Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Centroamerica on July 03, 2015, 03:54:47 PM
-
brasildogmadafe.blogspot.com.br/2015/07/fr-calderon-refutes-bishop-fellay.html
Fr Alvaro Calderon, professor of philosophy and dogmatic theology at the seminary of the SSPX in Buenos Aires and author of several texts of extraordinary quality, such as "La Lámpara Bajo el Celemín"(The lamp Under the Bushel) and "Prometheus, the Religion of Man", has published a study in the journal "Si, Si,No,No" No. 267, November 2014, which is entitled "Are the Episcopal Consecrations Reformed by Paul VI Valid?". Although the main purpose of the article is to respond to the objections of the sedevacantist sectors that oppose the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration, in this study by Fr. Calderón some seriously erroneous statements made by Bishop Fellay in his never retracted "Doctrinal Declaration" of October 2012 are refuted from the point of view of sacramental theology.
Bishop Fellay said in No. 7 of the Doctrinal Declaration: "We declare that we recognize the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II."
Consequently, the Superior General:
a) recognizes the validity of all the sacraments reformed by the modernists, provided that they are held with the intention due. There are three components to consider in judging the validity of the sacraments: matter, form and intention of a true minister. Bishop Fellay does not object to anything regarding the matter, nor regarding the form of the Novus Ordo Sacraments, and refers only to the requirement of the necessary intent of the celebrant. However, in the seminaries of the SSPX it has always been taught that there are serious doubts about the validity of various reformed sacraments, due to the changes introduced by the modernists as to the matter, form, or intention. That's why the sound custom of conditionally confirming those confirmed in the Novus Ordo and of conditionally ordaining those priests ordained according to the rite of Paul VI has always existed in the Society. Extreme Unction was always considered as very likely invalid, etc.
b) He states that these sacraments were legitimately promulgated, an ambiguous expression (Does he say that the Sacraments are legitimate or is it only the act of promulgating these that is legitimate?) that has been interpreted by the majority of Catholics as nothing more than an acceptance of the legitimacy of the Sacraments of the Novus Ordo. For the concept of "legitimacy", see here.
Well, Fr. Calderon says differently: The rite of episcopal consecration (which is a Sacrament) is "certainly illegitimate" and "probably valid" (noting that "there is no certainty of its validity").
Here are the essential quotes (bold and italics in original):
"The new rite is certainly illegitimate.
The new rite that Paul VI intended to promulgate by his apostolic constitution Pontificalis Romani is certainly illegitimate by the accuмulation of two reasons: firstly, because no pope has authority to destroy the Roman liturgical tradition and much less so to invent a rite that is in rupture with the whole of Catholic tradition; secondly, because the contamination with modernist doctrines causes harm to the faith, and a decision contrary to the common good of the Church cannot have the force of law.
(...)
Because of all this, even though the rite, considered as such, were totally orthodox and a better expression of the doctrine of the episcopate, it would not be legitimate, because no pope has the authority to break the liturgical tradition of the Church. The invention of a new rite is an act which is certainly illegitimate, even if he is a pope or an angel from heaven who intends to establish it.
(...)
(...) And the Society is obligated to declare the illegitimacy of the Novus Ordo Missae, because of the doctrines of the Paschal Mystery that inspire it (...), so we must also recognize that the Novus Ordo episcopal consecration is certainly illegitimate.
The new rite is probably valid.
A sacramental rite can be certainly illegitimate, but that does not necessarily invalidate it.
(...)
If we consider the matter, form and intention of the new rite of episcopal consecration in the context of the rite and the circuмstances of their institution, we think it is most likely valid (...)
But we also believe that there is no certainty of its validity (...)
(...)
Now, in a matter of utmost importance for the life of the Church, such as the validity of the episcopate, it is necessary to be absolutely certain. Therefore, to accept in good conscience this rite, it would be necessary to not only rely on the judgment of theologians, but on the infallible judgment of the Magisterium.
As for the practical attitude to maintain in light of the new episcopal consecrations, it seems justified that which until now had been held by the Society: (Note the past tense, "had been held" NON POSSUMUS.)
(...)
(...) the positive and objective defects that this rite suffers, which prevent having certainty of its validity, we feel that (...) they justify and necessitate the conditional ordination of priests consecrated by new bishops and, if necessary, the conditional consecration of these bishops. Such doubts in the very root of the sacraments cannot be tolerated."
brasildogmadafe.blogspot.com.br/2015/07/fr-calderon-refutes-bishop-fellay.html
-
In the first minute of this video (2009) you can see the extent of +Fellay's sacramental theology. ABL should have tested him before making him a bishop, or even a priest. With what he believes, he could not possibly object to the N.O. Mass. He must think the words of consecration are magic words. Listen carefully to the first minute. It is truly an embarrassment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyKg24qQlgk
This video is divided in many 15 min. sections.
-
Please note the change to this text:
Well, Fr. Calderon says differently: The rite of episcopal consecration (which is the plenitude of the sacramental character of Holy Orders) is "certainly illegitimate" and "probably valid" (noting that "there is no certainty of its validity").
-
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.
-
In the first minute of this video (2009) you can see the extent of +Fellay's sacramental theology. ABL should have tested him before making him a bishop, or even a priest. With what he believes, he could not possibly object to the N.O. Mass. He must think the words of consecration are magic words. Listen carefully to the first minute. It is truly an embarrassment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyKg24qQlgk
This video is divided in many 15 min. sections.
Actually, what +Fellay said is not new, I remember not long after Fr. Anthony Ward was ordained that he told a similar story that +Fellay tells in the opening minute of that video - that was back in 1972 or so. Fr. said he learned it from his seminary professor, which is probably the same story all the seminarians were taught back then.
The jist was, to err on the side of caution, validity was presumed.
-
The idea that simply because the council happened and exists, in no way confirms its legitimacy or validity.
That is the thinking of a non-thinker. It is likely to be the source of the SSPX prudential theology.
-
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
edit:
My mistake, this only deals with validity. The question of illicitness is not mentioned.
-
In the first minute of this video (2009) you can see the extent of +Fellay's sacramental theology. ABL should have tested him before making him a bishop, or even a priest. With what he believes, he could not possibly object to the N.O. Mass. He must think the words of consecration are magic words. Listen carefully to the first minute. It is truly an embarrassment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyKg24qQlgk
This video is divided in many 15 min. sections.
Actually, what +Fellay said is not new, I remember not long after Fr. Anthony Ward was ordained that he told a similar story that +Fellay tells in the opening minute of that video - that was back in 1972 or so. Fr. said he learned it from his seminary professor, which is probably the same story all the seminarians were taught back then.
The jist was, to err on the side of caution, validity was presumed.
To think that a priest, with the wrong intention (mad at his bishop), most likely the wrong form and matter can "consecrate all the bread in the bakery" or "all the wine in the cellar", outside of the Sacrifice of the Mass, is simply madness. An SSPX seminary professor told me once that ABL ordained the first few priests before they had finished the training because he wanted to send them out. They were supposed to come back to finish but never did. Is that true? Did these first priests become teachers later without finishing their own training? I'm asking.
-
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.
-
In the first minute of this video (2009) you can see the extent of +Fellay's sacramental theology. ABL should have tested him before making him a bishop, or even a priest. With what he believes, he could not possibly object to the N.O. Mass. He must think the words of consecration are magic words. Listen carefully to the first minute. It is truly an embarrassment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyKg24qQlgk
This video is divided in many 15 min. sections.
Actually, what +Fellay said is not new, I remember not long after Fr. Anthony Ward was ordained that he told a similar story that +Fellay tells in the opening minute of that video - that was back in 1972 or so. Fr. said he learned it from his seminary professor, which is probably the same story all the seminarians were taught back then.
The jist was, to err on the side of caution, validity was presumed.
To think that a priest, with the wrong intention (mad at his bishop), most likely the wrong form and matter can "consecrate all the bread in the bakery" or "all the wine in the cellar", outside of the Sacrifice of the Mass, is simply madness.
Leavened wheat bread is still valid matter, and so is any wine without added sugar or other additives. The valid form we all know, and the valid intention of doing what the Church does, theologians say, is very easy to have.
So yes, a priest who wanted to spite his bishop would be able to consecrate a whole bakery, or even a whole wine cellar (it would be a sacrilege), and if externally he followed the form, validity indeed would be presumed for obvious reasons (erring on the side of caution).
-
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?
-
In the first minute of this video (2009) you can see the extent of +Fellay's sacramental theology. ABL should have tested him before making him a bishop, or even a priest. With what he believes, he could not possibly object to the N.O. Mass. He must think the words of consecration are magic words. Listen carefully to the first minute. It is truly an embarrassment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyKg24qQlgk
This video is divided in many 15 min. sections.
Actually, what +Fellay said is not new, I remember not long after Fr. Anthony Ward was ordained that he told a similar story that +Fellay tells in the opening minute of that video - that was back in 1972 or so. Fr. said he learned it from his seminary professor, which is probably the same story all the seminarians were taught back then.
The jist was, to err on the side of caution, validity was presumed.
To think that a priest, with the wrong intention (mad at his bishop), most likely the wrong form and matter can "consecrate all the bread in the bakery" or "all the wine in the cellar", outside of the Sacrifice of the Mass, is simply madness.
Leavened wheat bread is still valid matter, and so is any wine without added sugar or other additives. The valid form we all know, and the valid intention of doing what the Church does, theologians say, is very easy to have.
So yes, a priest who wanted to spite his bishop would be able to consecrate a whole bakery, or even a whole wine cellar (it would be a sacrilege), and if externally he followed the form, validity indeed would be presumed for obvious reasons (erring on the side of caution).
Without the sacrifice there is no consecration. 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. 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. Not even divine law binds in cases of impossibility. The only reason canon law can permit no exception whatsoever is because it is impossible to do. 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. It is an ignorance so profound that it is frightening to know that he was negotiating with Rome on behalf of traditional Catholics.
-
In the first minute of this video (2009) you can see the extent of +Fellay's sacramental theology. ABL should have tested him before making him a bishop, or even a priest. With what he believes, he could not possibly object to the N.O. Mass. He must think the words of consecration are magic words. Listen carefully to the first minute. It is truly an embarrassment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyKg24qQlgk
This video is divided in many 15 min. sections.
Actually, what +Fellay said is not new, I remember not long after Fr. Anthony Ward was ordained that he told a similar story that +Fellay tells in the opening minute of that video - that was back in 1972 or so. Fr. said he learned it from his seminary professor, which is probably the same story all the seminarians were taught back then.
The jist was, to err on the side of caution, validity was presumed.
To think that a priest, with the wrong intention (mad at his bishop), most likely the wrong form and matter can "consecrate all the bread in the bakery" or "all the wine in the cellar", outside of the Sacrifice of the Mass, is simply madness.
Leavened wheat bread is still valid matter, and so is any wine without added sugar or other additives. The valid form we all know, and the valid intention of doing what the Church does, theologians say, is very easy to have.
So yes, a priest who wanted to spite his bishop would be able to consecrate a whole bakery, or even a whole wine cellar (it would be a sacrilege), and if externally he followed the form, validity indeed would be presumed for obvious reasons (erring on the side of caution).
Without the sacrifice there is no consecration. 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. 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. Not even divine law binds in cases of impossibility. The only reason canon law can permit no exception whatsoever is because it is impossible to do. 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. It is an ignorance so profound that it is frightening to know that he was negotiating with Rome on behalf of traditional Catholics.
I should add that it is this kind of theology that makes the Novus Ordo corruption possible. The Novus Ordo denies the idea of sacrifice.
-
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).
-
----------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.----------
:laugh1: 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.
-
----------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.----------
:laugh1: 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!
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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:
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
-
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.
-
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.
It is absolutely forbidden, even in extreme urgent necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other or even both outside the Eucharistic Celebration.
You have misunderstood the point. The question of sacrilege is secondary and not necessarily even pertinent. Even a priest with the best of intentions cannot simply say the words of consecration and confect the sacrament outside of Mass and/or confect the sacrament with only one species. Canon law is clear that this is not permitted under any circuмstances whatsoever, none whatsoever, not even in extreme necessity including danger of death. Why is this so since laws, precepts, commands, injunctions, etc. do not bind in cases of necessity or impossibility? The exception to this rule is invalidating laws. Only invalidating laws admit no exception whatsoever, either because of the act itself or the person doing the act render it necessarily invalid.
Bishop Fellay, and apparently you, believe that bread alone can be consecrated by simply saying, ‘This is My Body,’ or wine alone can be consecrated by simply saying, ‘This is My Blood.’ And you and Bishop Fellay believe that this is all that is necessary to effect the consecration and the sacrifice, all the rest being non-essential accidents to the validity of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. But why limit it to only a single bakery or single wine cellar. According to Bishop Fellay’s theology, a priest could consecrate all the wine in Italy or all the bread in Russia with only pronouncing the form of the sacrament for that particular species. Bishop Fellay is a bishop and therefore his ignorance is inexcusable. But he is not alone. This is the theology that has given the Church the Novus Ordo, and it is the obtuseness of purely mechanical Catholics that make correcting the problem difficult.
You should begin be admitting this fact of law and use it as a limit for your theological speculations.
The essence of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist consists precisely in the Consecration, whereby, in virtue of the words of Jesus Christ, His Body and Precious Blood are placed really on the holy Table, mystically separated under the species of bread and wine. By this action taken precisely, and without anything added by the priest, Jesus Christ is really offered to His Father, inasmuch as His Body and His Blood are placed before Him, actually clothed with the signs representing His Death. As this consecration is done in the Name, in the Person, and through the words of Jesus Christ, it is He in truth Who both consecrates and offers, and the priests are only simple ministers.
Bossuet
Matter of the sacrament is bread AND wine, not bread OR wine. This is a dogma of faith. Without the necessary matter, the sacrament cannot be confected. Can. 927 (1983) or Can. 817 (1917) forbids two different acts. This prohibition by the canon is an invalidating law as a matter of revealed truth. That the second prohibition of attempting a consecration outside of Mass is of the same nature, and that can be deduced from these two facts: It is cited in a single canon with a prohibition that is known to be invalidating by Catholic dogma and secondly, if it were not an invalidating law it would necessarily admit exception of necessity.
Let me suggest why this is so. The essence of the sacrifice is the consecration of the bread and wine but it alone must not be sufficient to form the proper intention. The reason that any Catholic does not have to question a priest after he administers a sacrament to determine if he, in fact, had the right intention is because his intention is demonstrated by using the proper form and matter in the context of the proper rite. In all the sacraments except the Holy Eucharist, the priest performs the form and matter in his own person and in these cases, for a sufficiently grave reason, the Church permits the sacrament without the rite. This is not so in regard to the Holy Eucharist in which no exception is permitted whatsoever to attempt to confect the sacrament without the rite.
This may be because when the priest consecrates in the Mass he consecrates in the person of Jesus Christ. The form and matter alone do not demonstrate the intention of the priest. The priest’s intention in the Holy Eucharist is demonstrated by both the proper form and matter and by the proper rite but it is only in the rite that the priest speaks in his own person and expresses his own intention.
The rite itself can invalidate a sacrament even if the correct from and matter are used. There were two reasons given, each one sufficient in itself, for in invalidity of Anglican orders. One of these reasons was that the Anglican rite itself did not demonstrate a proper intention in itself and in its historical setting. The valid form and matter are used in many protestant communion services where the theology of sacrifice is directly denied. Bishop Fellay would believe that a validly ordained Anglican or Catholic priest would validly consecrate in an Anglican communion service because the form and matter is all that is necessary. This is not true. The rite itself can invalidate a proper sacramental form and matter.
The Novus Ordo was initially and officially defined as a memorial meal. Fr. James Wathen said many years ago that even when the words of consecration in the Novus Ordo are corrected as recommended by Patrick Henry Omlor, the fact that the Novus Ordo itself offers only the “fruit of the earth and the work of human hands” remains a serious argument against validity.
It is the rite itself for the Holy Eucharist that determines intent of the minister and that is at least one reason why the rite is necessary for a valid sacrifice. For it is the rite that shows the intent of the priest, not just the words of consecration because only in the rite itself is the priest speaking in his own person.Why does attendance at Mass to fulfill the Sunday obligation require more than being present for only the consecration?
-
1)
a. Just to clarify, the only point being made here is if Bishop Fellay said something erroneous in the beginning of the video.
b. This is the statement in question:
"...a priest, he went into a bakery and he consecrated the whole bakery, another one went into the cellar of the bishop and he consecrated all the wine; it is sacrilegious, but it's valid."
c. What he states is theologically correct. The consecration is valid.
2) 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." - P. Calderón: "si un sacerdote, por burlarse del sacramento, quisiera consagrar todo el pan de una panadería, lo haría válidamente".
3) Fr. Calderón: "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 illicit to do so..."
4) Summa Theologiae Moralis de Noldin-Schmit (Vol. 3, The Sacraments):
"The consecration of one species without the other is valid, if the priest, by mistake or on purpose, consecrates only one species, provided that he has the proper intention of consecrating. So, if one consecrates only one of the two species, without the other, the sacrament certainly takes place, but it does not offer the complete sacrifice" (cf. Roman Missal, De Defectibus IV, 5.8). "...But by divine and ecclesiastical law, it is never licit to consecrate a single species, not even for a serious reason."
5) Canons 927 (1983) and 817 (1917) are not laws which invalidate the consecration. They are laws which refer to the illicitness and not the validity.
6) That a valid but illicit consecration invalidates the "Sacrifice of the Mass" is another matter. Bishop Fellay speaks only of the "validity" of the "consecration", not the "validity" of the "Sacrifice." Fr. Calderon says that the common judgement is that it is likely that when one species is consecrated without the other "sacrificium incruentum Missae ut esse invalidum institutum Christo" (the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass as it was instituted by Christ is invalid) (Dogmatic Theology course, the sacraments, the Eucharist).
-
1)
a. Just to clarify, the only point being made here is if Bishop Fellay said something erroneous in the beginning of the video.
b. This is the statement in question:
"...a priest, he went into a bakery and he consecrated the whole bakery, another one went into the cellar of the bishop and he consecrated all the wine; it is sacrilegious, but it's valid."
c. What he states is theologically correct. The consecration is valid.
2) 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." - P. Calderón: "si un sacerdote, por burlarse del sacramento, quisiera consagrar todo el pan de una panadería, lo haría válidamente".
3) Fr. Calderón: "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 illicit to do so..."
4) Summa Theologiae Moralis de Noldin-Schmit (Vol. 3, The Sacraments):
"The consecration of one species without the other is valid, if the priest, by mistake or on purpose, consecrates only one species, provided that he has the proper intention of consecrating. So, if one consecrates only one of the two species, without the other, the sacrament certainly takes place, but it does not offer the complete sacrifice" (cf. Roman Missal, De Defectibus IV, 5.8). "...But by divine and ecclesiastical law, it is never licit to consecrate a single species, not even for a serious reason."
5) Canons 927 (1983) and 817 (1917) are not laws which invalidate the consecration. They are laws which refer to the illicitness and not the validity.
6) That a valid but illicit consecration invalidates the "Sacrifice of the Mass" is another matter. Bishop Fellay speaks only of the "validity" of the "consecration", not the "validity" of the "Sacrifice." Fr. Calderon says that the common judgement is that it is likely that when one species is consecrated without the other "sacrificium incruentum Missae ut esse invalidum institutum Christo" (the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass as it was instituted by Christ is invalid) (Dogmatic Theology course, the sacraments, the Eucharist).
The second red quote is the million dollar question.
http://www.mercaba.org/TEOLOGIA/Noldin/de_la_eucaristia_como_sacramento.htm#CUESTI%C3%93N%20PRIMERA
Extracto de Summa Theologiae Moralis Noldin-Schmit Vol. Tercero Los Sacramentos
111. Para consagrar válidamente se requieren dos condiciones: a. que la materia que debe consagrarse esté presente físicamente (no sólo intencionalmente); b. que sea determinada (concreta).
1. En primer lugar se requiere que la materia esté presente físicamente al sacerdote consagrante. Esto es evidente por la institución de Cristo, pues Cristo sólo dio a los apóstoles la potestad de hacer lo que El hizo en la última cena, y Cristo consagró la materia presente. Lo mismo exige el sentido obvio de las palabras de la consagración, pues los pronombres esto y éste (hoc et hic), no demuestran sino una materia presente.
Para tener esta presencia física se requiere ciertamente que la materia de algún modo esté delante del sacerdote y que no diste mucho; sin embargo, no se requiere que sea percibida en algún sentido por el sacerdote, sino que es suficiente que la materia, a juicio prudente de los hombres, es decir, por los pronombres esto y éste, suficientemente se puedan señalar.
a. De aquí que se consagran válidamente todas las hostias que se encuentran acuмuladas en el copón, aunque las inferiores no puedan ser vistas; también, en cuanto a la presencia se refiere, las hostias que están en un copón cerrado o cubierto con una palia, el vino que esté en un cáliz no descubierto, es más, también el vino puesto en un vaso el pan encerrado en un canastillo, porque la materia, por razón del vaso en el que se contiene y el cual se destina a contener la materia, está lo suficientemente presente como para que pueda ser una cosa presente, y que pueda concretarse por las palabras éste y esto. Por el uso común, tiene esta posibilidad de que el que contiene y el contenido se puedan demostrar a la manera de una misma cosa con el pronombre esto, así como en el caso de las monedas guardadas en el bolsillo (o en la bolsa) decimos: esto es oro, y del licor encerrado en una jarra afirmamos que es vino. Y estas cosas son ciertas verdaderamente, por cuyo motivo no debe ser repetida la consagración si, por ejemplo, el copón permaneciese cerrado por olvido durante la consagración.
b. Pero no valdría la consagración si la materia (aun sabiéndolo el sacerdote), estuviese detrás del altar o detrás de la tabla que se dice del canon, o a espaldas del celebrante, porque no está tan presente allí como para que por el pronombre esto o éste se puedan demostrar (enseñar), pues el cuerpo que se interpone impide que puedan ser demostradas así (por ejemplo, con la mano). Por esta misma razón, a saber, por defecto de presencia, no puede consagrarse válidamente una materia que dista diez pasos (otros dicen veinte). Si la hostia estuviese oculta bajo el corporal o en el misal, o bajo o dentro del misal, o si estuviese escondida bajo el mantel del altar, o bajo el "cussino", o bajo el pie del cáliz, la consagración sería dudosa, porque la hostia allí oculta apenas podría ser demostrada (enseñada) por el pronombre hoc, que expresa esto. Y aunque sea consagrada válidamente una hostia situada en un tabernáculo (sagrario) abierto, la consagración sería al menos dudosa si el sagrario estuviese cerrado.
112. 2. Después se requiere que la materia destinada a ser consagrada esté determinada en un individuo, en una unidad concreta, por la intención, al menos habitual, del consagrante; porque cualquier acción debe tener un término determinado (finalidad, objeto) del cual se ocupe; además, por la palabra o pronombre hoc (esto) y hic (éste), no puede ser designada sino una materia determinada. Por lo mismo, así como para consagrar se requiere intención de consagrar, así para consagrar una materia determinada se requiere intención de consagrar aquella materia determinada.
a. Por lo tanto, lo que de ninguna manera, ni explícita ni implícitamente ha sido determinado como objeto de consagración por la intención del sacerdote, no está consagrado; pero lo que de alguna manera, al menos implícitamente (p. ej., pensando en lo que tengo en las manos, en lo que hay en el corporal), está determinado por la intención como objeto de consagración, se juzga estar consagrado.
b. De aquí que si después de la consagración el sacerdote advierte que hay más hostias de las que había calculado puestas por él o por otro, o que hay dos adheridas, no hay ninguna duda de que todas están consagradas, porque tuvo intención actual o virtual de consagrar la materia presente, pues el error del consagrante acerca de la cantidad de la materia no impide la intención determinada.
c. Pero si de un montón de hostias sólo quisiese consagrar cinco, o solamente la mitad, ninguna quedaría consagrada. De la misma manera no están consagradas las hostias que, sin saberlo el sacerdote, fueron puestas en el altar, e incluso en el corporal, si él no tuvo intención de consagrar todo cuanto fuese consagrable en el corporal o en el altar.
113. Para consagrar lícitamente se requiere que la materia: a. esté en el altar, b. sobre el corporal o, c. en la piedra consagrada, d. o inmediatamente en el corporal o en las manos del consagrante, o en un vaso sagrado pero estando abierto.
Por lo tanto, si el sacerdote está celebrando en un altar portátil y las hostias pequeñas están, no solas en el corporal, sino dentro de un copón (ciborrio), éste debe colocarse dentro de la consagración, de tal manera que alguna parte, al menos del pie del copón, esté colocada dentro de la piedra consagrada. Sin embargo este asunto no debe ser causa de escrúpulos, con tal que el copón esté en el corporal. De aquí se deduce también que el sacerdote pecaría gravemente si a sabiendas consagrase una materia que estuviese fuera del altar o fuera del corporal o en copón no sagrado, pero sólo pecaría venialmente quien voluntariamente no abriese el vaso sagrado.
114. Cuestiones sobre la consagración. 1. Para preparar el camino, con el fin de resolver muchas cuestiones sobre este tema, hay que anotar lo siguiente: Supuesto que es apta la presencia de la materia que debe ser consagrada, todo el problema depende esencialmente de la intención del consagrante, con la cual se determina la materia que va a ser consagrada en concreto. Ahora bien, cualquier sacerdote que va a celebrar, en primer lugar tiene intención de celebrar, la cual, por su naturaleza es intención de celebrar como Cristo lo instituyó y la Iglesia lo entendió. Ahora se busca cuál y cuánta sea la fuerza de esta intención.
a. Esta intención es y debe ser absoluta, y por eso no puede ser restringida lícitamente por ninguna condición, a no ser que se dude del valor de la consagración.
Hay autores moralistas que opinan que la intención del consagrante, y en general de todo aquel que confecciona (o realiza) un sacramento, es una intención condicionada, ya que se debe presumir que el consagrante y en general todo aquel que realiza un sacramento, no quiere consagrar o confeccionar un sacramento, a no ser que eso pueda realizarse sin pecado (material). Pero este principio no puede ser admitido sin que en la práctica se produzcan muchos y graves incomodos que a todo trance deben evitarse. Porque si suponemos que el sacerdote utiliza por inadvertencia un cáliz no consagrado, o bautiza con agua notablemente fétida, no hay ninguna consagración e igualmente ningún bautismo, sin que el sacerdote o los fieles sepan algo de la nulidad del sacramento. Las cuales cosas son ciertamente incomodidades y gravemente ilícitas. Y esta es la razón por la cual la intención de consagrar debe ser absoluta, a no ser que la duda sea sobre el valor de la consagración (cf. Ballerini-Palmieri IV. n.856ss.).
b. En fuerza de esta intención sólo se consagra la hostia que se encuentra en las manos del sacerdote y el vino que está en el cáliz; pero en fuerza de esta intención tampoco se consagra la partícula u hostia pequeña que, ya sea por inconsciencia del sacerdote o también estando él advertido, pero no pensando sobre la consagración de la partícula que está puesta en el corporal.
c. En fuerza de esta intención probablemente no es consagrada sino la materia que exhibe a los sentidos una cosa continua, porque no puede suponerse que sea ésta la mente de la Iglesia, a saber, que también se consagre esa cosa que no puede ser consagrada sin manifiesto peligro de dispersión y, por lo tanto, de irreverencia.
2. El sacerdote, además de la intención general de celebrar, debe tener la intención de consagrar todavía otra materia, por ejemplo, las migas, o sea hostias pequeñas que están puestas en el corporal o se contienen en el copón. También esta intención es y debe ser absoluta, no restringida por ninguna condición, a no ser que al duda sea sobre el valor de la consagración. Ahora bien, en virtud de esta intención, expresamente emitida ya sea antes de la misa o durante ella, queda consagrada válidamente cualquier materia a la que se refiera aquella intención emitida, aunque el sacerdote, en el momento de la consagración, no tenga su atención puesta en ella, con tal que esté físicamente presente en el ara. Pues la doble condición que para la válida consagración se refiere, existe sin duda en este caso, puesto que la materia que debe ser consagrada en el acto de la consagración, perdura todavía virtualmente. También se juzga que tiene intención expresa de consagrar a cualquier sacerdote que, o él lleva las hostias pequeñas personalmente al ara para consagrarlas después, o a quien dentro de la misa, advirtiendo que el copón "que debe ser consagrado" está colocado en el ara, se propone consagrarlo, o al que antes de la misa es avisado sobre el copón que debe ser consagrado en la misa y asiente a ello, aunque después no preste atención a lo prometido, pues, por lo mismo que asiente a la consagración cuando es avisado, emite su intención afirmativa de consagrar las hostias pequeñas que se deben poner en el ara. En todas estas últimas veces en que aparece la palabra "partículas", debe entenderse no sólo las partes pequeñísimas de hostia que suelen separarse, por su mínimo tamaño, de las formas grandes, sino sobre todo las hostias de menor tamaño que las del sacerdote y que reciben los fieles cuando comulgan.
115. Corolarios de las anteriores declaraciones. 1. Las pequeñas gotas de vino que se adhieren interiormente al cáliz, si el sacerdote no emite hacia ellas una intención especial, no parece que quedan consagradas, porque la intención general de celebrar, y por lo tanto de consagrar, se restringe a la materia que, a manera de una cosa continua, se encuentra en el cáliz en el momento de la consagración.
Las pequeñas gotas de vino adheridas al exterior del cáliz, sean o no sean consagradas, a no ser que el sacerdote tuviese una peculiar intención sobre ellas, después de la consagración dichas gotitas no deben ser secadas, sino que deben ser sumidas con la preciosísima Sangre o con la purificación de ellas. Pero si se encuentran antes de la consagración, o deben ser unidas con la materia que se va a consagrar, o deben ser secadas si esto puede hacerse fácilmente.
2. Las migas de pan que, separadas de la hostia grande, se adhieren a esa hostia en el momento de la consagración, no parece igualmente que estén consagradas, porque la intención del sacerdote parece restringirse a la materia que exhibe una cosa continua. Las migas que haya separadas de la hostia, en el corporal o en el copón, no están consagradas si el sacerdote no intentó nada expresamente, pues la intención de consagrar la materia presente no se extiende a las migas separadas, por el peligro de irreverencia.
3. El copón, puesto en el corporal, que en el momento de la consagración permaneció cerrado por inadvertencia, está consagrado si en el consagrante hubo suficiente intención de consagrarlo, pero si acerca de él (o sobre él), no intentó nada ni explícita ni implícitamente, no se juzga consagrado, porque por la intención general de consagrar el copón no se concreta suficientemente el objeto de la consagración.
4. Pero el copón que en el momento de la consagración permaneció por olvido fuera del corporal, debe ser juzgado como consagrado por la intención virtualmente perdurante, con tal que el sacerdote hubiese tenido intención explícita o implícita de consagrarlo.
Hay escritores que dudan si este copón ha sido consagrado, porque piensan que en este caso el consagrante no tuvo la intención de consagrar, aunque antes la hubiese expresado, porque la intención objetivamente es gravemente ilícita. Esta opinión se funda en el principio de que la intención del celebrante no es absoluta, sino condicionada, esto es, que se debe presumir que el consagrante no lo quiso consagrar, si esto se pudiese hacer sin pecado. Pero esto no se debe admitir (cf. n.114).
Nota. Para precaver las dudas sobre la consagración, muchos autores aconsejan rectamente a los neosacerdotes que expresen sus intenciones de una vez para siempre: a. de consagrar todas las hostias situadas en el corporal; b. de no consagrar las gotas de vino adheridas interiormente al cáliz; c. de no consagrar las migas adheridas a la hostia; d. de no consagrar las migas separadas de la hostia, ya estén en el copón, ya en el corporal. Expresadas estas intenciones, es cierto que por la fuerza de la intención de no celebrar, nada fuera de las hostias puestas en el corporal se consagra, sino aquello que a la manera de una cosa única y continua existe en la hostia o en el cáliz.
116. De las partículas que deben ser consagradas y puestas en el ara. Las hostias que deben ser consagradas deben ser puestas en el ara al principio de la misa o, al menos, a no ser que una causa justa lo excuse, deben estar presentes al ofertorio, para que con la materia del sacrificio con el cual son consagradas, también sean ofrecidas a la vez. Por causa razonable pueden consagrarse lícitamente las hostias que sean llevadas después del ofertorio, con tal que estén presentes antes del prefacio y se haga mentalmente su oblación. Por causa grave (si, p. ej., de lo contrario se quedarían sin comunión uno o muchos o deberían esperar demasiado tiempo), pueden ser consagradas también las hostias traídas después del prefacio, pero antes de comenzar el canon; y por causa gravísima (para dar la comunión a un enfermo o si, de lo contrario, una gran multitud de fieles, no sin grave molestia, o fuesen privados de la comunión, o debiesen esperar demasiado), pueden ser consagradas lícitamente las hostias traídas también iniciado ya el canon, antes de la consagración del pan. Pero, sin embargo, si de lo contrario solamente uno debiese ser despachado sin comunión, una vez ya comenzado el canon ya no debería ser consagrada para él una hostia, sino más bien debería serle entregada una partícula (parte) de la hostia, partida de la hostia del sacerdote.
La razón de esta prescripción debe ser tomada del orden de la misa que, después de los ritos preparatorios, sólo contiene dos partes, la oblación (ofertorio) y la consagración con la comunión. Así pues, el acto litúrgico de la oblación comienza con el ofertorio y se termina con las oraciones secretas, pero el acto litúrgico de la consagración empieza con el prefacio. Por lo tanto, el orden de la misa se trastorna si después de comenzar la oblación, todavía se lleva sobre el ara una materia para consagrar, que todavía antes debe ser ofrecida, por lo cual el trastrueque del orden es tanto mayor cuanto más tarde fuese llevada dicha materia. De aquí proviene el que antes del prefacio todavía se admita una materia para ser consagrada (unas hostias), por causa razonable, porque todavía no ha sido iniciado el acto litúrgico de la consagración; pero después de comenzado el prefacio, sólo se admite por causa grave, porque el acto litúrgico de la consagración ya ha comenzado ciertamente, aunque solamente todavía por el prefacio introductorio al acto de la consagración; sin embargo, comenzado el canon, algunos canonistas y moralistas no admiten materia para consagrar por ninguna razón, otros sólo lo admiten por una causa gravísima, porque el canon pertenece ya al acto litúrgico mismo de la consagración.
117. Cantidad que debe ser consagrada. De la misma manera que la cantidad de pan y de vino, cualquiera sea, aun la muy grande, puede ser consagrada válidamente y de hecho lo es, con tal que por el pronombre esto se pueda demostrar suficientemente, así también cualquier cantidad, aunque sea mínima (una miga de pan o una gotita de vino), se consagra válidamente, con tal que pueda ser percibida por el sentido humano. Pero una materia tan diminuta que no pueda ser percibida por el sentido humano, no puede ser consagrada válidamente, tanto porque tal materia no puede ser demostrada por el pronombre esto, como porque todo sacramento generalmente es signo sensible que, por lo tanto, por su propia naturaleza exige una materia sensible. Pero para una consagración lícita se requiere aquella cantidad de pan o de vino que convenga al fin, uso y reverencia de tan santo e importante sacramento.
118. Notas. 1. Si las partículas (hostias pequeñas de los fieles o partes menores de las hostias), fueron consagradas dudosamente, se debe distinguir un triple caso:
a. Si no se trata de partículas que deben distribuirse enseguida y si son pocas, se tomen por el celebrante después de las sagradas especies, antes de la purificación final, o se guarden en un vaso hasta su corrupción; b. si son muchas y no van a ser distribuidas enseguida, estas partículas dudosamente consagradas deben consagrarse bajo condición en otra misa; c. si se trata de partículas que deben distribuirse necesariamente ahora, y no se celebra después ninguna otra misa, el autor de esta "Suma de Teología Moral" había permitido en las primeras ediciones de este libro (ciertamente sólo entre la consagración y la comunión, cuando la misa no está íntegramente completa), que fuesen consagradas de nuevo bajo condición. Porque tal consagración, aunque no fuese válida, no podría llevarse a la práctica, puesto que no es cierto si la comunión de los fieles es razón suficiente, y si no, daría fácilmente lugar a abusos.
2. Si a las partículas consagradas se mezclan las partículas no consagradas, todo el cúmulo de ellas debe ser llevado al altar y ser consagrado, o con intención de consagrar las partículas no consagradas o con intención de consagrar todo el cúmulo, bajo condición, si no estuviesen consagradas (San Alfonso, n.216; Lugo, De euchar. disp.4. n.133ss.). También si a un vino consagrado se le mezcla un vino no consagrado, toda la cantidad que se contiene en el cáliz debe ser consagrada con la intención de consagrar todo lo que haya no consagrado en el cáliz o lo que exista en el cáliz que sea consagrable.
Sin embargo, el moralista de Lugo piensa que el primer modo de consagrar no es suficiente, porque las hostias que deben ser consagradas no están suficientemente determinadas (concretadas) por la intención del consagrante, de forma que puedan demostrarse con el pronombre esto. Pero, así como nada impide el que puedan ser consagradas a la vez que otras, bajo condición, porque todas están presentes y pueden ser mostradas, así nada impide el que pueda consagrarse todo cuanto no esté consagrado en el copón, porque todo ello puede ser designado suficientemente por medio del pronombre esto. Porque, aunque el mismo hombre no conozca esta materia y, por lo tanto, ni siquiera podría designarla, sin embargo esa materia de hecho existe y puede ser designada objetivamente.
-
I don't think it was honest to put Fr. Calderón's name on that post as his source. I have never seen or quoted Fr. Calderón as using that source.
It isn't a very good approach to the question.
-
1)
a. Just to clarify, the only point being made here is if Bishop Fellay said something erroneous in the beginning of the video.
b. This is the statement in question:
"...a priest, he went into a bakery and he consecrated the whole bakery, another one went into the cellar of the bishop and he consecrated all the wine; it is sacrilegious, but it's valid."
c. What he states is theologically correct. The consecration is valid.
2) 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." - P. Calderón: "si un sacerdote, por burlarse del sacramento, quisiera consagrar todo el pan de una panadería, lo haría válidamente".
3) Fr. Calderón: "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 illicit to do so..."
4) Summa Theologiae Moralis de Noldin-Schmit (Vol. 3, The Sacraments):
"The consecration of one species without the other is valid, if the priest, by mistake or on purpose, consecrates only one species, provided that he has the proper intention of consecrating. So, if one consecrates only one of the two species, without the other, the sacrament certainly takes place, but it does not offer the complete sacrifice" (cf. Roman Missal, De Defectibus IV, 5.8). "...But by divine and ecclesiastical law, it is never licit to consecrate a single species, not even for a serious reason."
5) Canons 927 (1983) and 817 (1917) are not laws which invalidate the consecration. They are laws which refer to the illicitness and not the validity.
6) That a valid but illicit consecration invalidates the "Sacrifice of the Mass" is another matter. Bishop Fellay speaks only of the "validity" of the "consecration", not the "validity" of the "Sacrifice." Fr. Calderon says that the common judgement is that it is likely that when one species is consecrated without the other "sacrificium incruentum Missae ut esse invalidum institutum Christo" (the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass as it was instituted by Christ is invalid) (Dogmatic Theology course, the sacraments, the Eucharist).
I don't think it was honest to put Fr. Calderón's name on that post as his source. I have never seen or quoted Fr. Calderón as using that source.
It isn't a very good approach to the question.
Dishonest :confused1: The source is excellent. I put the link to the source you provided. Above the link I provided on my previous post says:"Extracto de Summa Theologiae Moralis Noldin-Schmit Vol. Tercero Los Sacramentos". My post should be sufficient for the faithful to make up their mind whether such "consecration" as mentioned by +Fellay could possibly be valid. I don't believe it.
I posted in haste before going to Mass and just noticed I posted it in Spanish. I will try to find it in English.
-
Each number is seperate from the other. I thought the bold would bring this out and be well understood by all. Just as number 5 refers to the canon law and has no direct relation with what is cited in number 4, number 4 stands by itself and has no direct relation with the previous quotes in #2 and #3, other than that they all deal with the same subject.
-
"a. De aquí que se consagran válidamente todas las hostias que se encuentran acuмuladas en el copón,"
The idea is the same, "all of the hosts"... "all of the bread in the bakery"...there is no need to know how many there are, but the intention is part of the necessary element.
The quote that you have cited is not part of any quote or work of Fr. Calderón, and this needs to be clarified.
Also, the work that you cited explains the intention of the formula is what is necessary, as I showed above.
-
"a. De aquí que se consagran válidamente todas las hostias que se encuentran acuмuladas en el copón,"
The idea is the same, "all of the hosts"... "all of the bread in the bakery"...there is no need to know how many there are, but the intention is part of the necessary element.
The quote that you have cited is not part of any quote or work of Fr. Calderón, and this needs to be clarified.
Also, the work that you cited explains the intention of the formula is what is necessary, as I showed above.
I quoted the source you gave: Summa Theologia Moralis De Nolden Schmit and put the link to it. Because you mentioned Father Calderon, I understood the Summa quote came from him. I apologize if it was understood that my long post was written by Father Calderon. Still, it is an excellent informative source.
I have no intention to post more on this subject. I still do not believe a whole bakery or celllar can be "consecrated". If I scandalized, I'm sorry.
-
"a. De aquí que se consagran válidamente todas las hostias que se encuentran acuмuladas en el copón,"
The idea is the same, "all of the hosts"... "all of the bread in the bakery"...there is no need to know how many there are, but the intention is part of the necessary element.
The quote that you have cited is not part of any quote or work of Fr. Calderón, and this needs to be clarified.
Also, the work that you cited explains the intention of the formula is what is necessary, as I showed above.
I quoted the source you gave: Summa Theologia Moralis De Nolden Schmit and put the link to it. Because you mentioned Father Calderon, I understood the Summa quote came from him. I apologize if it was understood that my long post was written by Father Calderon. Still, it is an excellent informative source.
I have no intention to post more on this subject. I still do not believe a whole bakery or celllar can be "consecrated". If I scandalized, I'm sorry.
I RETRACT my apology. I cannot in good conscience let it go. I did it after receiving this:
I must send you a message to let you know that you have scandalized several, including a priest of the resistance, with your attitude. I am not a theologian, and admit that I don't understand the subject very well, but I stand by what I wrote, and for obvious reasons. I just want to suggest that you take a different (perhaps humbler approach) to this topic. There seems to be a unanimous consent among all clergy that "all the bread in a bakery" could be consecrated with the intention and form being present, and not necessarily wine present. The clergy do not agree with your opinion, as for as I understand it, so I wouldn't want to push the issue. It isn't good.
I hope you can understand.
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.
Canon 927 (1983) [817 (1917)] is an invalidating law. This is evident for two reasons either one of which is sufficient to prove the point. Firstly, the law admits no exception “even in extreme urgent necessity.” The maxim is ‘necessity knows no law.’ If a law admits no exception “even in extreme urgent necessity,” it is necessarily an invalidating law. Secondly, it is a matter of divine and Catholic faith, that is, a matter of defined dogma. A sacrament is the form and matter by definition. Without the form and the matter there is no sacrament for a thing cannot be and not be at the same time. The matter for the Holy Eucharist is bread AND wine and we know this as a revealed truth of our faith. Without the matter, there is no sacrament. Therefore we know by divine and Catholic faith that Canon 927 is an invalidating law therefore, by the nature of the act itself or by the nature of the agent of the act itself renders the act always and everywhere invalid.
Bishop Fellay does not believe in dogma. In other exchanges we have seen how he professes that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church. He believes that devout good willed Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Protestants, etc. are saved as Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Protestants, etc. He believes that they are members of the Catholic Church even if they do not know it by virtue of ‘baptism of implicit desire.’ This is just another example of Bishop Fellay ignoring divinely revealed truth when it conflicts with his religious sentiments.
-
Canon 927 (1983) [817 (1917)] is an invalidating law. This is evident for two reasons either one of which is sufficient to prove the point. Firstly, the law admits no exception “even in extreme urgent necessity.” The maxim is ‘necessity knows no law.’ If a law admits no exception “even in extreme urgent necessity,” it is necessarily an invalidating law. Secondly, it is a matter of divine and Catholic faith, that is, a matter of defined dogma. A sacrament is the form and matter by definition. Without the form and the matter there is no sacrament for a thing cannot be and not be at the same time. The matter for the Holy Eucharist is bread AND wine and we know this as a revealed truth of our faith. Without the matter, there is no sacrament. Therefore we know by divine and Catholic faith that Canon 927 is an invalidating law therefore, by the nature of the act itself or by the nature of the agent of the act itself renders the act always and everywhere invalid.
Your private opinion is not dogma. You have no way of proving that consecrating bread without wine, or wine without bread, is invalid. In fact, Centro gave you a quote from a pre-Conciliar theologian which says it would be valid.
Here is that quote in its full context from the site you linked to, but failed to provide this:
103. De la consagración de una especie sin la otra. [On the consecration of one species without the other] Por motivo de esta declaración, deben ser explicados de antemano estos puntos. Por voluntad e institución de Cristo, no puede ser consagrado el sacramento de la Eucaristía sino durante el sacrificio eucarístico; pues Cristo quiso que sólo entonces se consagrase cuando se ofrece el sacrificio, y viceversa, que el sacrificio fuese ofrecido siempre que se haga la consagración. [By the will and institution of Christ, the sacrament of the Eucharist cannot be consecrated except during the eucharistic sacrifice; because Christ wished that one consecrates only when the sacrifice is offered, and vice versa, that the sacrifice was? offered always when the consecration is made] Por lo tanto, la razón de sacramento de la Eucaristía, por voluntad de Cristo, no puede ser separada de la razón de sacrificio, del mismo modo exactamente que, por voluntad del mismo Cristo Señor, la razón de sacramento para los fieles no puede ser separada de la razón de contrato matrimonial. Por lo tanto, cuantas veces se ofrece el sacrificio, por voluntad e institución de Cristo se requiere la consagración de ambas especies, pues Cristo en la última cena, consagrando ambas especies, mandó: Haced esto en conmemoración mía (1 Cor 11, 24 y 25; cf. cn.817 del Código anterior y 927 del actual). Luego manda a los apóstoles y a todos sus sucesores en el orden sacerdotal, que consagren bajo ambas especies. Es más, apenas no es cierto que la consagración bajo las dos especies se requiere para la misma esencia del sacrificio eucarístico, como se dirá abajo en el n.164.
Luego la misma razón de sacrificio, no sólo el mandato de Cristo, exige la consagración de ambas especies. Pero la razón de sacramento en la Eucaristía no postula la consagración de ambas especies, pues el sacramento no es un signo que conmemora y representa el sacrificio de la cruz, signo que es un signo que representa y realiza la alimentación (la nutrición) del alma; es así que esto se obtiene una sola especie también, como dijo el Señor: el que come este pan, vivirá para siempre. Es más, la forma con la cual se consagra una especie significa y causa su efecto independientemente de la otra, por esto, el pan es consagrado válidamente antes de que se consagre el vino. Por lo cual, una especie sin la otra puede sin ninguna duda ser consagrada válidamente. Y si se consagra solamente una especie, ciertamente se ofrece el sacrificio, pero sólo incoado e imperfecto, que debe ser completado y perfeccionado por la consagración de la segunda especie. [Therefore, one species can without a doubt be validly consecrated without the other. And if only one species is consecrated, the sacrifice is certainly offered, but only inchoate and imperfect, which must be completed and perfected by the consecration of the second species.] Por lo tanto,
1. Es válida la consagración de una especie sin la otra, si el sacerdote, por error o adrede, consagra solamente una especie, con tal que tenga la debida intención de consagrar. Así pues, si uno consagra una sola de las dos especies, sin la otra, realiza ciertamente el sacramento, pero no ofrece completo el sacrificio (cf. el Misal romano, De defectibus IV, 5.8) [This is the quote Centro gave, and which you did not refute: The consecration of one species without the other is valid, if the priest, by mistake or on purpose, consecrates only one species, provided that he has the proper intention of consecrating. So, if one consecrates only one of the two species, without the other, the sacrament certainly takes place, but he does not offer the complete sacrifice.]
Hay algunos teólogos a los que no les parece totalmente cierta la consagración de una especie sin la otra, cuando el sacerdote intenta solamente consagrar una sola especie. Pero el valor de esta consagración no se puede dudar, ya se diga que para la consagración válida es suficiente que el ministro pronuncie la fórmula sobre la materia con intención de consagrar [There are some theologians for whom the consecration of one species without the other does not seem completely certain, when the priest intends to only consecrate one species. But the value of this consecration cannot be doubted, it is said that for a valid consecration it is sufficient that the minister pronounce the formula over the matter with the intention to consecrate], ya se diga que para la consagración válida se requiere intención de ofrecer el sacrificio, pues, quien intenta consagrar como consagró otras hostias, o como Cristo lo instituyó, tiene intención de sacrificar cuanto puede, es decir, tiene intención, al menos, de incoar el sacrificio.
2. Pero por derecho divino y eclesiástico nunca es lícito consagrar una sola especie, ni por una gravísima causa [But by divine and ecclesiastical law it is never licit to consecrate only one species, not even for a grave cause], por ejemplo, para dar la comunión a un enfermo que, de lo contrario, moriría sin el viático (cn.817 del Código anterior y 927 del actual, en los cuales se dice: "Está prohibido terminantemente, aun en caso de extrema necesidad, consagrar una materia sin la otra; también ambas fuera de la celebración eucarística". Sin embargo, en cierto caso la Iglesia no sólo permite, sino que también ordena, la consagración de una sola especie, puesta ya la esencia del sacrificio por la consagración de ambas, es decir, si después de la consagración la santa sangre se derramase, de tal manera que nada permanezca, con lo cual pudiesen ponerse (realizarse) las ceremonias siguientes integrantes, en este caso, la Iglesia manda que se ponga al lado vino nuevo y que luego se consagre (Miss. rom de def. tit.10 n.13). Por lo tanto parece que la prohibición absoluta vale sólo para la consagración fuera de la misa, pero no antes de la comunión. Es más, tan grave les parece a los teólogos este precepto de consagrar ambas especies, que dicen que la Iglesia nunca en esta materia ni dispensó ni puede dispensar, porque ella no puede cambiar la naturaleza del sacrificio instituido por Cristo. [However, in one case the Church not only permits, but also orders, the consecration of only one species ... if after the consecration the Holy Blood is spilled, so that none is left ... in this case the Church commands that new wine is taken and then consecrated. Therefore, it seems that the absolute prohibition only applies for consecration outside of Mass, but not before communion. Indeed, the precept of consecrating both species seems so grave to theologians that they say the Church has never dispensed nor can dispense in this matter, because it cannot change the nature of the sacrifice instituted by Christ.]
Si realizada la consagración, por razón de la materia nace la duda de la validez de la consagración de la otra especie, debe ser tomada la otra materia, la cual, absolutamente, pueda ser consagrada. Ciertamente, en absoluto, para que el sacerdote sepa qué hostia debe ser sumida antes de la sagrada sangre. Ni se diga que si la primera especie, de cuya válida consagración se duda, haya sido consagrada válidamente después, que con esta nueva y absoluta consagración se incoa un nuevo sacrificio que permanece incompleto contra un precepto divino. Porque esta nueva consagración, que es coherente con la primera con nexo necesario, no debe ser considerada como incoación de un sacrificio nuevo, sino como complemento del sacrificio ya realizado (cf. Missale rom., De defect. tit.3 n.6.7, tit.4 n.5).
3. Accidentalmente, empero, a veces sucede que realmente es consagrada una especie sin la otra: a. si un peligro de muerte, por ejemplo, seas inminente, de repente, por un incendio o por ruina del templo; b. si el sacerdote descubre que en la consagración no se empleó vino y que allí ya no existe vino (no es encontrado vino); c. si el sacerdote hubiese consagrado agua en vez de vino y no advirtiese el defecto sino cuando ya se ha retirado del altar, ni ya no pudiese completar lo que falta sin escándalo o sin irreverencia; d. si el sacerdote muriese después de haber consagrado la hostia y no haya otro sacerdote que complete el sacrificio.
According to this, it is possible to validly consecrate one species without the other, but it is not possible to consecrate outside the Mass.
Bishop Fellay does not believe in dogma.
That is not true.
In other exchanges we have seen how he professes that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church. He believes that devout good willed Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Protestants, etc. are saved as Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Protestants, etc. He believes that they are members of the Catholic Church even if they do not know it by virtue of ‘baptism of implicit desire.’ This is just another example of Bishop Fellay ignoring divinely revealed truth when it conflicts with his religious sentiments.
First of all, explicit BOD is infallible Catholic doctrine and cannot be denied, and implicit BOD is also a doctrine taught by the Church.
Bp. Fellay believes that some Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Protestants etc. can be in the Church through BOD, if they are in invincible ignorance. He is correct in the example of the Protestants, but in error in the example of the Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc., because those who explicity reject Christ or the Holy Trinity, or those who worship devils, cannot have the Catholic Faith, which is necessary for salvation. However, Bp. Fellay is not alone in this error, nor has it been invented by him, it has been advanced even by a few theologians. In fact, even Abp. Lefebvre believed this (e.g. he wrote about it in his "Letter to Confused Catholics")
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
Your private opinion is not dogma. You have no way of proving that consecrating bread without wine, or wine without bread, is invalid.
:facepalm:
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.
-
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
-
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:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
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:
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.
-
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.
Perhaps I should have been clearer. During the Middle Ages intinction was common. This was sometimes done by dipping the consecrated host into unconsecrated wine. This was also how the wine was consecrated on Good Friday until the practice was ended. What does that tell you?
-
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.
-
I wonder where M. Auxiliadora recieved her PHD in theology.
-
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.
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 nononsense.
-
The last word should be NONSENSE.
-
Your last 20 posts on this thread were NONSENSE.
-
Such intention is clearly impossible with the bakery nonsense.
De Defectibus (http://www.dailycatholic.org/defectib.htm) 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.
-
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.
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.
No you are not. I suggest you go here and try to understand the commentary: Canon 10 (https://books.google.com/books?id=JKgZEjvB5cEC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA62#v=onepage&q=%22invalidating%20and%20disqualifying%20laws%22&f=false)
-
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.
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 (https://books.google.com/books?id=JKgZEjvB5cEC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA62#v=onepage&q=%22invalidating%20and%20disqualifying%20laws%22&f=false)
“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.”
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.
-
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)
-
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.”
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?
-
Such intention is clearly impossible with the bakery nonsense.
De Defectibus (http://www.dailycatholic.org/defectib.htm) 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.
-
De Defectibus (http://www.dailycatholic.org/defectib.htm) 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.
-
De Defectibus (http://www.dailycatholic.org/defectib.htm) 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.
-
De Defectibus (http://www.dailycatholic.org/defectib.htm) 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).
-
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).
I agree to err on the side of caution is the only way to go, yet I picture a bakery having cakes, pastries and other sugar laden goodies with icing - and of course, bread too. I was around a few decades ago lol, and even back 5 decades ago when I was a kid, the bread was off to the side somewhere, everything out front, on display and what everyone saw was always like this at every bakery I ever remember:
(http://www.tazzatogo.com/images/pastries.jpg)
At any rate, imo, the two stories are just that, stories. Reminds me of a secret told to one person, by the time it gets to the tenth person it's a completely different secret.
+Fellay's story also leaves a lot to be desired. IMO, it's more like he is taking a priest's blessing, which, if a priest were to bless all the items and wine and cheese and meats in a bakery, then yes, his blessing would be upon those items.
But it is indisputable that he completely and totally contradicts De Defectibus for him to say that the priest "consecrated the whole bakery, and another one went into the cellar of the bishop, and he consecrated all the wine, it's sacrilegious, but it's valid!"
-
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.”
[/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.
-
I agree to err on the side of caution is the only way to go, yet I picture a bakery having cakes, pastries and other sugar laden goodies with icing - and of course, bread too.
Well everything in the US either comes with cheese or a ton of sugar...
There is traditionally in Europe a difference; a boulangerie and a patisserie. True, many boulangeries now include a patisserie, but when one mentions boulangerie (bakery) one is thinking of bread.
-
Quote from Fr. Garrigou Lagrange, one of the greatest Thomist theologians of the twentieth century:
"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.
-
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.”
[/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.
I appreciate your bringing this commentary to my attention. You apparently did not read it.
Canon 10 refers only to the ecclesiastical law, not to 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.
New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, By John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, Thomas Joseph Green
There are two key opinions expressed in this quotation that you should reflect upon. Firstly, “Canon 10 refers only to the ecclesiastical law, not to requirements for validity that are of the divine law.” And secondly, there exists canons on divine law that are invalidating “without express mention of this.”
Whatever argument you are trying to make has not been structured with any clear propositions. Consider this. The juridic act of canon 927 involves divine Law specifically addressing the sacramental matter for Holy Eucharist. The law giver is God who has instituted seven sacraments each constituted with its own specific form and matter. The form and matter are the sacrament by definition. Without the form and matter, there is no sacrament. The matter of the sacrament of Holy Eucharist is bread AND wine. This is a dogma, that is, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith, the denial of which makes one a heretic and excludes from membership in the Church.
The sacrament of the Eucharist; its matter is wheat bread and wine of grape.
Council of Florence
The priest who is to celebrate Mass should take every precaution to make sure that none of the things required for celebrating the Sacrament of the Eucharist is missing. A defect may occur with regard to the matter to be consecrated, with regard to the form to be observed and with regard to the consecrating minister. There is no Sacrament if any of these is missing: the proper matter, the form, including the intention, and the priestly ordination of the celebrant. [……..] Defects on the part of the matter may arise from some lack in the materials required. What is required is this: bread made from wheat flour, wine from grapes, and the presence of these materials before the priest at the time of the Consecration. De Defectibus, St. Pius V
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.
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.
If you were a faithful Catholic you would have dropped this discussion long ago. Bishop Fellay’s theology has crippled him in any defense of the Catholic faith and liturgical traditions because he rejects dogma as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith. For him, and you, dogma is nothing more than human axioms, prudential guideposts, nothing that anyone must really take too literally. Bishop Fellay will never be able to defend the sacraments and the immemorial Roman rite of Mass because he shares the same theology with those who have worked to destroy it.
Congratulation, you belong to rotten little click.
-
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.”
[/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.
-
Quote from Fr. Garrigou Lagrange, one of the greatest Thomist theologians of the twentieth century:
"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:
-
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...
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...
-
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...
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
No need to get emotional.
-
Fr. Gregory Hesse, a Canon Lawyer and Doctor of Thomistic Theology agrees with me. Best to listen to all of it but from minute 15:00-25:00 he is clear on it. The "validity of consecration" of the bakery/wine cellar is nonsense. I rest my case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcYXC6DCgIA
-
Fr. Gregory Hesse, a Canon Lawyer and Doctor of Thomistic Theology agrees with me. Best to listen to all of it but from minute 15:00-25:00 he is clear on it. The "validity of consecration" of the bakery/wine cellar is nonsense. I rest my case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcYXC6DCgIA
I am no theologian. My comments are based on what others with more education have stated. I just want to add that I agree completely with Fr. Hesse. I think Tradition lost a lot when he departed from this world.
-
To be fair, Fr. Hesse says that he sides against those who side with the old theologians. When he says this he seems to indicate that he could be wrong and that the matter is not decided. He makes clear arguments for why he took that position and also says that the purpose of the law book is not to declare if it is possible but only to speak about the evil or illicitness of the act.
-
To be fair, Fr. Hesse says that he sides against those who side with the old theologians. When he says this he seems to indicate that he could be wrong and that the matter is not decided. He makes clear arguments for why he took that position and also says that the purpose of the law book is not to declare if it is possible but only to speak about the evil or illicitness of the act.
It is never safe to go against the consensus of the approved theologians of the Church, especially today when the Faith and Holy Tradition are attacked on all fronts.
-
To be fair, Fr. Hesse says that he sides against those who side with the old theologians. When he says this he seems to indicate that he could be wrong and that the matter is not decided. He makes clear arguments for why he took that position and also says that the purpose of the law book is not to declare if it is possible but only to speak about the evil or illicitness of the act.
It is never safe to go against the consensus of the approved theologians of the Church, especially today when the Faith and Holy Tradition are attacked on all fronts.
I don't think that this would apply to this particular case because no article of the Faith is at risk. It seems that one can have one opinion or the other, just as is the case with the belief in the Mediatrix of All Grace.
If we take what you have stated here as a reason, it would seem to be best to take the most precautious route, which is what Fr. Hesse asserts that he is doing. His point for discussing the matter deals with the New Mass, and it is his opinion that leads him to the very safe conclusion, SAFEST, that the New Mass in the vernacular is probably invalid (for all, etc.).
-
Fr. Gregory Hesse, a Canon Lawyer and Doctor of Thomistic Theology agrees with me. Best to listen to all of it but from minute 15:00-25:00 he is clear on it. The "validity of consecration" of the bakery/wine cellar is nonsense. I rest my case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcYXC6DCgIA
Spot on. It is refreshing to hear a priest who actually understands the Church's law and theology and can apply right reason and logic to them.
It becomes clearer to me what Father Wathen meant when he said years ago that the SSPX suffered from soft theology in certain areas.
-
Fr. Gregory Hesse, a Canon Lawyer and Doctor of Thomistic Theology agrees with me. Best to listen to all of it but from minute 15:00-25:00 he is clear on it. The "validity of consecration" of the bakery/wine cellar is nonsense. I rest my case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcYXC6DCgIA
Spot on. It is refreshing to hear a priest who actually understands the Church's law and theology and can apply right reason and logic to them.
It becomes clearer to me what Father Wathen meant when he said years ago that the SSPX suffered from soft theology in certain areas.
The question about Bishop Fellay and his 'bakery/wine cellar consecration' is not just a simple matter of a legitimate difference of theological opinion. The theology of Bishop Fellay is what makes everything in the Novus Ordo possible. It presupposes a conception of the sacraments, the priesthood and the holy liturgy that is antithetical to Catholic tradition and dogmatic truth. It makes any defense of Catholic faith impossible.
His theology takes the priest from a participant in the priesthood of Jesus Christ to the level of a pagan wizard, a magical sorcerer. It reduces the sacraments from divinely instituted mysteries and formal objects of faith to credulous superstitions. Divine worship becomes secondary and entirely accidental to the True Presence. The sacrificial character of the Mass is as well. And the necessary completion of the sacrifice by the communion of the priest is likewise a simple accident. It separates the institution of the Blessed Sacrament from the institution of the priesthood which Jesus Christ joined together. It ignores or treats as purely accidental the symbolic separation of the Body and the Blood of Jesus Christ. And by excluding the Mass ignores or treats as accidental the symbolic joining of the Body and the Blood in His resurrection. The dogmas regarding the form and matter of the sacrament are treated as simple legal prescriptions that may be dismissed. If a priest can forget the bread or wine, why cannot he forget both and consecrate juice and cookies? If the matter is non-essential and open to human manipulation, why does the form of the sacrament have to be respected? And that is exactly what the Novus Ordo did. In fine, his theology makes the Mass itself a simple accident, and necessarily a matter of pure discipline open to the free and independent will of any self-styled liturgical expert to do anything with it. And there has been nothing but liturgical instability since. Even now Bishop Fellay is talking about the reform of the reform. How mindless can he be?
One of the great advances in liturgical understanding over the last twenty-five years is that the Liturgy is not and has never been a matter of pure discipline, but is and always has been a necessary attribute of the faith. It is not and never has been the object of the free and independent will of any legislator. Bishop Fellay knows nothing of this truth. I am sickened to think that he has represented all traditional Catholics in doctrinal discussion with Modernist Rome. I do not doubt that the Romans sized him up well. They never would have entered into a legitimate exchange with a traditional Catholic who would ask serious questions and demand serious definitive answers grounded in the Church's attribute of infallibility.
We are now picking up the ruins of traditional Catholicism that has been fragmented by incompetency in our leadership. The situation is so much worse than the late 1960s and early 70s when there were only a few scattered Catholics trying to understand what was happening. I know that our duty is to fight and that is what we must do. The outcome of this battle is a matter of God's merciful Providence. But, I now pray like Samson, that even if it brings about my own ruin, that this diabolical edifice will soon be brought crumbling down.
-
Marie Auxiliadora,
It makes any defense of Catholic faith impossible.
The Dogma and Doctrine of the Holy Church is rigid and unbending, it admits to obligatory submission alone.
Soft doctrine inevitably leads to questioning, confusion, and the arguing of interpretations. It is a catholic version of rabbinical pilpul.
The replicant Tradition of today has the facade and appearance of Tradition but there are missing strands in its DNA. Things are not all there.
"Of course there is not salvation outside of the True Church........but................."
-
To be fair, Fr. Hesse says that he sides against those who side with the old theologians. When he says this he seems to indicate that he could be wrong and that the matter is not decided. He makes clear arguments for why he took that position and also says that the purpose of the law book is not to declare if it is possible but only to speak about the evil or illicitness of the act.
It is never safe to go against the consensus of the approved theologians of the Church, especially today when the Faith and Holy Tradition are attacked on all fronts.
I don't think that this would apply to this particular case because no article of the Faith is at risk. It seems that one can have one opinion or the other, just as is the case with the belief in the Mediatrix of All Grace.
If we take what you have stated here as a reason, it would seem to be best to take the most precautious route, which is what Fr. Hesse asserts that he is doing. His point for discussing the matter deals with the New Mass, and it is his opinion that leads him to the very safe conclusion, SAFEST, that the New Mass in the vernacular is probably invalid (for all, etc.).
It is never safe to go against the consensus of the theologians, whether the route taken seems to us more safe or less than the teaching they explain.
Actually, the safest conclusion regarding the NO in the vernacular is that it is doubtful, not that it is invalid, because doubt can be established by the significant change in the words, but invalidity has to be certainly proven by proving that the words "for all" absolutely and in every circuмstance substantially change the meaning of the form, which has not yet been done, as far as I know.
Fr. Hesse was an "original" theologian, which is to say that he made up his own novel theories, e.g. that VII was not an ecuмenical council because it did not infallibly define or condemn anything, and he gave a very original explanation why, which you can listen to online.
However, he can find no support for his definition of an ecuмenical council, and his theory is actually refuted by the fact that there was an ecuмenical council (and recognized as such by the Church) which was merely disciplinary and which did not define any dogma nor condemn any heresy - the First Lateran Council.
-
-
To be fair, Fr. Hesse says that he sides against those who side with the old theologians. When he says this he seems to indicate that he could be wrong and that the matter is not decided. He makes clear arguments for why he took that position and also says that the purpose of the law book is not to declare if it is possible but only to speak about the evil or illicitness of the act.
It is never safe to go against the consensus of the approved theologians of the Church, especially today when the Faith and Holy Tradition are attacked on all fronts.
I don't think that this would apply to this particular case because no article of the Faith is at risk. It seems that one can have one opinion or the other, just as is the case with the belief in the Mediatrix of All Grace.
If we take what you have stated here as a reason, it would seem to be best to take the most precautious route, which is what Fr. Hesse asserts that he is doing. His point for discussing the matter deals with the New Mass, and it is his opinion that leads him to the very safe conclusion, SAFEST, that the New Mass in the vernacular is probably invalid (for all, etc.).
It is never safe to go against the consensus of the theologians, whether the route taken seems to us more safe or less than the teaching they explain.
Actually, the safest conclusion regarding the NO in the vernacular is that it is doubtful, not that it is invalid, because doubt can be established by the significant change in the words, but invalidity has to be certainly proven by proving that the words "for all" absolutely and in every circuмstance substantially change the meaning of the form, which has not yet been done, as far as I know.
Fr. Hesse was an "original" theologian, which is to say that he made up his own novel theories, e.g. that VII was not an ecuмenical council because it did not infallibly define or condemn anything, and he gave a very original explanation why, which you can listen to online.
However, he can find no support for his definition of an ecuмenical council, and his theory is actually refuted by the fact that there was an ecuмenical council (and recognized as such by the Church) which was merely disciplinary and which did not define any dogma nor condemn any heresy - the First Lateran Council.
In the specific link provided by myself to Fr. Hesse’s talk he does not say that “Vatican II was not an ecuмenical council.” If you are making this claim from some other source please provide a specific reference that can be examined in context.
I had the opportunity to see Fr. Hesse in person several times and have found him to be a most competent theologian defending Catholic tradition. He was, but not for the reasons you claim, an “original theologian” in that he was able to examine new problems from new perspectives.
There are two general categories of theologians with respect to truth: the more common and popular place themselves above dogma and believe that infallibility rests in their interpretation rather than in the dogma itself. They implicitly claim to be the masters of truth. The other category holds dogma as the formal object of divine and Catholic faith, the unmistakable ground of divine revelation that ends all theological speculation on the subject and from which alone certain conclusions can be deduced. The former believes that dogma is a diving board for theoretical speculations and the latter holds that dogma constitutes a boundary, a limit beyond which speculation is constrained.
Fr. Hesse belonged to the latter and it is true but most unfortunate that anyone who regards dogma as divine revelation that stands on its own feet is now characterized as an “original theologian.” But, we have fallen upon hard times.
-
Fr. Hesse belonged to the latter and it is true but most unfortunate that anyone who regards dogma as divine revelation that stands on its own feet is now characterized as an “original theologian.” But, we have fallen upon hard times.
I wish there were more videos of Father Hesse on youtube. I enjoyed the ones I could find. I also think it is sad he had to die so young. He always spoke highly of the SSPX so I wonder if he had lived, what he would have thought of the resistance to Fellay today.
-
To be fair, Fr. Hesse says that he sides against those who side with the old theologians. When he says this he seems to indicate that he could be wrong and that the matter is not decided. He makes clear arguments for why he took that position and also says that the purpose of the law book is not to declare if it is possible but only to speak about the evil or illicitness of the act.
It is never safe to go against the consensus of the approved theologians of the Church, especially today when the Faith and Holy Tradition are attacked on all fronts.
I don't think that this would apply to this particular case because no article of the Faith is at risk. It seems that one can have one opinion or the other, just as is the case with the belief in the Mediatrix of All Grace.
If we take what you have stated here as a reason, it would seem to be best to take the most precautious route, which is what Fr. Hesse asserts that he is doing. His point for discussing the matter deals with the New Mass, and it is his opinion that leads him to the very safe conclusion, SAFEST, that the New Mass in the vernacular is probably invalid (for all, etc.).
It is never safe to go against the consensus of the theologians, whether the route taken seems to us more safe or less than the teaching they explain.
Actually, the safest conclusion regarding the NO in the vernacular is that it is doubtful, not that it is invalid, because doubt can be established by the significant change in the words, but invalidity has to be certainly proven by proving that the words "for all" absolutely and in every circuмstance substantially change the meaning of the form, which has not yet been done, as far as I know.
Fr. Hesse was an "original" theologian, which is to say that he made up his own novel theories, e.g. that VII was not an ecuмenical council because it did not infallibly define or condemn anything, and he gave a very original explanation why, which you can listen to online.
However, he can find no support for his definition of an ecuмenical council, and his theory is actually refuted by the fact that there was an ecuмenical council (and recognized as such by the Church) which was merely disciplinary and which did not define any dogma nor condemn any heresy - the First Lateran Council.
In the specific link provided by myself to Fr. Hesse’s talk he does not say that “Vatican II was not an ecuмenical council.” If you are making this claim from some other source please provide a specific reference that can be examined in context.
"Fr. Hesse explains why Vatican II is Not A Council of the Church"
-
Thank you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnEQIq4_AKI
Now everyone can learn from him. Fr. Gruner and J.V. sponsored at least some of his conferences. CFN still sells his CD's I believe.
-
Thank you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnEQIq4_AKI
Now everyone can learn from him. Fr. Gruner and J.V. sponsored at least some of his conferences. CFN still sells his CD's I believe.
I would not recommend anyone learning from that video because it is founded on the novelty I mentioned earlier and contains some other errors, e.g. he says that ecuмenical councils are like sacramentals or higher and says they are liturgical acts, he says that no pope can change Quo Primum, and maybe other things I haven't noticed.
-
Thank you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnEQIq4_AKI
Now everyone can learn from him. Fr. Gruner and J.V. sponsored at least some of his conferences. CFN still sells his CD's I believe.
I would not recommend anyone learning from that video because it is founded on the novelty I mentioned earlier and contains some other errors, e.g. he says that ecuмenical councils are like sacramentals or higher and says they are liturgical acts, he says that no pope can change Quo Primum, and maybe other things I haven't noticed.
Emotional again...I understand why (a thumb down may help you feel better). Allow me repeat:
I had the opportunity to see Fr. Hesse in person several times and have found him to be a most competent theologian defending Catholic tradition. He was, but not for the reasons you claim, an “original theologian” in that he was able to examine new problems from new perspectives.
There are two general categories of theologians with respect to truth: the more common and popular place themselves above dogma and believe that infallibility rests in their interpretation rather than in the dogma itself. They implicitly claim to be the masters of truth. The other category holds dogma as the formal object of divine and Catholic faith, the unmistakable ground of divine revelation that ends all theological speculation on the subject and from which alone certain conclusions can be deduced. The former believes that dogma is a diving board for theoretical speculations and the latter holds that dogma constitutes a boundary, a limit beyond which speculation is constrained.
Fr. Hesse belonged to the latter and it is true but most unfortunate that anyone who regards dogma as divine revelation that stands on its own feet is now characterized as an “original theologian.” But, we have fallen upon hard times.
The entire resistance would do well to listen to Fr. Hesse if they want to make a difference. The last 15 minutes or so on Lumen Gentium are a MUST hear. I just finished listening to him and all I could say is WOW! I would also suggest you read Quo Primum again which to this day has not been revoked for obvious reasons.
-
Thank you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnEQIq4_AKI
Now everyone can learn from him. Fr. Gruner and J.V. sponsored at least some of his conferences. CFN still sells his CD's I believe.
I would not recommend anyone learning from that video because it is founded on the novelty I mentioned earlier and contains some other errors, e.g. he says that ecuмenical councils are like sacramentals or higher and says they are liturgical acts, he says that no pope can change Quo Primum, and maybe other things I haven't noticed.
Wherever you studied in the seminary or offer Masses, if it is an English speaking country, I wouldn't suggest making those same comments about Fr. Hesse. I don't know of many who will take you seriously considering the subject.
-
Fr. Hesse: Modernism and Pope St. Pius X
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqQ_KUtJpcI
Fr. Hesse on Papal Infalibility:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RlQGwUVzVA
Fr. Hesse Papal Infallibility - Fact vs. Falsehood
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VF6jK8_Pr7I
Fr. Hesse: The True Notion of Sacred Tradition
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cimA1VpEuYo
-
Thank you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnEQIq4_AKI
Now everyone can learn from him. Fr. Gruner and J.V. sponsored at least some of his conferences. CFN still sells his CD's I believe.
I would not recommend anyone learning from that video because it is founded on the novelty I mentioned earlier and contains some other errors, e.g. he says that ecuмenical councils are like sacramentals or higher and says they are liturgical acts, he says that no pope can change Quo Primum, and maybe other things I haven't noticed.
And in his considered observations he is exhibiting an ability to use his extensive training and powers of reason to actually make sense of and detect, the conciliar revolutionaries misuse of the Church's structures to deceive and subvert its function and mission.
His explanations of the sacramental and liturgical dimensions of a true council of the Church are not novelty, they are in fact, a reality.
And the idea that Quo Primum is revisable, revocable, only disciplinary, and not binding is the error and novelty of the conciliar church and its modernist theologians.
-
To be fair, Fr. Hesse says that he sides against those who side with the old theologians. When he says this he seems to indicate that he could be wrong and that the matter is not decided. He makes clear arguments for why he took that position and also says that the purpose of the law book is not to declare if it is possible but only to speak about the evil or illicitness of the act.
It is never safe to go against the consensus of the approved theologians of the Church, especially today when the Faith and Holy Tradition are attacked on all fronts.
I don't think that this would apply to this particular case because no article of the Faith is at risk. It seems that one can have one opinion or the other, just as is the case with the belief in the Mediatrix of All Grace.
If we take what you have stated here as a reason, it would seem to be best to take the most precautious route, which is what Fr. Hesse asserts that he is doing. His point for discussing the matter deals with the New Mass, and it is his opinion that leads him to the very safe conclusion, SAFEST, that the New Mass in the vernacular is probably invalid (for all, etc.).
It is never safe to go against the consensus of the theologians, whether the route taken seems to us more safe or less than the teaching they explain.
Actually, the safest conclusion regarding the NO in the vernacular is that it is doubtful, not that it is invalid, because doubt can be established by the significant change in the words, but invalidity has to be certainly proven by proving that the words "for all" absolutely and in every circuмstance substantially change the meaning of the form, which has not yet been done, as far as I know.
Fr. Hesse was an "original" theologian, which is to say that he made up his own novel theories, e.g. that VII was not an ecuмenical council because it did not infallibly define or condemn anything, and he gave a very original explanation why, which you can listen to online.
However, he can find no support for his definition of an ecuмenical council, and his theory is actually refuted by the fact that there was an ecuмenical council (and recognized as such by the Church) which was merely disciplinary and which did not define any dogma nor condemn any heresy - the First Lateran Council.
In the specific link provided by myself to Fr. Hesse’s talk he does not say that “Vatican II was not an ecuмenical council.” If you are making this claim from some other source please provide a specific reference that can be examined in context.
I had the opportunity to see Fr. Hesse in person several times and have found him to be a most competent theologian defending Catholic tradition. He was, but not for the reasons you claim, an “original theologian” in that he was able to examine new problems from new perspectives.
There are two general categories of theologians with respect to truth: the more common and popular place themselves above dogma and believe that infallibility rests in their interpretation rather than in the dogma itself. They implicitly claim to be the masters of truth. The other category holds dogma as the formal object of divine and Catholic faith, the unmistakable ground of divine revelation that ends all theological speculation on the subject and from which alone certain conclusions can be deduced. The former believes that dogma is a diving board for theoretical speculations and the latter holds that dogma constitutes a boundary, a limit beyond which speculation is constrained.
Fr. Hesse belonged to the latter and it is true but most unfortunate that anyone who regards dogma as divine revelation that stands on its own feet is now characterized as an “original theologian.” But, we have fallen upon hard times.
Interesting prophecies:
http://archive.org/stream/CatholicProphecy/CatholicProphecy_djvu.txt
Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser (Born in the 17th
century, in Germany)
46.3 "During this period the Wisdom of God guides the
Church in several ways: 1) by chastising the Church so that
riches may not corrupt her completely; 2) by interposing the
Council of Trent like a light in the darkness, so that the Chris-
tians who see the light may know what to believe...
46.7 "They will ridicule Christian simplicity; they will call
it folly and nonsense, but they will have the highest regard
for advanced knowledge, and for the skill by which the
axioms of the law, the precepts of morality, the Holy Canons
and religious dogmas are clouded by senseless questions and
elaborate arguments. As a result, no principle at all, however
holy, authentic, ancient, and certain it may be, will remain
free of censure, criticism, false interpretations, modification,
and delimitation by man.
It is incredible to me that "traditional" theologians such as SSPX think they are above the infallible canons of Trent that need to explain them to the faithful. Same for dogma. The above prophecies are perfectly in line with Vatican I, Pius IX & Pius X.
-
You never hear things like this from the avg. SSPX priest because the whole thrust of the SSPX, seemingly their whole reason for existing now seems to be to support and defend the Superior General.
-
Fr. Hesse was an "original" theologian, which is to say that he made up his own novel theories, e.g. that VII was not an ecuмenical council because it did not infallibly define or condemn anything, and he gave a very original explanation why, which you can listen to online.
However, he can find no support for his definition of an ecuмenical council, and his theory is actually refuted by the fact that there was an ecuмenical council (and recognized as such by the Church) which was merely disciplinary and which did not define any dogma nor condemn any heresy - the First Lateran Council.
In the specific link provided by myself to Fr. Hesse’s talk he does not say that “Vatican II was not an ecuмenical council.” If you are making this claim from some other source please provide a specific reference that can be examined in context.
[/quote]
A valid ecuмenical council for which church? According to Dom Antônio de Castro Mayer. a schismatic one, whcih seperates itself from Catholics when departing from the Truth.
"The Code of Canon Law defines schismatics as the faithful who have separated themselves from the body of the Church, which is made up of the Pope and the bishops in union with him. More directly they are against charity, than against the Faith. Thus, before the First Vatican Council, one would have thought that this referred to someone who held to heresy. A historical example is the act constituted by the "petite église", formed by the bishops and faithful who had not heeded to the decision of Pius VII, when, yielding to the demands of Napoleon, he dismissed all the bishops faithful to the monarchy of Louis XVI. These bishops and faithful did not adhere to any doctrinal error, but did not heed to the Pope's decision. They only had distanced themselves from the Pope and the bishops united with the Pope. It was a schism. It was not a heresy.
"Since the First Vatican Council has defined as a dogma of faith that the Roman Pontiff has in the Church, the supreme power of jurisdiction over bishops and faithful, there is no possibility of a schism forming that is not also heresy, which does not reject one truth of faith.
"However, as does heresy, schism, in general, also involves doctrinal disagreement. That's what we mean when we talk about the St. Hippolytus schism in the third century, when the Saint refused to accept the authority of the Pope Saint Callistus. Schism, then could set up a body of doctrine that would pose as a doctrinal lot of the Church, and that, in fact, turns away the purity and integrity of the teachings of the Church.
"In the case of Vatican II, this could and should be appointed as schismatic, since it shows that, in its authentic texts, there are deviations from the teachings of the Church's traditional faith.
"Now similar dissonance was noted even during the Council's work. It is, moreover, of all known religious freedom, claimed by the council as natural law, even for those who do not comply with the duty to investigate the true religion. In other words, the Council admits that such a right is recognized by all states. This teaching of Vatican is diametrically opposed to the traditional doctrine, renewed by Pius IX in his encyclical 'Quanta Cura'.
"This is one example. There is much more.
"Given this schismatic position of Vatican II, the good of souls requires the absolute need to discard it before taking care of any others that may arise. Incidentally, the Vatican 2 Council must not be presented as a council of the Catholic Church."
-
There is much and ample evidence to question the legitimacy of the false council.
It was NO council as the Catholic Church understands a true council to be and it never had the intention to do what the Church has always done when calling a Council.
The historical record is replete with many proofs that the council was instigated and brought forth by the enemies of the Church.
The Jews had lobbied John XXIII, many cardinals and bishops to this end. They had their lobbies and pressure groups at and around the council right from its beginning, and as also evidenced by the record they got many changes made in their favor which were detrimental to the Holy Religion and the the Church.
Who would dare say that the Church could ever deliberately corrupt its own doctrines, dogmas and practices in favor of Satan's spawn and to the loss of so many souls?
-
Interesting prophecies:
http://archive.org/stream/CatholicProphecy/CatholicProphecy_djvu.txt
Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser (Born in the 17th
century, in Germany)
46.3 "During this period the Wisdom of God guides the
Church in several ways: 1) by chastising the Church so that
riches may not corrupt her completely; 2) by interposing the
Council of Trent like a light in the darkness, so that the Chris-
tians who see the light may know what to believe...
46.7 "They will ridicule Christian simplicity; they will call
it folly and nonsense, but they will have the highest regard
for advanced knowledge, and for the skill by which the
axioms of the law, the precepts of morality, the Holy Canons
and religious dogmas are clouded by senseless questions and
elaborate arguments. As a result, no principle at all, however
holy, authentic, ancient, and certain it may be, will remain
free of censure, criticism, false interpretations, modification,
and delimitation by man.
It is incredible to me that "traditional" theologians such as SSPX think they are above the infallible canons of Trent that need to explain them to the faithful. Same for dogma. The above prophecies are perfectly in line with Vatican I, Pius IX & Pius X.
Those prophecies of Ven. Bartholomew are very interesting, thank you for sharing!
Reading the second prophecy of his that you posted about Christian simplicity reminds me of something our Lord revealed to St. Teresa of Avila. Jesus told her that “all the evil in the world comes from ignorance of the truths of the holy writings in their clear simplicity, of which not one iota shall pass away.” I (St. Teresa) thought that I had always believed this, and that all the faithful also believed it. Then He (Jesus) said “Ah, My daughter, they are few who love Me in truth; for if men loved Me, I should not hide My secrets from them.”
This is recorded in her autobiography.
May almighty God bless you is my sincere prayer!