge among faithful Catholics. But you on the other hand, would be satisfied if he did not because you do not believe that the wine has to be consecrated at all for a valid sacrifice.

I thought it obvious, redistribution of communion is not required, because...

The term “juridic act” is not defined in the 1917 code of canon law or in the 1983 code even though the 1983 code has a section on juridic acts which was not in the 1917 code. The term is not defined in canonical dictionaries. The term was adopted by canonists after being used in secular commentaries on Roman law in 19th century, and canonists have used the term differently. Thus it is a relatively new term in canon law. Canonists that I have researched have given several different definitions, some broad and some narrow in scope. Being that that there is no fixed canonical definition, I am at liberty to use the term in a broad or narrow sense. The only definition that seems to be generally agreed upon is that it is any act that produces a juridic effect, that is, any judicial effect under the law. Canon 927 concerns divine law, a juridic act by God which unconditionally forbids a specific act under any circuмstances whatsoever. So what is the juridic effect? Since the law permits no exception under any circuмstances whatsoever then the law can only be an invalidating law which is a juridic effect. It can only be an invalidating law because all laws, human and divine, do not bind in cases of impossibility or necessity.

If you have an argument. Structure it as an argument.

By the way heresy is a canonical crime, thus a juridic act and the juridic effect of heresy is ipso facto excommunication. It is a dogma of divine and Catholic faith that the matter for Holy Eucharist is bread AND wine, not as you believe, bread OR wine.

Would you produce some commentary doctrinal, moral, liturgical or canonical on possible defects in consecrating bakeries.

PapalSupremacy · « **Reply #69 on:** July 08, 2015, 05:40:44 PM »

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

By the way heresy is a canonical crime, thus a juridic act and the juridic effect of heresy is ipso facto excommunication. It is a dogma of divine and Catholic faith that the matter for Holy Eucharist is bread AND wine, not as you believe, bread OR wine.

This is beyond ridiculous. Not only is she falsely and rashly accusing other members of this forum of heresy, but she is now also effectively accusing all three quoted eminent theologians, as well as others who wrote the same, of heresy as well.

She has shown herself to be obstinate in refusing to accept the teaching of approved theologians and continuing to push her personal views, to the point of excommunicating everyone who disagrees with her.

Since there is no "Report" button, I call for administrative action.