Author Topic: Fr. Caldern Refutes Bishop Fellay (Read 22742 times)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: AJNC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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