Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8

Author Topic: Why SSPX Cannot Defend Catholic Tradition - Bakery & Wine Cellar Consecrations  (Read 21698 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Maria Auxiliadora

  • Supporter
  • ***
  • Posts: 1432
  • Reputation: +1367/-143
  • Gender: Female
Re: Why SSPX Cannot Defend Catholic Tradition - Bakery & Wine Cellar Consecrations
« Reply #75 on: July 26, 2023, 04:32:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Angelus on July 26, 2023, 09:33:31 AM
    Let's look at what the rubrics in the traditional Roman hand-missal (the Angelus missal) say:

    ------------
    HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM

    After pronouncing the words of the consecration, the priest, kneeling, adores the Sacred Host; rising he elevates It, and then placing It on the corporal again adores It. After this, he never disjoins his forefingers and thumbs, except when he is to take the Host, until after the washing of his fingers.
     -------

    What's going on here, Drew? Is the priest adoring a piece of regular wheat bread at that point? Is the missal and all the traditional liturgical practices of the Roman Catholic church not following the "divine and Catholic faith." No, the missal is not wrong. You are wrong. The consecration of the host happens separately from the consecration of the wine. And each consecration, when accomplished by applying "the form" to "the matter" (with valid minister and intention), results in the full Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord.

    You are mixing up the Sacrifice and the Sacrament. Yes, the Sacrifice requires BOTH consecrations to be done. The Sacrifice is not accomplished until the Two-fold Consecration is completed. But the Sacrament itself is confected completely in each of the two Sacramental consecrations independently.

    There is no doubt in these matters.


    How disingenuous to quote someone out of context to confuse the issue. You keep addressing consecration within the Mass, and NOT the nonsense of entire "bakery or wine cellar consecrations" by simply saying the words of consecration as taught by the SSPX and which is the topic of his article.

    This is drew's full reply from last night:

    https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/why-sspx-cannot-defend-catholic-tradition-bakery-wine-cellar-consecrations/msg895974/#msg895974

    And this is his comment on Canon 927 you quote only in part :

    Quote

    You are reading something into the law that is not there. Simply because an act is "wicked, evil, forbidden" does not mean it is valid. If you curse God the act is "wicked, evil, forbidden" but produces no possible valid injury to God. It would be "wicked, evil, forbidden" for a layman to pretend to be a priest and absolve in the confessional but produces no valid absolution.

    You again err when you say, "If the consecration was merely 'invalid,' the canon would have stated that." This is claiming that all invalidating laws declare they are invalidating in the law itself which it not true.


    We know by divine and Catholic faith, that is by dogma, that the matter for the Eucharistic sacrifice is bread AND wine. Therefore, we know by divine and Catholic faith that to attempt to consecrate bread alone or wine alone is invalid because of a defect in matter "the sacrament is not accomplished."


    Im sure drew will reply after work.





    Logged
    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)

    Offline drew

    • Supporter
    • **
    • Posts: 399
    • Reputation: +1122/-239
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Why SSPX Cannot Defend Catholic Tradition - Bakery & Wine Cellar Consecrations
    « Reply #76 on: July 26, 2023, 04:46:13 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Angelus on July 26, 2023, 09:33:31 AM
    Let's look at what the rubrics in the traditional Roman hand-missal (the Angelus missal) say:

    ------------
    HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM

    After pronouncing the words of the consecration, the priest, kneeling, adores the Sacred Host; rising he elevates It, and then placing It on the corporal again adores It. After this, he never disjoins his forefingers and thumbs, except when he is to take the Host, until after the washing of his fingers.
     -------

    What's going on here, Drew? Is the priest adoring a piece of regular wheat bread at that point? Is the missal and all the traditional liturgical practices of the Roman Catholic church not following the "divine and Catholic faith." No, the missal is not wrong. You are wrong. The consecration of the host happens separately from the consecration of the wine. And each consecration, when accomplished by applying "the form" to "the matter" (with valid minister and intention), results in the full Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord.

    You are mixing up the Sacrifice and the Sacrament. Yes, the Sacrifice requires BOTH consecrations to be done. The Sacrifice is not accomplished until the Two-fold Consecration is completed. But the Sacrament itself is confected completely in each of the two Sacramental consecrations independently.

    There is no doubt in these matters.


    Angelus,

    Since you asked, “What’s going on here,” I will tell you. The presumption in this reply is that you are a Catholic and therefore will hold dogma as your proximate rule of faith. Remember that the canonical definition of a heretic is taken from St. Thomas.     St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas.” This not only defines heresy, it also defines a faithful Catholic as one who keeps dogma as his proximate rule of faith.





    It is a dogma, that is an article of divine and Catholic faith that the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is composed of form and matter. If there is any defect in either the form or the matter, “the sacrament is not accomplished.”




    Quote
    Each sacrament is accomplished in three parts, that is, by things as the matter, by words as the form, and by the person of the minister conferring the sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does. If one of these three should be lacking, the sacrament is not accomplished.


    Council of Florence




    The matter for the Holy Eucharist is Bread AND Wine and this is a truth of divine and Catholic faith, that is, a dogma. If you deny this dogma you are a heretic.




    You claim in your post that if a priest consecrates the bread validly it becomes the Holy Eucharist regardless if he consecratess the wine or not, regardless if the wine is present or not, regardless if the wine is really Kool-Aid, regardless if happens to die before he has had the opportunity to consecrate the wine. In short, you believe that the matter for Holy Eucharist is bread OR wine and that either species can be consecrated without the other. You do not believe the Catholic dogma that both bread and wine are the necessary and essential matter of the sacrament.




    If you would begin with Catholic revealed Truth you would not stumble at this problem. The formal and final cause of the consecration the Holy Eucharist is Jesus Christ, that is, God. The material and instrumental cause is the priest. God is omnipotent and omniscient. God will not consecrate one species without the other because God has revealed this truth that both bread and wine are the matter of this sacrament.




    If you believe that He will, you are ultimately making the priest the formal and final cause and reducing God to the instrumental cause. This is in fact what witchcraft and sorcery are in attempting to make the spiritual world subject to the will of man.




    You believe in bakery and wine cellar “consecrations,” that is, you believe in consecration without the proper form, without the proper matter, and without the proper intention that can only be had in the context of the Mass. This is the theology of sorcery and utterly corrupts the Catholic faith in the Mass, the sacraments, and the priesthood. It is the theology that has made the Novus Ordo possible and anyone who believes this gross superstition is absolutely incapable of defending the Catholic faith or the purity of worship.




    The U.S. District of the SSPX defended bakery and wine cellar consecrations on the grounds that the volume of bread and wine is immaterial. That was just one cowardly begging of the question. If a priest can consecrate one wine cellar, why not several, why not all the wine in France, voila! Why not all the bread in Italy, stupendo! You are travelling down a road the get dumber with every mile.




    Drew






    Logged

    Offline Angelus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1169
    • Reputation: +496/-96
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Why SSPX Cannot Defend Catholic Tradition - Bakery & Wine Cellar Consecrations
    « Reply #77 on: July 26, 2023, 07:58:33 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
    • Quote from: drew on July 26, 2023, 04:46:13 PM

    You claim in your post that if a priest consecrates the bread validly it becomes the Holy Eucharist regardless if he consecrates the wine or not, regardless if the wine is present or not, regardless if the wine is really Kool-Aid, regardless if happens to die before he has had the opportunity to consecrate the wine. In short, you believe that the matter for Holy Eucharist is bread OR wine and that either species can be consecrated without the other.

    You said, correctly, that I believe the following,

    "...if a priest consecrates the bread validly it becomes the Holy Eucharist...regardless if he happens to die before he has had the opportunity to consecrate the wine."

    Now let's compare what I believe to one of the examples from De defectibus:

    "33. If before the Consecration the priest becomes seriously ill, or faints, or dies, the Mass is discontinued. If this happens after the consecration of the Body only and before the consecration of the Blood, or after both have been consecrated, the Mass is to be completed by another priest from the place where the first priest stopped, ... If the priest has died after half-saying the formula for the consecration of the Body, then there is no Consecration and no need for another priest to complete the Mass. If, on the other hand, the priest has died after half- saying the formula for the consecration of the Blood, then another priest is to complete the Mass, repeating the whole formula over the same chalice ...."

    Why the different requirements under these different conditions? There are two options:

    1. If the priest dies BEFORE finishing the "consecration of the host," then the Eucharist is not present at all. So the Mass can just be discontinued.

    2. If the priest dies AFTER finishing the "consecration of the host" only, then the Eucharist is present, and a new priest must finish the partially-completed Mass for the dead priest.

    In example #1, a new priest can just discontinue the Mass. No harm done because the Eucharist is not present.

    But in example #2, a new priest must finish the incomplete Mass because the Eucharist is present in only one species, and only one of the two required consecrations has been accomplished. The Mass must be completed, not because two consecrations are necessary to confect the Eucharist itself, but, instead because two consecrations of the Eucharist are necessary to accomplish the Holy Sacrifice.

    You will note that the language in De defectibus speaks of each consecration as a separate, independent consecration. When each independent consecration is completed the Holy Eucharist becomes present. The Holy Eucharist doesn't show up only after the second consecration, the "consecration of the wine."
    Logged

    Offline SimpleMan

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5011
    • Reputation: +1944/-244
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Why SSPX Cannot Defend Catholic Tradition - Bakery & Wine Cellar Consecrations
    « Reply #78 on: July 26, 2023, 08:10:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Angelus on July 26, 2023, 07:58:33 PM
    You said, correctly, that I believe the following,

    "...if a priest consecrates the bread validly it becomes the Holy Eucharist...regardless if he happens to die before he has had the opportunity to consecrate the wine."

    Now let's compare what I believe to one of the examples from De defectibus:

    "33. If before the Consecration the priest becomes seriously ill, or faints, or dies, the Mass is discontinued. If this happens after the consecration of the Body only and before the consecration of the Blood, or after both have been consecrated, the Mass is to be completed by another priest from the place where the first priest stopped, ... If the priest has died after half-saying the formula for the consecration of the Body, then there is no Consecration and no need for another priest to complete the Mass. If, on the other hand, the priest has died after half- saying the formula for the consecration of the Blood, then another priest is to complete the Mass, repeating the whole formula over the same chalice ...."

    Why the different requirements under these different conditions? There are two options:

    1. If the priest dies BEFORE finishing the "consecration of the host," then the Eucharist is not present at all. So the Mass can just be discontinued.

    2. If the priest dies AFTER finishing the "consecration of the host" only, then the Eucharist is present, and a new priest must finish the partially-completed Mass for the dead priest.

    In example #1, a new priest can just discontinue the Mass. No harm done because the Eucharist is not present.

    But in example #2, a new priest must finish the incomplete Mass because the Eucharist is present in only one species, and only one of the two required consecrations has been accomplished. The Mass must be completed, not because two consecrations are necessary to confect the Eucharist itself, but, instead because two consecrations of the Eucharist are necessary to accomplish the Holy Sacrifice.

    You will note that the language in De defectibus speaks of each consecration as a separate, independent consecration. When each independent consecration is completed the Holy Eucharist becomes present. The Holy Eucharist doesn't show up only after the second consecration, the "consecration of the wine."

    Just out of curiosity, do we know if there is any time frame by which the second priest has to continue the interrupted Mass?

    In a rural area with only one priest, another priest might not be able to get there until the next day (or week, or whatever).

    I wouldn't want to make this into a variation on the theme of sorites --- "how many grains of sand make a heap?" --- but summoning another priest right away, or even that same day, might not be an option.

    Also, does the Mass have to take place on the same altar, or could the Mass be continued somewhere else?  It seems as though it would have to be on the same altar, as otherwise you would not have the Body present (or at least not the Host that the first priest consecrated before he died or otherwise became unable to finish the Mass), and the finishing priest could not consume both Species.  (I suppose another way of looking at it, would be "does the priest have to consume the Host, or at least one of them, that was consecrated at that same Mass?".)
    Logged

    Offline Angelus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1169
    • Reputation: +496/-96
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Why SSPX Cannot Defend Catholic Tradition - Bakery & Wine Cellar Consecrations
    « Reply #79 on: July 26, 2023, 08:40:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SimpleMan on July 26, 2023, 08:10:41 PM
    Just out of curiosity, do we know if there is any time frame by which the second priest has to continue the interrupted Mass?

    In a rural area with only one priest, another priest might not be able to get there until the next day (or week, or whatever).

    I wouldn't want to make this into a variation on the theme of sorites --- "how many grains of sand make a heap?" --- but summoning another priest right away, or even that same day, might not be an option.

    Also, does the Mass have to take place on the same altar, or could the Mass be continued somewhere else?  It seems as though it would have to be on the same altar, as otherwise you would not have the Body present (or at least not the Host that the first priest consecrated before he died or otherwise became unable to finish the Mass), and the finishing priest could not consume both Species.  (I suppose another way of looking at it, would be "does the priest have to consume the Host, or at least one of them, that was consecrated at that same Mass?".)

    Good questions. 

    The book called The Celebration of Mass: a Study of the Rubrics of the Roman Missal, by J.B. O'Connell, says,

    "6. If, in the case of the death or grave illness of the celebrant, another priest cannot be got within an hour or so, the obligation of completing the Mass ceases, as it becomes doubtful."
    ....

    "8. If a second priest cannot be got, and the celebrant cannot consume the Sacred Species, These should be put into the tabernacle, even by a layman, to be consumed later by another priest."

    I recommend getting this little book. There is much more detail than I am willing to type. O'Connell expands significantly on the basics in De defectibus.

    https://www.romanitaspress.com/product-page/de-defectibus-compendium-saddlestitch



    Logged

    Offline drew

    • Supporter
    • **
    • Posts: 399
    • Reputation: +1122/-239
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Why SSPX Cannot Defend Catholic Tradition - Bakery & Wine Cellar Consecrations
    « Reply #80 on: July 26, 2023, 08:45:56 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
    • Quote from: Angelus on July 26, 2023, 07:58:33 PM
    You said, correctly, that I believe the following,

    "...if a priest consecrates the bread validly it becomes the Holy Eucharist...regardless if he happens to die before he has had the opportunity to consecrate the wine."

    Now let's compare what I believe to one of the examples from De defectibus:

    "33. If before the Consecration the priest becomes seriously ill, or faints, or dies, the Mass is discontinued. If this happens after the consecration of the Body only and before the consecration of the Blood, or after both have been consecrated, the Mass is to be completed by another priest from the place where the first priest stopped, ... If the priest has died after half-saying the formula for the consecration of the Body, then there is no Consecration and no need for another priest to complete the Mass. If, on the other hand, the priest has died after half- saying the formula for the consecration of the Blood, then another priest is to complete the Mass, repeating the whole formula over the same chalice ...."

    Why the different requirements under these different conditions? There are two options:

    1. If the priest dies BEFORE finishing the "consecration of the host," then the Eucharist is not present at all. So the Mass can just be discontinued.

    2. If the priest dies AFTER finishing the "consecration of the host" only, then the Eucharist is present, and a new priest must finish the partially-completed Mass for the dead priest.

    In example #1, a new priest can just discontinue the Mass. No harm done because the Eucharist is not present.

    But in example #2, a new priest must finish the incomplete Mass because the Eucharist is present in only one species, and only one of the two required consecrations has been accomplished. The Mass must be completed, not because two consecrations are necessary to confect the Eucharist itself, but, instead because two consecrations of the Eucharist are necessary to accomplish the Holy Sacrifice.

    You will note that the language in De defectibus speaks of each consecration as a separate, independent consecration. When each independent consecration is completed the Holy Eucharist becomes present. The Holy Eucharist doesn't show up only after the second consecration, the "consecration of the wine."

    Angelus,

     
    When you reply to my posts I would appreciate in the future that you quote my entire post so that there is no question of taking anything out of context.
     
    You are declaring that you deny that bread and wine are the necessary matter for the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. You are denying a dogma, an article of divine and Catholic faith, based upon your personal understanding of Catholic rubrics from De defectibus contrary to infallibly revealed Catholic truth. I draw certain and necessary deductive conclusions from revealed truth. You do not permit your judgment to be guided by Catholic truth but prefer your own dim wit to arrive at inductive conclusions that end in the overturning God's revelation. Congratulations!
     
    The grace of Faith is a gift from God. Faith is believing what God has revealed on the authority of God the revealer. I can give you rational motives for the faith but only God can grant you that grace. Tell me, do you believe God has anything to do with the hypothetical priest dying after the consecration of the bread and before the consecration of the wine? Do you think that God knows if the sacrifice can be completed or not? Don't you think God would know if there were no wine available? How can you be so obtuse?
     
    I repeat again, God is the One who Consecrates at Mass. God is the final and formal cause of the consecration at Mass. He only consecrates at Mass and outside of Mass he does not consecrate because the Mass, that is, the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, our Lord, is the meritorious cause of the consecration. The priest is only the secondary but necessary material and instrumental cause. And I repeat again, all causes must work to the same end for any material object to the completed.
     
    Your objections are a childish and gross affront to God's revelation. You and the SSPX who believe in bakery and wine cellar consecrations are vulgar corrupters of Catholic truth and have the temerity to appeal to De defectibus which is addressing problems in the context of the Mass with the intention to use the proper form and matter. Know this, to deny a Catholic dogma makes you a heretic.
     
    Drew



    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46848
    • Reputation: +27721/-5146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Why SSPX Cannot Defend Catholic Tradition - Bakery & Wine Cellar Consecrations
    « Reply #81 on: July 26, 2023, 08:51:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on July 25, 2023, 09:41:24 PM
    Oh, Sean knows.  But he always defends a predetermined agenda.  He's the most biased poster on Cathinfo.

    Yep, in the sense that he decides beforehand what he wants to believe, defends it until he's reached the point that he can not rebut arguments against his position, and then slides over into ridicule and mockery of his adversaries.  It's rather childish.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46848
    • Reputation: +27721/-5146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Why SSPX Cannot Defend Catholic Tradition - Bakery & Wine Cellar Consecrations
    « Reply #82 on: July 26, 2023, 09:06:43 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: drew on July 26, 2023, 04:46:13 PM

    You claim in your post that if a priest consecrates the bread validly it becomes the Holy Eucharist regardless if he consecratess the wine or not, regardless if the wine is present or not, regardless if the wine is really Kool-Aid, regardless if happens to die before he has had the opportunity to consecrate the wine. In short, you believe that the matter for Holy Eucharist is bread OR wine and that either species can be consecrated without the other. You do not believe the Catholic dogma that both bread and wine are the necessary and essential matter of the sacrament.

    Ridiculous.  You're conflating the sacrificial and the sacramental aspects of the Mass.  It's a disputed question among theologians whether the bread would become the Blessed Sacrament if a consecration of the wine does not follow, and it's certainly not "heresy", as you bluster, to hold the opinion that the bread does in fact become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ without the wine being consecrated afterwards.  You're entitled to hold your opinion, but it's not dogma by any stretch.

    So, if a priest finishes the consecration of the bread and adores Our Lord immediately afterwards, then drops dead, does the Blessed Sacrament revert to bread, or did he just commit an act of idolatry?

    We're not talking about your stretch where a priest might consecrate a bakery or flagrantly abuse his power to consecrate, as those would speak to a defect of intention, not intending to do what the Church does.  If the priest did not INTEND to consecrate both, he would not be intending to do what the Church does, since the Church always has the priest consecrate both, as part of the Holy Sacrifice.  But if he intended to do both but failed, then the bread would become the Blessed Sacrament.  Let's say he botched the form of the consecration of the wine (inadvertently).  There would be no Mass, but the bread would in fact have become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord.
    Logged

    Offline trad123

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2033
    • Reputation: +450/-96
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Why SSPX Cannot Defend Catholic Tradition - Bakery & Wine Cellar Consecrations
    « Reply #83 on: July 26, 2023, 09:09:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on July 26, 2023, 09:06:43 PM
    So, if a priest finishes the consecration of the bread and adores Our Lord immediately afterwards, then drops dead, does the Blessed Sacrament revert to bread, or did he just commit an act of idolatry?


    This needs to be discussed.

    The bakery thing needs to take a back seat in this discussion.

    Logged
    2 Corinthians 4:3-4 

    And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.

    Offline trad123

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2033
    • Reputation: +450/-96
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Why SSPX Cannot Defend Catholic Tradition - Bakery & Wine Cellar Consecrations
    « Reply #84 on: July 26, 2023, 09:16:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Am I misunderstanding?

    Drew, in the context of the Mass, following your position, would anyone be committing idolatry that worships the Eucharist, prior to the consecration of the wine?

    Logged
    2 Corinthians 4:3-4 

    And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46848
    • Reputation: +27721/-5146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Why SSPX Cannot Defend Catholic Tradition - Bakery & Wine Cellar Consecrations
    « Reply #85 on: July 26, 2023, 09:17:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: trad123 on July 26, 2023, 09:09:22 PM

    This needs to be discussed.

    The bakery thing needs to take a back seat in this discussion.

    Yes, it's clear that at that point the bread has already become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.  Church instructs the priest to genuflect, to adore the Host, and then to perform the elevation, having indulgenced the ejaculation of "My Lord and my God" during said elevation.  Clearly at that point the Church considers the bread to already be the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord.  Otherwise, the Church would be instructing the priest to commit idolatry, and to encourage the faithful to do the same during the elevation.  This has nothing to do with scenarios where a priest would only INTEND to consecrate the bread, since that's a defect of intention to do what the Church does, as the Church does not consecrate one without the other.  In the case of the priest who died right after the consecration of the bread, who would possibly dare to take the host and then put it back into the container with unconsecrated Hosts?
    Logged

    Offline Angelus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1169
    • Reputation: +496/-96
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Why SSPX Cannot Defend Catholic Tradition - Bakery & Wine Cellar Consecrations
    « Reply #86 on: July 26, 2023, 09:21:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: drew on July 26, 2023, 08:45:56 PM
    Angelus,

    When you reply to my posts I would appreciate in the future that you quote my entire post so that there is no question of taking anything out of context.
     
    You are declaring that you deny that bread and wine are the necessary matter for the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. You are denying a dogma, an article of divine and Catholic faith, based upon your personal understanding of Catholic rubrics from De defectibus contrary to infallibly revealed Catholic truth. I draw certain and necessary deductive conclusions from revealed truth. You do not permit your judgment to be guided by Catholic truth but prefer your own dim wit to arrive at inductive conclusions that end in the overturning God's revelation. Congratulations!
     
    The grace of Faith is a gift from God. Faith is believing what God has revealed on the authority of God the revealer. I can give you rational motives for the faith but only God can grant you that grace. Tell me, do you believe God has anything to do with the hypothetical priest dying after the consecration of the bread and before the consecration of the wine? Do you think that God knows if the sacrifice can be completed or not? Don't you think God would know if there were no wine available? How can you be so obtuse?
     
    I repeat again, God is the One who Consecrates at Mass. God is the final and formal cause of the consecration at Mass. He only consecrates at Mass and outside of Mass he does not consecrate because the Mass, that is, the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, our Lord, is the meritorious cause of the consecration. The priest is only the secondary but necessary material and instrumental cause. And I repeat again, all causes must work to the same end for any material object to the completed.
     
    Your objections are a childish and gross affront to God's revelation. You and the SSPX who believe in bakery and wine cellar consecrations are vulgar corrupters of Catholic truth and have the temerity to appeal to De defectibus which is addressing problems in the context of the Mass with the intention to use the proper form and matter. Know this, to deny a Catholic dogma makes you a heretic.
     
    Drew

    1. Sadly, you still think that both consecrations are necessary to confect a valid Eucharist. You are wrong. Both consecrations are not necessary to validly confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist. However, both consecrations are necessary to accomplish the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar. And to consecrate one Eucharistic species without the other Eucharistic species OR to consecrate both outside of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a horrible sacrilege. That is my position because it is the teaching of the Church. 

    2. I must be obtuse because I don't understand your question about the hypothetical priest. All I know is that the Roman Catholic Church deemed it necessary to explain what to do in the situation where a priest dies while saying Mass. The hypothetical priest discussion can be found in your nearest traditional Altar Missal or you can just read De defectibus translated online.

    3. You admitted in a previous post that the requirements for a valid consecration are three-fold: form, matter, and intention of the valid minister. Now you add to that another requirement. You say that, for validity, the consecration must also be done inside the Mass. That is not Catholic teaching.
    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Why SSPX Cannot Defend Catholic Tradition - Bakery & Wine Cellar Consecrations
    « Reply #87 on: July 26, 2023, 10:06:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on July 26, 2023, 09:17:16 PM
    This has nothing to do with scenarios where a priest would only INTEND to consecrate the bread, since that's a defect of intention to do what the Church does, as the Church does not consecrate one without the other. 

    That also is a disputed question, discussed in most manuals (which likewise consider it the less common opinion).

    But raising it here incongruously contradicts your own condemned “external intention” position (Catharinus), whereby any rite performed in a serious manner suffices for proper intention, even if the priest forms a covert contrary intention not to do what the Church does.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline SimpleMan

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5011
    • Reputation: +1944/-244
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Why SSPX Cannot Defend Catholic Tradition - Bakery & Wine Cellar Consecrations
    « Reply #88 on: July 26, 2023, 11:03:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Angelus on July 26, 2023, 08:40:34 PM
    Good questions.

    The book called The Celebration of Mass: a Study of the Rubrics of the Roman Missal, by J.B. O'Connell, says,

    "6. If, in the case of the death or grave illness of the celebrant, another priest cannot be got within an hour or so, the obligation of completing the Mass ceases, as it becomes doubtful."
    ....

    "8. If a second priest cannot be got, and the celebrant cannot consume the Sacred Species, These should be put into the tabernacle, even by a layman, to be consumed later by another priest."

    I recommend getting this little book. There is much more detail than I am willing to type. O'Connell expands significantly on the basics in De defectibus.

    https://www.romanitaspress.com/product-page/de-defectibus-compendium-saddlestitch

    That makes sense.  I was assuming that it was absolutely, positively required, regardless of how long it would take to find another priest, for the Mass to be continued, but then you get into the logistical difficulties (which O'Connell's comments address) of not having another priest readily available.  There could be mission areas where Mass can only be offered sporadically by visiting priests, and the next priest might not be able to get there for a number of days or even longer.

    Clearly, there was no intent by the deceased or incapacitated priest to offer an incomplete Mass, or to exclude the consecration of the Precious Blood.  Our Lord knew from all eternity that this priest would die or become incapacitated at this particular Mass, and to use the colloquial expression, "He's got this".
    Logged

    Offline trad123

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2033
    • Reputation: +450/-96
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Why SSPX Cannot Defend Catholic Tradition - Bakery & Wine Cellar Consecrations
    « Reply #89 on: July 26, 2023, 11:31:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • III.

    Question 78. The form of this sacrament

    Article 6. 



    https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4078.htm#article6



    Article 6. Whether the form of the consecration of the bread accomplishes its effect before the form of the consecration of the wine be completed?



    Objection 1. It seems that the form of the consecration of the bread does not accomplish its effect until the form for the consecration of the wine be completed. For, as Christ's body begins to be in this sacrament by the consecration of the bread, so does His blood come to be there by the consecration of the wine. If, then, the words for consecrating the bread were to produce their effect before the consecration of the wine, it would follow that Christ's body would be present in this sacrament without the blood, which is improper.

     
    Objection 2. Further, one sacrament has one completion: hence although there be three immersions in Baptism, yet the first immersion does not produce its effect until the third be completed. But all this sacrament is one, as stated above (III:73:2). Therefore the words whereby the bread is consecrated do not bring about their effect without the sacramental words whereby the wine is consecrated.

    Objection 3. Further, there are several words in the form for consecrating the bread, the first of which do not secure their effect until the last be uttered, as stated above (Article 4, Reply to Objection 3). Therefore, for the same reason, neither do the words for the consecration of Christ's body produce their effect, until the words for consecrating Christ's blood are spoken.

    On the contrary, Directly the words are uttered for consecrating the bread, the consecrated host is shown to the people to be adored, which would not be done if Christ's body were not there, for that would be an act of idolatry. Therefore the consecrating words of the bread produce their effect before the words are spoken for consecrating the wine.

    I answer that, Some of the earlier doctors said that these two forms, namely, for consecrating the bread and the wine, await each other's action, so that the first does not produce its effect until the second be uttered.

    But this cannot stand, because, as stated above (Article 5, Reply to Objection 3), for the truth of this phrase, "This is My body," wherein the verb is in the present tense, it is required for the thing signified to be present simultaneously in time with the signification of the expression used; otherwise, if the thing signified had to be awaited for afterwards, a verb of the future tense would be employed, and not one of the present tense, so that we should not say, "This is My body," but "This will be My body." But the signification of this speech is complete directly those words are spoken. And therefore the thing signified must be present instantaneously, and such is the effect of this sacrament; otherwise it would not be a true speech. Moreover, this opinion is against the rite of the Church, which forthwith adores the body of Christ after the words are uttered.

    Hence it must be said that the first form does not await the second in its action, but has its effect on the instant.


    Reply to Objection 1. It is on this account that they who maintained the above opinion seem to have erred. Hence it must be understood that directly the consecration of the bread is complete, the body of Christ is indeed present by the power of the sacrament, and the blood by real concomitance; but afterwards by the consecration of the wine, conversely, the blood of Christ is there by the power of the sacrament, and the body by real concomitance, so that the entire Christ is under either species, as stated above  (III:76:2).

    Reply to Objection 2. This sacrament is one in perfection, as stated above (III:73:2, namely, inasmuch as it is made up of two things, that is, of food and drink, each of which of itself has its own perfection; but the three immersions of Baptism are ordained to one simple effect, and therefore there is no resemblance.

    Reply to Objection 3. The various words in the form for consecrating the bread constitute the truth of one speech, but the words of the different forms do not, and consequently there is no parallel.


    Logged
    2 Corinthians 4:3-4 

    And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.
    Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8
    « previous next »