The progressive restrictions on the celebration of the ancient Liturgy serve to confine conservatives to hunting grounds, only to channel them to the St. Pius X Fraternity, as soon as the Synod brings to their tragic consequences the doctrinal, moral and disciplinary changes that are in the pipeline and cause an exodus of Catholics to what, after the suppression or normalization of the Ecclesia Dei Institutes, will become the "monopolist" of Tradition. But at that point-when, that is, traditional Catholics have migrated into the Fraternity and its leaders believe they have achieved a victory over the competition of the suppressed Summorum Pontificuм-a new intolerable provocation will force at least a parade of the St. Pius X Fraternity to distance itself from Bergoglian Rome, sanctioning the "excommunication" of traditionalism, no longer represented within the official Church, assuming it ever was. That is why in my opinion it is important to preserve a certain parcelization, so as to make the malicious maneuver of ousting traditional Catholics from the ecclesial body more complex.
"It should be noted that the faithful still received Communion, since the consecration of the Holy Host was accomplished normally. On the other hand, the Mass did not take place in the case considered, because, to accomplish it, there must be the consecration of the two species."(https://sspx.news/en/news-events/news/united-states-illicit-wine-used-masses-83265)
https://sspx.news/en/news-events/news/united-states-illicit-wine-used-masses-83265 (https://sspx.news/en/news-events/news/united-states-illicit-wine-used-masses-83265)
"The priest was mad at the bishop. He went into a bakery and consecrates the whole bakery. Another went into the cellar of the bishop and he consecrates all the wine. It's sacrilegious but its valid. The bishop had to buy the bread, that was no longer bread, of this bakery. It's stupid, it's crazy but it is valid." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AshtjLRr6Y8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AshtjLRr6Y8)(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AshtjLRr6Y8)
Which oblation do Thou, O God, we beseech Thee, vouchsafe to make in all things blessed, approved, ratified, reasonable, and acceptable: that it may become for us the Body and Blood of Thy dearly beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. (Frs. McHugh and Callan Missal)
Which oblation do Thou, O God, vouchsafe in all things to bless, approve, ratify, make worthy and acceptable: that it may become for us the Body and Blood of Thy most beloved Son our Lord Jesus Christ. (St. Andrew Missal)
And do Thou, O God, vouchsafe in all respects to bless, consecrate, and approve this our oblation, to perfect it and to render it well-pleasing to Thyself, so that it may become for us the body and blood of Thy most beloved Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. (Fr. Lasance Missal)
“It was declared at the Second Vatican Council that atheists too are not excluded from this possibility of salvation… The only necessary condition which is recognized here is the necessity of faithfulness and obedience to the individual’s own personal conscience. This optimism concerning salvation appears to me one of the most noteworthy results of the Second Vatican Council. For when we consider the officially received theology concerning these questions, which was more or less traditional right down to the Second Vatican Council, we can only wonder how few controversies arose during the Council with regard to these assertions of optimism concerning salvation, and wonder too at how little opposition the conservative wing of the Council brought to bear on this point, how all this took place without any setting of the stage or any great stir even though this doctrine marked a far more decisive phase in the development of the Church’s conscious awareness of her Faith than, for instance, the doctrine of collegiality in the Church, the relationship between scripture and tradition, the acceptance of the new exegesis, etc.”
Fr. Karl Rahner, The Anonymous Christian
Are you suggesting that the bread only transubstantiates retroactively, after the wine is consecrated?Sean,
Sean,
I did not say that in the article. But since you brought it up, I do not think that God is fooled. For example, if the priest were to say, "This is the chalice of My Blood symbolized by the wine in this cup," the form would not be valid because the consecration took place before it was denied.
If you want to defend bakery and wine cellar consecrations you should say so up front.
Drew
No, you definitely implied it in the article:Sean,
"The SSPX is affirming their theological belief that bread alone can be consecrated independently of the wine..."
Sean,
The quote you provided above simply says what the SSPX believes and teaches.
If you reject that teaching, you are necessarily positing the heretical notion that bread only transubstantiates retroactively, once the wine is consecrated.Sean,
Sean,
Did you read the article before posting this comment? And do you believe in bakery and wine cellar consecrations? And do you think that God can be fooled as I asked in previous post?
Drew
I answer that, the minister's intention may be perverted in two ways. First in regard to the sacrament: for instance, when a man does not intend to confer a sacrament, but to make a mockery of it. Such a perverse intention takes away the truth of the sacrament, especially if it be manifested outwardly. Secondly, the minister's intention may be perverted as to something that follows the sacrament: for instance, a priest may intend to baptize a woman so as to be able to abuse her; or to consecrate the Body of Christ, so as to use it for sorcery. And because that which comes first does not depend on that which follows, consequently such a perverse intention does not annul the sacrament; but the minister himself sins grievously in having such an intention.
Drew-Sean,
Please answer my question, before asking your own. It seems you are committed to evading it.
Are you suggesting that the bread only transubstantiates retroactively, after the wine is consecrated?It's not my intention to come and and try to "white knight" what seems to be a debate between the two of y'all, but I'd just like to note that this smacks of what the Orthodox get all wound up about, and accuse us of "artolatry" in that liminal space between when the Body is consecrated and the Blood is consecrated, where we worship the Host as Lord and God.
It's not my intention to come and and try to "white knight" what seems to be a debate between the two of y'all, but I'd just like to note that this smacks of what the Orthodox get all wound up about, and accuse us of "artolatry" in that liminal space between when the Body is consecrated and the Blood is consecrated, where we worship the Host as Lord and God.
If It hasn't become the Body of Christ yet, then we shouldn't worship It. But It has.
Whether valid consecration can take place outside of the Eucharistic sacrifice (i.e., Mass) --- the lurid "bakery and wine cellar" scenarios --- I'm not going to go there. The Code of Canon Law simply says "nefas est" (both 1917 and 1983).
Drew, I think you are confusing two different things -- whether the bread is consecrated if the chalice doesn't have valid matter in it during Mass, and whether just saying the words of consecration in a bakery is valid.
I believe the second question is disputed by theologians.
The first question is very clear if you read the section in the missal (http://www.dailycatholic.org/defectib.htm) about what the priest should do if various things go wrong during Mass. Just read through the section called "The Defect of Wine". You'll see that, based on the instructions for what the priest should do if the chalice has only water or vinegar or is completely empty, that the Church considers the consecration of the bread valid in that situation. It only requires the priest to put valid wine in the chalice and say the words of the consecration of the chalice again.
Not to contradict you Yeti, but I thought that the priest would have to make some type of Offertory also before consecrating.?No: The offertory is part of the solemn form, but not the essential form, and consequently is irrelevant to validity in se.
Meanwhile, here was the SSPX response, which is certainly correct:Aside from the question of intention is the main question: is the consecration invalid outside of mass? Does the priest have to say a mass at the bakery and wine cellar, or just the words of consecration? A lesser issue: does the bread and wine all have to be visible and uncovered, so that it isn't later discovered that certain breads and wines were present but hidden that the priest did not want consecrated.
"In ST IIIa, q 64, a 10, St. Thomas responds to the query, “Whether the validity of a sacrament requires a good intention in the minister?” Here is how he responds:
Here, St. Thomas makes an important distinction between a perverse intention at the outset, such as a priest wishing to perform a “mock Mass,” and a perverse intention that follows after the sacrament. In the anecdotes recounted by Bishop Fellay, the priests sought to perform the bakery and wine-cellar consecrations in order to vex their bishops. Obviously such behavior carries with it a perverse intention, but not one that would invalidate the Eucharist."
https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/consecration-bread-and-wine-outside-mass-valid
No: The offertory is part of the solemn form, but not the essential form, and consequently is irrelevant to validity in se.
Drew, I think you are confusing two different things -- whether the bread is consecrated if the chalice doesn't have valid matter in it during Mass, and whether just saying the words of consecration in a bakery is valid.How does this work with the NO consecration? Is their bread indeed the body of our Lord?
I believe the second question is disputed by theologians.
The first question is very clear if you read the section in the missal (http://www.dailycatholic.org/defectib.htm) about what the priest should do if various things go wrong during Mass. Just read through the section called "The Defect of Wine". You'll see that, based on the instructions for what the priest should do if the chalice has only water or vinegar or is completely empty, that the Church considers the consecration of the bread valid in that situation. It only requires the priest to put valid wine in the chalice and say the words of the consecration of the chalice again.
The bolded part is correct. The words of Canon 817/927 establish that it is possible for a priest to do the thing that is called "nefas," which means wicked, evil, forbidden. If the consecration was merely "invalid," the canon would have stated that.
Instead, the act is "wicked" because the consecration is valid and results in a mockery and abuse of the Eucharist. If the Eucharistic species wasn't actually confected, there would be no sacrilege. It would just be a simulation of the consecration. It would be irrelevant. And there would be no need for the Church to use such strong language warning about the wickedness of that act.
Drew, I think you are confusing two different things -- whether the bread is consecrated if the chalice doesn't have valid matter in it during Mass, and whether just saying the words of consecration in a bakery is valid.
I believe the second question is disputed by theologians.
The first question is very clear if you read the section in the missal (http://www.dailycatholic.org/defectib.htm) about what the priest should do if various things go wrong during Mass. Just read through the section called "The Defect of Wine". You'll see that, based on the instructions for what the priest should do if the chalice has only water or vinegar or is completely empty, that the Church considers the consecration of the bread valid in that situation. It only requires the priest to put valid wine in the chalice and say the words of the consecration of the chalice again.
It’s pathetic to see the confusion caused by emotionally dictated doctrine.Can either be consecrated outside of the mass?
The consecration of one species without the other is indisputably valid (though excommunicable).
Can either be consecrated outside of the mass?
If I were a betting man, I would say that the Code says "nefas est", without expounding upon whether such a consecration would be valid, because the Church just doesn't know, and warns in the strongest terms against even trying such a thing.
Sorry, the Church definitely DOES KNOW when a consecration of either species is valid and is not valid. These situations have been clearly defined in authoritative docuмents over the centuries. The easiest place to find those rules is the docuмent De defectibus (http://www.dailycatholic.org/defectib.htm).
When proper matter, form, intention are applied by a valid minister, there is no question that the consecration of the individual species occurs.
In the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, there are Two Consecrations that are required for a true Holy Sacrifice. The separate consecrations represent (sacramentally/mystically) the separation of Jesus's Body from his Blood on the altar.
If only one of the two consecrations is valid, then that one species is transubstantiated into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. But if the second of the two consecrations was not valid, then the Holy Sacrifice is not consummated. The Eucharist, however (in whichever species was transubstantiated) is Really Present in that liturgy in one species.
However, that does not make it okay to receive that Eucharistic species confected in that liturgy. If the Eucharist is consecrated OUTSIDE of the Mass or only in a single species, that act of consecration is objectively, materially a sacrilege. To knowingly confect one species without the other is a formal sacrilege. To knowingly receive a sacrilegiously confected Eucharist is a formal sin.
So, the SSPX says (https://sspx.news/en/news-events/news/united-states-illicit-wine-used-masses-83265),
"It should be noted that the faithful still received Communion, since the consecration of the Holy Host was accomplished normally. On the other hand, the Mass did not take place in the case considered, because, to accomplish it, there must be the consecration of the two species."
The SSPX correctly understands that a single consecration may have been accomplished. They also correctly understand that a single consecration is not sufficient for the Holy Sacrifice to be consummated. However, they fail to put 2 and 2 together and acknowledge that such a situation is still "nefas." Objectively, in the eyes of God, a "wicked" thing has occurred. Maybe from carelessness or out of ignorance. But it is still horrible. And reparation is called for.
The SSPX gives the impression that the damage is limited to "unfulfilled intentions" from the liturgies. They comfort "the faithful" by telling them that they "received Communion," as if that is what the main purpose of the Mass is. Wrong! Harm was done to Our Lord. The primary purpose of the Mass is the propitiatory Sacrifice for our innumerable sins. If that Sacrifice does not occur, we have no right to receive the fruit of that Holy Mass, the Eucharist.
P.S. Every single Novus Ordo liturgy is at least a material sacrilege because the words "mysterium fidei"/"the mystery of faith" have been removed from "the form" of the consecration of the wine. Yes, the words can be found in the Novus Ordo liturgy, but they are spoken AFTER the priest officially finishes saying the words of "consecration." You can know this because the priest genuflects at the end of the Novus Ordo "consecration of the wine" and that genuflection takes place BEFORE the priest says "the mystery of faith."
Here is the proof:
Let's look at what the Vatican says about the timing of the words of "consecration" during the Novus Ordo liturgy. This can be found in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) (https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/docuмents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html) which states:
274. ...During Mass, three genuflections are made by the priest celebrant: namely, after the showing of the host, after the showing of the chalice, and before Communion. ...
43. ...Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration. ...
So, from these two quotes from the official Vatican instruction manual for the Novus Ordo liturgy, we can understand precisely that one of the three genuflections in the Novus Ordo takes place immediately AFTER the consecration of the chalice.
If you look at any Novus Ordo missal, you can see that the rubrics require the priest to genuflect BEFORE he says "mysterium fidei"/"the mystery of faith." Here are the exact words from the Missal:
The Consecration of the Wine
[The priest uncovers the Chalice and says:]
[He takes the chalice and, holding it slightly raised above the altar, continues:]
P: In a similar way, when supper was ended, he took this precious chalice in his holy and venerable hands, and once more giving you thanks, he said the blessing and gave the chalice to his disciples, saying:
[He bows slightly.]
TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT, FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT, WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS. DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME
[The bell is rung the priest shows the chalice to the people, places it on the corporal, and genuflects in adoration].
P: The mystery of faith.
[The people continue, acclaiming:]
R: We proclaim your Death, O Lord, and profess your Resurrection until you come again.
Or:
R: When we eat this Bread and drink this Cup, we proclaim your Death, O Lord, until you come again.
Or:
R: Save us, Saviour of the world, for by your Cross and Resurrection you have set us free.
Please note that the phrase "the mystery of faith" is said AFTER the priest genuflects. But as the GIRM says, the "consecration" happens BEFORE that genuflection. Therefore, in the Novus Ordo liturgy, the words "the mystery of faith" are not considered to be included in the words of "consecration."
Again, as I have demonstrated, this is not my opinion. The official texts from the Vatican require this interpretation.
Sorry, the Church definitely DOES KNOW when a consecration of either species is valid and is not valid. These situations have been clearly defined in authoritative docuмents over the centuries. The easiest place to find those rules is the docuмent De defectibus (http://www.dailycatholic.org/defectib.htm).
When proper matter, form, intention are applied by a valid minister, there is no question that the consecration of the individual species occurs.
In the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, there are Two Consecrations that are required for a true Holy Sacrifice. The separate consecrations represent (sacramentally/mystically) the separation of Jesus's Body from his Blood on the altar.
If only one of the two consecrations is valid, then that one species is transubstantiated into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. But if the second of the two consecrations was not valid, then the Holy Sacrifice is not consummated. The Eucharist, however (in whichever species was transubstantiated) is Really Present in that liturgy in one species.
However, that does not make it okay to receive that Eucharistic species confected in that liturgy. If the Eucharist is consecrated OUTSIDE of the Mass or only in a single species, that act of consecration is objectively, materially a sacrilege. To knowingly confect one species without the other is a formal sacrilege. To knowingly receive a sacrilegiously confected Eucharist is a formal sin.
So, the SSPX says (https://sspx.news/en/news-events/news/united-states-illicit-wine-used-masses-83265),
"It should be noted that the faithful still received Communion, since the consecration of the Holy Host was accomplished normally. On the other hand, the Mass did not take place in the case considered, because, to accomplish it, there must be the consecration of the two species."
The SSPX correctly understands that a single consecration may have been accomplished. They also correctly understand that a single consecration is not sufficient for the Holy Sacrifice to be consummated. However, they fail to put 2 and 2 together and acknowledge that such a situation is still "nefas." Objectively, in the eyes of God, a "wicked" thing has occurred. Maybe from carelessness or out of ignorance. But it is still horrible. And reparation is called for.
The SSPX gives the impression that the damage is limited to "unfulfilled intentions" from the liturgies. They comfort "the faithful" by telling them that they "received Communion," as if that is what the main purpose of the Mass is. Wrong! Harm was done to Our Lord. The primary purpose of the Mass is the propitiatory Sacrifice for our innumerable sins. If that Sacrifice does not occur, we have no right to receive the fruit of that Holy Mass, the Eucharist.
P.S. Every single Novus Ordo liturgy is at least a material sacrilege because the words "mysterium fidei"/"the mystery of faith" have been removed from "the form" of the consecration of the wine. Yes, the words can be found in the Novus Ordo liturgy, but they are spoken AFTER the priest officially finishes saying the words of "consecration." You can know this because the priest genuflects at the end of the Novus Ordo "consecration of the wine" and that genuflection takes place BEFORE the priest says "the mystery of faith."
Here is the proof:
Let's look at what the Vatican says about the timing of the words of "consecration" during the Novus Ordo liturgy. This can be found in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) (https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/docuмents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html) which states:
274. ...During Mass, three genuflections are made by the priest celebrant: namely, after the showing of the host, after the showing of the chalice, and before Communion. ...
43. ...Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration. ...
So, from these two quotes from the official Vatican instruction manual for the Novus Ordo liturgy, we can understand precisely that one of the three genuflections in the Novus Ordo takes place immediately AFTER the consecration of the chalice.
If you look at any Novus Ordo missal, you can see that the rubrics require the priest to genuflect BEFORE he says "mysterium fidei"/"the mystery of faith." Here are the exact words from the Missal:
The Consecration of the Wine
[The priest uncovers the Chalice and says:]
[He takes the chalice and, holding it slightly raised above the altar, continues:]
P: In a similar way, when supper was ended, he took this precious chalice in his holy and venerable hands, and once more giving you thanks, he said the blessing and gave the chalice to his disciples, saying:
[He bows slightly.]
TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT, FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT, WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS. DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME
[The bell is rung the priest shows the chalice to the people, places it on the corporal, and genuflects in adoration].
P: The mystery of faith.
[The people continue, acclaiming:]
R: We proclaim your Death, O Lord, and profess your Resurrection until you come again.
Or:
R: When we eat this Bread and drink this Cup, we proclaim your Death, O Lord, until you come again.
Or:
R: Save us, Saviour of the world, for by your Cross and Resurrection you have set us free.
Please note that the phrase "the mystery of faith" is said AFTER the priest genuflects. But as the GIRM says, the "consecration" happens BEFORE that genuflection. Therefore, in the Novus Ordo liturgy, the words "the mystery of faith" are not considered to be included in the words of "consecration."
Again, as I have demonstrated, this is not my opinion. The official texts from the Vatican require this interpretation.
Sorry, the Church definitely DOES KNOW when a consecration of either species is valid and is not valid. These situations have been clearly defined in authoritative docuмents over the centuries. The easiest place to find those rules is the docuмent De defectibus (http://www.dailycatholic.org/defectib.htm).
When proper matter, form, intention are applied by a valid minister, there is no question that the consecration of the individual species occurs.
In the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, there are Two Consecrations that are required for a true Holy Sacrifice. The separate consecrations represent (sacramentally/mystically) the separation of Jesus's Body from his Blood on the altar.
If only one of the two consecrations is valid, then that one species is transubstantiated into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. But if the second of the two consecrations was not valid, then the Holy Sacrifice is not consummated. The Eucharist, however (in whichever species was transubstantiated) is Really Present in that liturgy in one species.
However, that does not make it okay to receive that Eucharistic species confected in that liturgy. If the Eucharist is consecrated OUTSIDE of the Mass or only in a single species, that act of consecration is objectively, materially a sacrilege. To knowingly confect one species without the other is a formal sacrilege. To knowingly receive a sacrilegiously confected Eucharist is a formal sin.
So, the SSPX says (https://sspx.news/en/news-events/news/united-states-illicit-wine-used-masses-83265),
"It should be noted that the faithful still received Communion, since the consecration of the Holy Host was accomplished normally. On the other hand, the Mass did not take place in the case considered, because, to accomplish it, there must be the consecration of the two species."
The SSPX correctly understands that a single consecration may have been accomplished. They also correctly understand that a single consecration is not sufficient for the Holy Sacrifice to be consummated. However, they fail to put 2 and 2 together and acknowledge that such a situation is still "nefas." Objectively, in the eyes of God, a "wicked" thing has occurred. Maybe from carelessness or out of ignorance. But it is still horrible. And reparation is called for.
The SSPX gives the impression that the damage is limited to "unfulfilled intentions" from the liturgies. They comfort "the faithful" by telling them that they "received Communion," as if that is what the main purpose of the Mass is. Wrong! Harm was done to Our Lord. The primary purpose of the Mass is the propitiatory Sacrifice for our innumerable sins. If that Sacrifice does not occur, we have no right to receive the fruit of that Holy Mass, the Eucharist.
P.S. Every single Novus Ordo liturgy is at least a material sacrilege because the words "mysterium fidei"/"the mystery of faith" have been removed from "the form" of the consecration of the wine. Yes, the words can be found in the Novus Ordo liturgy, but they are spoken AFTER the priest officially finishes saying the words of "consecration." You can know this because the priest genuflects at the end of the Novus Ordo "consecration of the wine" and that genuflection takes place BEFORE the priest says "the mystery of faith."
Here is the proof:
Let's look at what the Vatican says about the timing of the words of "consecration" during the Novus Ordo liturgy. This can be found in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) (https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/docuмents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html) which states:
274. ...During Mass, three genuflections are made by the priest celebrant: namely, after the showing of the host, after the showing of the chalice, and before Communion. ...
43. ...Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration. ...
So, from these two quotes from the official Vatican instruction manual for the Novus Ordo liturgy, we can understand precisely that one of the three genuflections in the Novus Ordo takes place immediately AFTER the consecration of the chalice.
If you look at any Novus Ordo missal, you can see that the rubrics require the priest to genuflect BEFORE he says "mysterium fidei"/"the mystery of faith." Here are the exact words from the Missal:
The Consecration of the Wine
[The priest uncovers the Chalice and says:]
[He takes the chalice and, holding it slightly raised above the altar, continues:]
P: In a similar way, when supper was ended, he took this precious chalice in his holy and venerable hands, and once more giving you thanks, he said the blessing and gave the chalice to his disciples, saying:
[He bows slightly.]
TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT, FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT, WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS. DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME
[The bell is rung the priest shows the chalice to the people, places it on the corporal, and genuflects in adoration].
P: The mystery of faith.
[The people continue, acclaiming:]
R: We proclaim your Death, O Lord, and profess your Resurrection until you come again.
Or:
R: When we eat this Bread and drink this Cup, we proclaim your Death, O Lord, until you come again.
Or:
R: Save us, Saviour of the world, for by your Cross and Resurrection you have set us free.
Please note that the phrase "the mystery of faith" is said AFTER the priest genuflects. But as the GIRM says, the "consecration" happens BEFORE that genuflection. Therefore, in the Novus Ordo liturgy, the words "the mystery of faith" are not considered to be included in the words of "consecration."
Again, as I have demonstrated, this is not my opinion. The official texts from the Vatican require this interpretation.
Loved the first half of your post, but I'm not understanding why the juxtoposition of the mysterium fidei is sacrilegeous.
It is not part of the essential form, so why does placing it after the consecration make it sacrilegeous?
Hi Sean. The words "mysterium fidei" are, without a doubt, required for "the form" of consecration of the wine. Please don't take my word for it. I am nobody. Take the words of Pope St. Pius V in the Roman Missal. That missal was promulgated with these words from the Papal Bull Quo Primum (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius05/p5quopri.htm):
-------
Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present docuмent cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force...
--------
Here is what is said in De defectibus (http://www.dailycatholic.org/defectib.htm), the instructions included in the Roman Missal:
------------
V - Defects of the form20. Defects on the part of the form may arise if anything is missing from the complete wording required for the act of consecrating. Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are:HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, and HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM
If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin.
-------------
Now, someone might say that the words "mysterium fidei" does not change "the meaning of the words." But St. Thomas Aquinas disagrees with that (https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.III.Q78.A3) when he says:
------------
I answer that, There is a twofold opinion regarding this form. Some have maintained that the words "This is the chalice of My blood" alone belong to the substance of this form, but not those words which follow. Now this seems incorrect, because the words which follow them are determinations of the predicate, that is, of Christ’s blood. Consequently they belong to the integrity of the expression.
And on this account others say more accurately that all the words which follow are of the substance of the form down to the words, "As often as ye shall do this," which belong to the use of this sacrament, and consequently do not belong to the substance of the form. Hence it is that the priest pronounces all these words, under the same rite and manner, namely, holding the chalice in his hands. Moreover, in Luke 22:20, the words that follow are interposed with the preceding words: This is the chalice, the new testament in My blood.
Consequently it must be said that all the aforesaid words belong to the substance of the form; but that by the first words, "This is the chalice of My blood," the change of the wine into blood is denoted, as explained above (A. 2) in the form for the consecration of the bread; but by the words which come after is shown the power of the blood shed in the Passion, which power works in this sacrament, and is ordained for three purposes. First and principally for securing our eternal heritage, according to Heb. 10:19: Having confidence in the entering into the holies by the blood of Christ; and in order to denote this, we say, "of the New and Eternal Testament." Second, for justifying by grace, which is by faith according to Rom. 3:25, 26: Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood . . . that He Himself may be just, and the justifier of him who is of the faith of Jesus Christ: and on this account we add, "The Mystery of Faith." Third, for removing sins which are the impediments to both of these things, according to Heb. 9:14: The blood of Christ . . . shall cleanse our conscience from dead works, that is, from sins; and on this account, we say, "which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins."
----------
Therefore, St. Thomas assigns the words "mysterium fidei" to "the substance of the form," not to its accidents. This means the words that make up "the form" of the Sacrament of the Eucharist would not continue to be "the form" if the words "mysterium fidei" were removed. Those words would be something other than "the form" of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Again, this is St. Thomas Aquinas, not me.
One might object that "the Church" can change things regarding the Sacraments, and later Popes were in their authority to remove the words "mysterium fidei" from "the form" of the Sacrament. But Pope Pius XII said otherwise in Sacramentum Ordinis (https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/la/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_p-xii_apc_19471130_sacramentum-ordinis.html) when he said:
---------
"...the Church has no authority over the substance of the Sacraments, that is to say, in that which, as witnesses of the sources of divine revelation, Christ the Lord himself determined to be kept in the sacramental sign"
---------
And as Aquinas says, t is not by ecclessiastical law that "mysterium fidei" is included in "the form." He says those words were from Our Lord himself (https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.III.Q78.A3.Rep9):
--------
Reply Obj. 9: The Evangelists did not intend to hand down the forms of the sacraments, which in the primitive Church had to be kept concealed, as Dionysius observes at the close of his book on the ecclesiastical hierarchy; their object was to write the story of Christ. Nevertheless nearly all these words can be culled from various passages of the Scriptures. Because the words, This is the chalice, are found in Luke 22:20, and 1 Cor. 11:25, while Matthew says in chapter 26:28: "This is My blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins." The words added, namely, "eternal" and "mystery of faith," were handed down to the Church by the apostles, who received them from our Lord, according to 1 Cor. 11:23: "I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you."
--------
Finally, even if one still thinks that Paul VI could have changed "the substance of the form" (which he could not), he did not, in fact, intentionally remove the words "mysterium fidei" from "the form." In Missale Romanum (https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum.html), he simply said that those words were being moved from the middle of "the form" to the end of "the form."
The sacrilege was accomplished in the rubrics of the Novus Ordo Missal and in the GIRM by other Vatican officials. It is in the rubrics and in the GIRM (https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/docuмents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html) that the priest is told that the "words of consecration" end BEFORE the words "mysterium fidei" are pronounced, and that being so, the rubrics require him to genuflect to an unconsecrated chalice. By this genuflection, the priest externally establishes his INTENTION to end the "words of consecration." He clearly shows that, by genuflecting and therefore adoring the chalice, that he believes that the "consecration of the wine" has been completed without any need to say the words "mysterium fidei."
So, I hope this evidence convinces you of the following:
1. The words "mysterium fidei" are required by Pope Pius V's Apostolic authority in promulgating the Roman missal.
2. Those words are theologically designated to be "the substance of the form" of the Sacrament by St. Thomas Aquinas.
3. That the "substance of the Sacraments" cannot be changed by the Church because they derive from Our Lord by witness of the Apostles, as taught by Pope Pius XII and Trent.
4. That the change that was officially promulgated by Paul VI to move the words "mysterium fidei" did not specify that those words would no longer be considered part of "the form." That false assumption was put into the GIRM and into the Novus Ordo rubrics. These bad instructions confused the priests who were taught to say the Novus Ordo with the belief that the words of consecration were finished before saying "mysterium fidei," thereby causing them to INTEND to consecrate the Eucharist using an invalid form.
Since in the sacraments, the words produce an effect according to the sense which they convey … we must see whether the change of words destroys the essential sense of the words: because then the sacrament is clearly rendered invalid. Now it is clear, if any substantial part of the sacramental form be suppressed, that the essential sense of the words is destroyed; and consequently the sacrament is invalid. Wherefore Didymus says (De Spir. Sanct. ii): “If anyone attempt to baptize in such a way as to omit one of the aforesaid names,” i.e. of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, “his baptism will be invalid.” But if that which is omitted be not a substantial part of the form, such an omission does not destroy the essential sense of the words, nor consequently the validity of the sacrament. Thus in the form of the Eucharist—“For this is My Body,” the omission of the word “for” does not destroy the essential sense of the words, nor consequently cause the sacrament to be invalid; although perhaps he who makes the omission may sin from negligence or contempt.In the case of the chalice, the words that are necessary for accomplishing transubstantiation are: “This is the chalice of my Blood.” If these words are said by a validly ordained priest with the intention of doing what the Church does, then consecration will happen, since there is nothing ambiguous about the formula whatsoever—there is no doubt as to what is being said, namely, that the chalice is filled with the Blood of Our Lord. But if a minister left it at that and did not continue with the rest of the words according to the rite established by the church, he would then sin against the virtue of religion by failing to offer due worship. Such an incomplete statement, as it is contrary to the given rite, would be illicit; but it would not lead to invalidity, for the reasons given by the Angelic Doctor.
Monday, June 26, 2023Why the Omission of “Mysterium Fidei” Does Not Invalidate the Consecration of the Wine (https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2023/06/why-omission-of-mysterium-fidei-does.html)PETER KWASNIEWSKI(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3WCRaBtLC-bZOhwjqUGnNI9iE_xY-aQW7kkn5jDiPO_MNGD11swkJ8dL-KAbhQX4QqgY0paMqVzuXj9qjtZ3nNMf7NZBvGTwPCJF4JXHw8Qeau6vePfnlGu9B0flzWa8UuOyadawOmUEIyeO7YYJKnZTqWs4zWdiotX0quFnTFhPOwQcPXA/w400-h266/202803578_4161626200581006_5495690239168244107_n.jpg) (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3WCRaBtLC-bZOhwjqUGnNI9iE_xY-aQW7kkn5jDiPO_MNGD11swkJ8dL-KAbhQX4QqgY0paMqVzuXj9qjtZ3nNMf7NZBvGTwPCJF4JXHw8Qeau6vePfnlGu9B0flzWa8UuOyadawOmUEIyeO7YYJKnZTqWs4zWdiotX0quFnTFhPOwQcPXA/s1800/202803578_4161626200581006_5495690239168244107_n.jpg)Ihave argued (especially in my book The Once and Future Roman Rite (https://www.amazon.com/Once-Future-Roman-Rite-Traditional/dp/1505126622/)) that the Novus Ordo is a striking and scandalous departure from our liturgical tradition, and deserves finally to be retired and replaced with the Roman Rite—the only Roman Rite there is. Such a thesis is hardly unfamiliar to readers of this blog.
However, critics of the Novus Ordo sometimes make mistaken critiques, insufficiently grounded in a correct grasp of the principles of theology. For example, in the free market of unregulated traditionalist literature, one will sometimes find people claiming that the removal of the words “mysterium fidei” from the formula of the consecration of the wine invalidates the form. While the removal of this phrase is certainly objectionable, it does not in any way invalidate the form.
The reason is specified by St. Thomas Aquinas in Summa theologiae III, question 60, article 8 (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4060.htm#article8):
In the case of the chalice, the words that are necessary for accomplishing transubstantiation are: “This is the chalice of my Blood.” If these words are said by a validly ordained priest with the intention of doing what the Church does, then consecration will happen, since there is nothing ambiguous about the formula whatsoever—there is no doubt as to what is being said, namely, that the chalice is filled with the Blood of Our Lord. But if a minister left it at that and did not continue with the rest of the words according to the rite established by the church, he would then sin against the virtue of religion by failing to offer due worship. Such an incomplete statement, as it is contrary to the given rite, would be illicit; but it would not lead to invalidity, for the reasons given by the Angelic Doctor.
The fact that many authors refer to the entire traditional formula as the form of the sacrament cannot be taken as proof against the foregoing argument, since even Aquinas makes a distinction between the correct form and an incorrect, but not invalid form. If we do not take this (frankly common-sense) view, we will quickly run into trouble when trying to explain how the Eastern rites accomplish transubstantiation, since not a single one of those rites has “mysterium fidei” in the formula for the chalice. (Incidentally, this is also the reason it is doubtful that that phrase originated with the Lord, although it is possible that it originated with one of the Apostles, e.g., St. Peter in Rome, which would explain why it is found only in the Roman rite and the uses that stem from it or belong to its sphere of influence.)
On an ecclesiological and canonical level, we must also say that the supreme authority in the Church has the right to specify/clarify what is and is not the form, or, at least, what is adequate for accomplishing a given sacrament. Canon law has always granted this point, and there is not a single theologian who disputes it. Although we can and should lament the harm done to the Order of Mass by Paul VI, we cannot accuse him of promulgating an invalid sacrament or sacramental form.
In conclusion, I agree there is a mutilation in the repurposing of the phrase mysterium fidei, as I have argued at length (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/4918-the-displacement-of-the-mysterium-fidei-and-the-fabricated-memorial-acclamation). Here, I am simply saying that it does not undermine the efficacy of the statement found in the new missal, because this statement contains the essence of the form—namely, that this [1] is the blood of Christ. That, all by itself, is sufficient, all the other usual conditions being met (correct matter, minister, and intention). As Pius XII teaches in his encyclical Mediator Dei, the sacrifice consists in the separate consecration of bread and wine; and again, St. Thomas is clear that, however illicit it is to omit part of the form, nevertheless as long as the notion of a conversion of bread/wine to body/blood is signified, the words will be efficacious.
For more reflections along these lines, see my article “The Four Qualities of Liturgy: Validity, Licitness, Fittingness, and Authenticity (https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2020/11/the-four-qualities-of-liturgy-validity.html).”
Visit Dr. Kwasniewski's Substack "Tradition & Sanity (https://traditionsanity.substack.com/publish/home)."
[Note 1] (Added subsequent to initial publication) St. Thomas takes up a particular objection to the words of Our Lord at the Last Supper (Commentary on Matthew, Chapter 26, verse 26). He is trying to identify the exact sense of the pronoun "this" in the phrases "this is my Body" and "this is my Blood". He points out the various ways one might interpret the significance of "this" and he positively rules out that the "this" means "this bread" or "this wine," because, if that is what is signified, it would result in a contradiction: "This [bread] is my Body," or "This [wine] is my Blood." So, after some grammatical analysis, St. Thomas concludes that the pronoun "this" signifies "whatever stands under these accidents." The statement "This is my body" is therefore not false, since its meaning is: "that which stands under these accidents is my Body."
https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2023/06/why-omission-of-mysterium-fidei-does.html
The mysterium fidei is absent in the Ukrainian and Mozarabic rites (and probably others), and consequently, it cannot be essential for validity.
See Pohle-Preuss, beginning at the top of p.209-210:
Only "this is my body/this is my blood" are necessary for validity.
1) It addresses/rejects your Aquinas quote, noting it is not the common teaching, and is rejected by later Thomists;
2) It rejects your subsequent claim based on that quote, (again, the less common opinion, rejected by later Thomists) that the mysterium fidei is essential, by making the same observation as me (i.e., that the additional words are not contained in the Greek liturgy, and therefore cannot be essential).
https://archive.org/details/thesacraments02pohluoft/page/n219/mode/2up
“The form for the consecration of the wine is this: Hic est enim calix Sanguinis Mei, novi et aeterni testamenti, mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. The words: Hic est (enim) calix Sanguinis Mei, are certainly essential.
“Certain authors agree that the other words: novi et aeterni testamenti,etc., also pertain to the essential form. St. Thomas himself seems to follow this opinion, although some theologians and other authors think that the Angelic Doctor felt quite otherwise. Whatever is thought of the opinion of the Sacred Doctor and of other theologians, the opposite view is the common opinion and is thus morally certain. In practice, he would certainly sin gravely who would omit these words, and if he had said the first words only, he ought to repeat the entire form conditionally.”
Dr. Kwak is the latest pro SSPX shill that begins with the SSPX position (begging the question) and then backfills the "reasons" for it.
Sean, the Roman Missal is not a Ukrainian or Mozarabic rite. It is in the Roman Rite. The infallible teaching of the Catholic Church, regarding the Roman Rite, is that the words "mysterium fidei" are required for "the substance of the form." I have provided evidence from Quo Primum and De defectibus.Nope. Neither infallible nor dogmatic. A teaching must pertain to the universal Church to be dogmatic, and infallible does not mean irreformable (which pertains properly to dogmas).
Dr. Kwak is the latest pro SSPX shill that begins with the SSPX position (begging the question) and then backfills the "reasons" for it.Kwasniewski was at CUA when we were there. He was a full-on JP2 conserva-nerd in those days. He never joined in distilled-and-fermented, late-night theology wars on the steps of Gibbons Hall.
Kwasniewski was at CUA when we were there. He was a full-on JP2 conserva-nerd in those days. He never joined in distilled-and-fermented, late-night theology wars on the steps of Gibbons Hall.
He has come a long way in 25 years, and I don't believe that he has yet completed his metamorphosis. I'd cut the Kwas some slack. Louis Tofari is more the SSPX syncophant.
Sounds good, ElwinRansom. It would be nice to see him depart here or there from the SSPX party line. Perhaps at some point intellectual honesty would motivate him to do so.
Like with his preference for the pre-1955 Holy Week? Perhaps at some point, you will develop the intellectual honesty to notice this.
Expressing a "preference" does not depart from the SSPX party line and has nothing to do with actual theology any more than Motarians who express their "preference" for the Tridentine Mass. In fact, expressing it as a "preference" actually contains a latent theological position that's the opposite of the actual theological reasons for it.
I'll accept an exhortation to intellectual honesty from someone who doesn't constantly demonstrate his dishonesty, such as when he can't win an argument, he starts resorting to puerile taunts.
Start reading at "B. The Form:"
(https://i.imgur.com/GGsBQmS.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/uBhTsWk.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/eb42JWa.png)
Sean, why do you promote theological opinions by people most of us have never heard of? All of these authors you reference take a "minimalist" position. It is an "ecuмenical" position, meaning they want to find a "form" that comforts the Orthodox, the Greeks, etc. Surely Our Lord is "ecuмenical," they say.
But what if St. Thomas Aquinas is correct. What if Pope Pius V's order, contained in every Roman Missal, is required of Roman Rite Catholics, under penalty of invalidity? What if the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church keeping the true Sacraments? Don't you want to ensure that you "take the safest course," the Tutiorist position regarding the Sacraments? Why take a chance and say fewer words in the consecratory form, when two of the greatest saints in Catholic history are adamant that "validity" of "the form of consecration of the wine" requires "mysterium fidei"?
Who's side are you on? Surely the Modernists agree with you.
The bolded part is correct. The words of Canon 817/927 establish that it is possible for a priest to do the thing that is called "nefas," which means wicked, evil, forbidden. If the consecration was merely "invalid," the canon would have stated that.
Instead, the act is "wicked" because the consecration is valid and results in a mockery and abuse of the Eucharist. If the Eucharistic species wasn't actually confected, there would be no sacrilege. It would just be a simulation of the consecration. It would be irrelevant. And there would be no need for the Church to use such strong language warning about the wickedness of that act.
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.
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
If you've never heard of Pohle, Cappello, or Tanqueray, I think that says quite a bit more about you than it does about me.
The very first thing it suggests is that you are not even fit to have this conversation, and what the rest of your mess/post suggests is that you struggle to keep distinct principles confined to their proper domain (e.g., now your're conflating tutiorism, which is pertinent to moral theology, and sacramental theology).
You'd be better off following along, than trying to fend off everyone whose trying to correct you.
Like with his preference for the pre-1955 Holy Week?Who cares about a preference? :laugh1: Did he make a factual, theological argument? Preferences are for women.
You offer opinions of "authorities" who are either clearly Modernist or suspiciously agree with the Modernist program implemented in the Novus Ordo missal. These opinions contradict the greatest Doctor of the Church and the Saint Pope who promulgated the Tridentine Missal. But the best you can come back with is to claim that I'm "not even fit to have this conversation."It's because Sean follows people and not facts. He has too friendly of a relationship with +W (whose view on the new mass is flawed), thus Sean defends +W's view blindly. Sean consistently promotes/defends views of those he follows, without examining the reasons thereof. He is biased on many topics.
Oh, Sean, there you go again. Why must you resort to ad hominem over and over again? Why not just admit that your position makes no sense for a traditional Catholic?
Projection: You just got done dismissing Pohle because he knew a Jєωιѕн botanist.
As for the position, it is the one embraced by the great majority of traditional theologians.
You are supporting a change that the Roman Missal itself (through De defectibus) has stated for over 400 years is an invalidating change to "the form" of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. St. Thomas Aquinas explains why the change is invalidating.
St. Thomas is rejected by themajority of theologians on this point (including many Thomists). This has been pointed out to you.
Do you also claim that the change from "for many" to "for all" was also unimportant?
Attempting to change the subject.
You offer opinions of "authorities" who are either clearly Modernist or suspiciously agree with the Modernist program implemented in the Novus Ordo missal. These opinions contradict the greatest Doctor of the Church and the Saint Pope who promulgated the Tridentine Missal. But the best you can come back with is to claim that I'm "not even fit to have this conversation."
Were St. Ambrose and St. Bonaventure among these modernists too? Pohle wrote his manual during the time of Pope St. Pius X, and it was used in many of the Anglo countries (including by Fr. Feeney), yet he was never censured for what you imagine was modernism. Could it be that you don't know what yo uare talking about?
I'm not the one making the primary argument Sean. St. Thomas and St. Pius are. You are arguing against them, not me. Do you not see that?
And they are in the great minority of theologians on this point. Don't you get that?
Who cares about a preference? :laugh1: Did he make a factual, theological argument? Preferences are for women.
It's because Sean follows people and not facts. He has too friendly of a relationship with +W (whose view on the new mass is flawed), thus Sean defends +W's view blindly. Sean consistently promotes/defends views of those he follows, without examining the reasons thereof. He is biased on many topics.
Typical blathering. Loudestmouth was contending that Kwas wa a SSPX shill, yet Kwas holds the opposite liturgical position from the SSPX regarding Holy Week. Then here you come with 5th grade responses.(https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/facepalm.gif):laugh1: So you are engaging in the false dichotomy of sspx vs non-sspx. In fact, the issue of the 55 Holy Week is independent of both issues. Tradition is much larger than the sspx.
...and Sean likes +Williamson,...which is why Sean finds (modernist or otherwise) theologians which support +W.
...which is why Sean finds (modernist or otherwise) theologians which support +W.
Oh, Sean, there you go again. Why must you resort to ad hominem over and over again? Why not just admit that your position makes no sense for a traditional Catholic?
Projection: You just got done dismissing Pohle because he knew a Jєωιѕн botanist.
As for the position, it is the one embraced by the great majority of traditional theologians.
You are supporting a change that the Roman Missal itself (through De defectibus) has stated for over 400 years is an invalidating change to "the form" of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. St. Thomas Aquinas explains why the change is invalidating.
St. Thomas is rejected by themajority of theologians on this point (including many Thomists). This has been pointed out to you.
Do you also claim that the change from "for many" to "for all" was also unimportant?
Attempting to change the subject.
You offer opinions of "authorities" who are either clearly Modernist or suspiciously agree with the Modernist program implemented in the Novus Ordo missal. These opinions contradict the greatest Doctor of the Church and the Saint Pope who promulgated the Tridentine Missal. But the best you can come back with is to claim that I'm "not even fit to have this conversation."
Were St. Ambrose and St. Bonaventure among these modernists too? Pohle wrote his manual during the time of Pope St. Pius X, and it was used in many of the Anglo countries (including by Fr. Feeney), yet he was never censured for what you imagine was modernism. Could it be that you don't know what yo uare talking about?
I'm not the one making the primary argument Sean. St. Thomas and St. Pius are. You are arguing against them, not me. Do you not see that?
And they are in the great minority of theologians on this point. Don't you get that?
Quote from: Angelus on Today at 08:44:41 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/why-sspx-cannot-defend-catholic-tradition-bakery-wine-cellar-consecrations/msg895976/#msg895976)
Sean, you seem to miss the point of my comments. Pohle's approach was Modernist. I pointed out that his ideas came from a non-Catholic, natural scientist following the evolutionary errors of Darwin. I was not attacking Pohle over some irrelevant personal quirk. He did not look traditional in his dress. Nor were his fundamental theological positions traditional. He was a theological evolutionist, i.e., a Modernist. You used him as one of your "authorities" on what the "majority opinion" is.
You don't seem to understand that "the majority" doesn't decide the truth. Remember, the majority said "crucify him." The majority of theologians today think that the Novus Ordo liturgy is an improvement over the Tridentine Mass. Would you like to side with them on that because "they have the numbers" or because their position is "more popular?"
The "for many"/"for all" is not a change of subject. That was also an invalid change to "the form of consecration of the wine." Why would you think that is a different subject matter?
St. Ambrose and St. Bonaventure do not matter. What matters is a magisterial determination of Pope Pius V in his promulgation of the Roman Missal (with its very specific instructions on invalidating changes to "the form" of the Eucharist). Why do you think you can ignore a sainted Pope? His Missal has been in use for over 400 years. To propose that "the Church" can just change "the substance of a Sacrament" is the essence of "Modernism."
Sean, you seem to miss the point of my comments. Pohle's approach was Modernist.Oh, Sean knows. But he always defends a predetermined agenda. He's the most biased poster on Cathinfo.
Oh, Sean knows. But he always defends a predetermined agenda. He's the most biased poster on Cathinfo.
True. When my husband, drew, wrote the open letter to Brian McCall defending Bishop Williamson's criticism of the Six Menzingen's Propositions http://saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/McCall,Brian_Reply_Justice_Comments_10-13-12.htm Sean briefly hailed him the "new Cicero" :laugh1: until he finished reading it all and accused him of being a Feeneyite.
I saw my name, MA, on the list of Sean's favorite posters on CI. Sean, feel free to demote me now.
As I’ve been unable to help you, I think you’d be better off talking to yourself.
Let me know who wins.
Nope. Neither infallible nor dogmatic. A teaching must pertain to the universal Church to be dogmatic, and infallible does not mean irreformable (which pertains properly to dogmas).
Sean, the two fundamental errors that inform the theological opinions of the authors you cite are: ecuмenism and Modernism.
Ecuмenism
This error is driven by the anxiety felt by certain theologians about their separated brethren. Their soft-heartedness in this respect leads them to think that "if we only focus on what is really important, we will all be brothers again." So, they take a "minimalist" position on the Sacramental "form." They point to the New Testament accounts of the "words of Jesus" and say, "can't we just all agree on those words that are found in all the Gospels (i.e., 'this is my blood')."
Why is this an error? Because, as all Catholics know, the Mass existed BEFORE any of the New Testament books were written. The Traditional "form" of the Apostles included the words "mysterium fidei." The fact that those words were not written down by the evangelists doesn't prove that those words were not in the form. None of the evangelists agrees on the precise words of Jesus at the Last Supper. So, the exact words found in each Gospel are not meant to be authoritative as regards the Sacramental "form." The Church Tradition is authoritative in that matter. And we know that the Church Tradition includes "mysterium fidei."
But again, your modern theological "authorities" don't want to accept Tradition or the promulgation of settled teaching found in De defectibus. Why? Because it creates "a bridge too far" in their dream of bring all the Separated Brethren back into the fold. So they (the majority) push minimalism from this motive.
Modernism
Your "majority of theologians" were Modernists. They had taken over the seminaries by the beginning of the 20th century. That is why Pascendi was promulgated by Pius X. The authors you cite were in agreement with the end goals of Modernism found in the post-Vatican II era.
The Modernists are motivated by theological libertinism. They don't like to be limited by prior Magisterial teachings and laws. They think that any prior teaching can evolve to the point of full contradiction if the "spirit of the age" requires it. But we know as traditional Catholics that prior, settled, authoritative, infallible teaching cannot NEVER BE CONTRADICTED.
I showed you that Pope St. Pius V promulgated the Roman Missal using a Papal Bull Quo Primum, in which he included not only the Order of the Mass but the instructions on defects and how to correct them. Some defects are minor and easily corrected. Some are major and the result, if the rules "the form" of the Eucharist are not followed precisely the result is "non conficeret Sacramentum." Note that he did not say, unlawful or imprecise or not perfect. He said "the Sacrament is not confected." In other words, the attempted consecration was a dud.
But, the modernist-ecuмenist theologians (the "majority" in the 20th century) did not like what Pope St. Pius V promulgated. And they set out to ignore him and try to change everyone's mind, starting with priests-seminarians.
So, Sean, you are wrong to cite untrustworthy authorities. Go back to the papal magisterium. No "majority" of theologians can overturn a promulgated decision of a Pope. Every single traditional Roman Missal contains his precise instructions on "the form of he consecration of the wine" and the consequence of not following those instructions is, the Pope says, that "the Sacrament is not confected."
...
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."
...
Drew
You are proving yourself to be an idiot.
Nobody before you ever accused any of the three of modernism and ecuмenism.
You are bending reality to fit within your narrative.
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.
Yes, there's no valid Mass unto both species have been consecrated, but the bread does become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ after the consecration of the bread species has been performed. It's considered a sacrilege to consecrate one without the other, but it would truly become consecrated. There's some dispute about whether the bread would be really consecrated if there's no intention to offer the full Mass ... but that would be a defect of intention, and the bread so consecrated should be treated as if truly consecrated due to the doubt (since it's not certain that it hasn't been consecrated). Some of the casuistic theology manuals ask the question of what would happen if a priest dropped dead right after consecrating the bread but without having consecrated the wine, and the answer is that another priest must come in to finish that Mass in order to prevent sacrilege.
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.
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."
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.
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
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 (http://www.dailycatholic.org/defectib.htm):
"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?".)
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 (http://www.dailycatholic.org/defectib.htm):
"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."
Oh, Sean knows. But he always defends a predetermined agenda. He's the most biased poster on Cathinfo.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
Can. 817
Nefas est, urgente etiam extrema necessitate, alteram materiam sine altera, aut etiam utramque, extra Missae celebrationem, consecrare.
It is unlawful, even in case of extreme necessity, to consecrate one species without the other, or to consecrate both outside the Mass.
The first of these clauses touches the very essence of the Mass, which most probably consists in the consecration of both species. However, theologians 18 generally admit, following the Missale Romanum ,19 that the consecration of one species would be valid without the consecration of the other. This might happen if a priest would grow seriously ill after the consecration of one species, or if, by mistake, he would consecrate water and no wine would be at hand, or danger of death would immediately follow the consecration of one species. Yet all these are merely physical accidents. Intentionally to consecrate only one species is never allowed, not even to provide the Viaticuм, although such consecration would be valid.20
To consecrate outside the Mass would not only be a sacrilege, but probably also an attempt at invalid consecration. The priest would certainly not perform that action in the person of Christ, nor according to the intention of the Church, which is restricted to the celebration of the Mass.21
18 Cfr. Noldin, Summa Theol. Moralis, 1912, De Sacram., n. 102.
19 De Defectibus, c. IV, nn. 5, 8.
20 Noldin, l. c., and n. 104.
21 Prummer, l. c., III, n. 176
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.Angelus,
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 (http://www.dailycatholic.org/defectib.htm) 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.
“A pope (Francis) who does not care for doctrine, who looks at the people, and who has known us in Argentina. And he appreciated our work in Argentina. And that's why he sees us with a good disposition while in the same time he is against conservatism. This is like a contradiction. But I have been able to verify several times that he really does things personally for us.”
Bishop Bernard Fellay, SSPX, 2017
...the intention of the minister is to do “what the Church DOES.” What the Church “DOES” is what Jesus Christ DID at the first Eucharistic Sacrifice at the Last Supper. St. Thomas teaches that God is the formal and final cause of the sacraments and the priest is the human secondary instrumental cause. All causes of any material object whatsoever require the same ends! That is, if the formal cause is working toward a different end than the instrumental cause, the end will not be gained. I put that in bold so I would not have to repeat it. It was the nominalist Luther who denied secondary causality and thus the mediation of any human minister. The theology of bakery and wine cellar consecrations is just another inverted version where the causality of God is destroyed. This perversion thinks and teaches that God must conform His intention to the perverted intention of any priest who would attempt to consecrate only one part of the sacramental matter, or that is divorced from the Eucharistic Sacrifice. This is the theology of sorcery.
St. Thomas teaches that the blood and water that issued forth from the pierced side of the Crucified Jesus represents the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist (ST IIIa q62a5). The Eucharist is caused by and from the Passion of Jesus Christ as is the grace of every sacrament. Without the Sacrificial cause, there is no Eucharistic True Presence.
Drew
Angelus,
You have neatly summed up SSPX sacramental theology in its crude simplicity. You error in claiming that "it is the teaching of the Church." It is not. If it were, the late Fr. Gregory Hesse would not be mocking it.
(https://youtu.be/UcYXC6DCgIA?t=1074)Fr. Gregory Hesse (https://youtu.be/UcYXC6DCgIA?t=1074)
https://youtu.be/UcYXC6DCgIA?t=1074 (https://youtu.be/UcYXC6DCgIA?t=1074)
It is not "the teaching of the Church". It is the teaching of the SSPX. It is a vulgar theological opinion that begins by driving a wedge between the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Blessed Sacrament, and then concludes that any priest can validly consecrate either bread alone or wine alone outside of the Mass. It claims that this is the INTENTION to do what the Church DOES. The end of this is bakery and wine cellar consecrations. And as I said before, it does not have to limited to any particular bakery or wine cellar. It could be all the bakeries in Italy or all the wine cellars in France. Your own arguments force this stupidity. Now when a theology leads to stupidity and the overturning of Catholic Dogma, most reasonable people will reconsider their first principles and rethink their steps. But not the SSPX nor its mindless apologists. They keep plodding away tracking their dirt wherever they go. The problem with this error is that it leads to corruption in worship, corruption in the sacraments, and corruption in the priesthood. It makes the defense of Catholic dogma and worship according to the "received and approved" immemorial rite of Mass impossible. What is possibly worse, it is the very definition of sorcery and witchcraft. It is a demonic theology that believes it can bend the will of God to its own ends.
Rome knows this as well. Bishop Felly said in 2017:
The common ground between Pope Francis and Bishop Fellay is they "do not care for doctrine" and that explains why Francis "sees the SSPX with a good disposition" and "really does things personally for (the SSPX)." This explains why Francis is driving conservative and traditional Catholics into the fold of the SSPX which Archbishop Vigano sees as evident.
De defectibus was published by St. Pius V a year after the codification of the "received and approved" immemorial Roman rite of Mass. It was included in every Roman Missal until after the Bugnini transitional Missal in common usage in 1962. De defectibus is a disciplinary decree concerned with defects in rubrics in the celebration of the "received and approved" holy sacrifice of the Mass and with their moral implications for the celebrant. The docuмent presupposes the context of the traditional liturgy, it presupposes the intent of the priest to offer the sacrifice of the Mass. The intent to consecrate the sacrament is subsumed within the intent to offer the sacrifice of the Mass. To use this docuмent as evidence to support bakery and wine cellar consecrations is contemptible. To use the docuмent to overturn Catholic Dogma of the sacraments is worse. The SSPX entirely disregards the context and believes that the intent of the priest only to consecrate the sacrament is the sufficient and only necessary intention of the Church. As Fr. Hesse says, when in the history of the Church has the Church intended to consecrate the sacrament outside of Mass? The answer: NEVER.
The canon law that prohibits consecration outside of the Mass or consecration with only one species is an invalidating law. This is evident from Catholic Dogma which requires bread and wine as the matter of the sacrament, and from the nature of law itself. Any law, divine or human, does not bind in cases of necessity or impossibility unless that law is an invalidating law. This law specifically admits no exceptions whatsoever, not even in "extreme urgent necessity".
The link you provide is to the book written by Louis Tofari. Tofari is a committed SSPX bakery and wine cellar apologist and defender of the Bugnini 1962 transitional Missal. I would not advise going to a cesspool in hope of finding drinking water. The SSPX theology is the product of a self-contained theological inbreeding. The SSPX has excluded any seminarian from ordination that does not drink its theological kool-aid. This theology begins always with the rejection of Dogma as the proximate rule of faith. It therefore produces inductive opinions that it uses to overturn God's revealed truth.
Repeating again:
Re: Why SSPX Cannot Defend Catholic Tradition - Bakery & Wine Cellar Consecrations (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/why-sspx-cannot-defend-catholic-tradition-bakery-wine-cellar-consecrations/msg895974/#msg895974)
« Reply #52 on: July 25, 2023, 08:16:35 PM »
The SSPX theology makes God the instrumental cause and the priest the formal and final cause of consecration of the sacrament. Satanic ritual is symbolized by the inversion of Catholic signs. This is just another form of demonic inversion.
Drew
Do you or do you not believe that immediately after the words of "consecration of the host" (i.e., Hoc est enim corpus meum) are pronounced, by a valid priest with proper intention and valid matter, that the whole Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord are transubstantiated and really-present?
While you are considering your answer, you might ponder this quote from the Papal Bull Cantate Domino by Pope Eugene IV from the Council of Florence (Denzinger (https://patristica.net/denzinger/#n700)-[Old numbering]):
-------------------
715 But since in the above written decree of the Armenians the form of the words, which in the consecration of the body and blood of the Lord the holy Roman Church confirmed by the teaching and authority of the Apostles had always been accustomed to use, was not set forth, we have thought that it ought to be inserted here. In the consecration of the body the Church uses this form of the words: "For this is my body"; but in the consecration of the blood, it uses the following form of the words: "For this is the chalice of my blood, the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which will be poured forth for you and many for the remission of sins."
But it makes no difference at all whether the wheaten bread in which the sacrament is effected was cooked on that day or before; for, provided that the substance of bread remains, there can be no doubt but that after the aforesaid words of the consecration of the body have been uttered [by a priest] with the intention of effecting, it will be changed immediately into the substance of the true body of Christ.
715 Verum quia in suprascripto decreto Armenorum non est explicata forma verbo rum, quibus in consecratione corporis et sanguinis Domini sacrosancta Romana ecclesia, apostolorum Petri et Pauli doctrina et auctoritate firmata semper uti consuevit, illam presentibus duximus inserendam. In consecratione corporis Domini hac utitur forma verborum: Hoc est enim corpus meum. Sanguinis vero: Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei, novi et eterni testamenti, misterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.
Panis vero triticeus, in quo sacramentum conficitur, an eo die an antea decoctus sit, nihil omnino refert; dummodo enim panis substantia maneat, nullatenus dubitandum est, quin post predicta verba consecrationis corporis a sacerdote cuм intentione conficiendi prolata, mox in verum Christi corpus transubstantietur.
----------------------------
Mr. Drew, you will notice that Pope Eugene IV says that only 3 things are required to confect the Eucharist:
1. wheaten bread
2. the words of consecration
3. the priest [sacerdote] with the intention of effecting transubstantiation
There are absolutely no other requirements. This is Catholic teaching from the highest authority possible. This teaching agrees with Pope St. Pius V's De defectibus and with St. Thomas Aquinas.
Its matter is wheat bread and wine from the vine, to which a very little water is added before the consecration. Water is added thus because it is believed, in accordance with the testimony of holy fathers and doctors of the church manifested long ago in disputation, that the Lord himself instituted this sacrament in wine mixed with water, and because it befits the representation of the Lord's passion. For the blessed pope Alexander, fifth after blessed Peter, says: "In the oblations of the sacraments which are offered to the Lord within the solemnities of masses, only bread and wine mixed with water are to be offered in sacrifice. There should not be offered in the chalice of the Lord either wine only or water only but both mixed together, because both blood and water are said to have flowed from Christ's side'; also because it is fitting to signify the effect of this sacrament, which is the union of the Christian people with Christ. For, water signifies the people according to those words of the Apocalypse: many waters, many peoples. And Pope Julius, second after blessed Silvester, said: The chalice of the Lord, by a precept of the canons, should be offered mixed of wine and water, because we see that the people is understood in the water and the blood of Christ is manifested in the wine; hence when wine and water are mingled in the chalice, the people are made one with Christ and the mass of the faithful are linked and joined together with him in whom they believe. Since, therefore, both the holy Roman church taught by the most blessed apostles Peter and Paul and the other churches of Latins and Greeks, in which the lights of all sanctity and doctrine have shone brightly, have behaved in this way from the very beginning of the growing church and still do so, it seems very unfitting that any other region should differ from this universal and reasonable observance. We decree, therefore, that the Armenians should conform themselves with the whole Christian world and that their priests shall mix a little water with the wine in the oblation of the chalice.
Decree for the Armenians
Tell me, do think a priest can consecrate all the bread in Italy? Why not?.
.
No, because he must be in physical proximity to the matter he consecrates.
You are defending bakery and wine cellar consecrations.
Not only that, but that would constitute a defect of intention. That is clearly not intending to do what the Church does. He couldn't consecrate an entire bakery either.
Now, let's assume the bakery for some reason also sold bottles of wine, and the priest not only tried to consecrate the bread, but then also went to consecrate the wine. According to drew, this would be valid?
No, of course it wouldn't be valid ... for the same reason, that this does not express the intention to do what the Church does.
That a priest intending to only consecrate bread (but not wine) would be invalid is a disputed position, discussed in most manuals (which likewise consider it the less common opinion), and usually rejected.
Nevertheless, 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.
No, Sean, I can't help it that you can't understand the proper nuances of the intention issued, and you're too dense to realize that I don't hold to external intention. No, intending to consecrate a bakery is not intending to do what the Church does. You keep conflating the intention for the Sacramental effect with the intention to do what the Church does. If this priest intended the Sacramental effect, it would in fact be your own incorrect opinion that would permit it to be valid. You keep alleging that the intention for the Sacramental effect is what constitutes the requisite intention, so in your thinking, the bakery consecration would be invalid, and the ordination of +Lefebvre possibly invalid. But in my position, which you clearly do not understand ... and I've cited where it's also the position of St. Thomas Aquinas ... the bakery would be invalid, and +Lefebvre's ordination unquestionably valid. Since when has the Church ever intended for a priest to consecrate a bakery and to consecrate outside of Mass? Never. That is not what the Church does. So the priest's intention to will the Sacramental effect would be insufficient in my view, but sufficient in your own twisted "intention = willing the Sacramental effect" view.
No, because he must be in physical proximity to the matter he consecrates.
The proximate valid matter of the Holy Eucharist is bread and wine physically present and properly designated by the intention of the priest. The matter is physical present, and consecration valid, even though the priest does not perceive the host, e.g., because of blindness or because he forgot to uncover the ciborium. To leave the ciborium covered intentionally is a venial sin. -- Consecration is doubtful if the hosts are locked in the tabernacle, or if they accidentally get between the pages of the missal, under the corporal or chalice. The matter is no longer physically present if it is too far removed (more than 50 or 60 feet) from the altar. Neither is matter physically present for consecration if it is behind the altar.
Angelus,
Let's keep the context clear. You are defending bakery and wine cellar consecrations. So stick to the subject. What you are posting is the addendum to the Decree for the Armenians from the Council of Florence in 1439. There reason for the addendum is because the decree itself neglected to specify the form of the sacrament.
But the main body of the decree should not be ignored. In the text of the decree discussing the Holy Eucharist it says:
What is evident from this excerpt is the Sacrifice of the Mass is the context, the only context, for the consecration of the sacrament, and that is what the Church DOES, and she DOES this "with the whole of the Christian world.... from the very beginning" because it is what Jesus Christ DID. The intent to consecrate is subsumed in the context of the Mass and you will find no Church docuмent speaking otherwise.
How is it possible for anyone in their right mind to attempt to quote this decree in defense of bakery and wine cellar consecrations? Your entire post is contextualized in what takes place during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. But you do not believe the Mass is necessary. You have driven a wedge between the sacrifice and the sacrament. You do not see or understand how the passion of Christ is the material cause of the consecration and the effectual union with Christ in Holy Communion.
This decree address the matter of the sacrament being bread and wine and gives the necessary forms for both. You believe that either bread alone without the wine, or the wine alone without the bread, can be consecrated contrary to this decree and outside the Sacrifice of the Mass. Do you suppose the Armenians who were reconciled to the Church left believing in bakery and wine cellar consecrations?
The priest is the necessary instrumental cause of the consecration; God is the formal and final cause. The causes must act together or the end is not achieved. The intention of the priest must be to do what the Church DOES and that is not simply to effect consecration but also and more importantly to offer sacrifice from which the consecration is possible. If only bread and kool-aid are consecrated, even if the priest says the proper form over the bread there is no consecration of the bread because of a defect in matter and a defect in intention. We know this by divine and Catholic faith and those who deny it are heretics. God is omnipotent and omniscient. He is not fooled by intent of a malicious priest or even a stupid one.
When a priest with the right intention and the proper form and matter in the context of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass says the word of consecration over the bread, it is consecrated. The trouble with your theology is it denies God's revealed truth and holds His divine providence in contempt. Christ said, 'And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself.' The lifting up refers to the sacrifice; the drawing all things to Himself is union in the Holy Eucharist. You believe that there is no necessary relationship between the 'lifting up' and the union. Your theology is contemptible because it is demonic. After St. Peter's profession of faith, Jesus prophesied His passion, death and resurrection. St. Peter said, "Lord, be it far from thee, this shall not be unto thee," to which Jesus replied, "Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men" (Matt 16:23). You cannot have union with Jesus Christ without the sacrifice and a theology that teaches otherwise is satanic.
I started this thread with my article posted, and after all the comments, this is the best you can offer! You have not addressed anything of substance. Soon I am going to start demanding answers from you to defend your stupid bakery and wine cellar consecrations. Tell me, do think a priest can consecrate all the bread in Italy? Why not?
Drew
"While I haven't read this thread all the way back to what kicked off this debate."
Ladislaus
Re: Why SSPX Cannot Defend Catholic Tradition - Bakery & Wine Cellar Consecrations (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/why-sspx-cannot-defend-catholic-tradition-bakery-wine-cellar-consecrations/msg896356/#msg896356)
« Reply #97 on: Today at 07:54:45 AM »
Quote"You are defending bakery and wine cellar consecrations."
Drew posting to Angelus
"No he's not. Bakery / Wine Cellar scenario is an irrelevant red herring that you keep tossing out there to falsely bolster your bogus position."
Ladislaus
Re: Why SSPX Cannot Defend Catholic Tradition - Bakery & Wine Cellar Consecrations (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/why-sspx-cannot-defend-catholic-tradition-bakery-wine-cellar-consecrations/msg896355/#msg896355)
« Reply #96 on: Today at 07:32:15 AM »
"Now, let's assume the bakery for some reason also sold bottles of wine, and the priest not only tried to consecrate the bread, but then also went to consecrate the wine. According to drew, this would be valid?" Ladislaus
Re: Why SSPX Cannot Defend Catholic Tradition - Bakery & Wine Cellar Consecrations (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/why-sspx-cannot-defend-catholic-tradition-bakery-wine-cellar-consecrations/msg896354/#msg896354)
« Reply #95 on: Today at 07:30:40 AM »
Yeti,
Does this mean he has to be in Italy? If that's too big, how about all the bread in Rome? And what is the definition of "too big"?
· The validity of bakery and wine cellar consecrations is a theological conclusion based upon:
· Their rejection of Dogma as the proximate rule of faith,
· Their belief that bread can be consecrated without wine,
· Their belief that wine can be consecrated without bread,
· Their belief the consecration has no necessary relationship with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
· Et alia
It is from these first principles that the SSPX concludes that bakery and wine cellar consecrations are valid. They teach it in their seminaries. And I believe they would not ordain any seminarian who openly contradicts this belief.
The SSPX U.S. District magazine defended bakery and wine cellar consecrations in an editorial referenced in the opening article. The article contains this picture of a large wine cellar. The article concludes by referencing St. Thomas that NO limitation that can be set on the volume of wine or the quantity of bread.
(https://sspx.org/sites/sspx/files/styles/dici_image_full_width/public/media/usa-district/new-news/adobestock_84153454.jpeg?itok=eKhJkpPg)
So the SSPX believes that a priest can consecrate all the wine in this wine cellar by simply saying "This is my blood" with the intention of making the wine the blood of Christ. In this picture the priest may be 50 feet, maybe 100 feet from some individual cask. Is that what SSPX means by "proximity"? And if 100 feet is OK why not 200 feet? Do I hear 300?, 400? So, why just one wine cellar? Or do you mean to say that as the priest gets farther away from the wine cellar his power of consecrating diminishes? Is it reduced like radiation, inversely by the distance to the 4th power?
Based upon SSPX theology there is no reason all the bread in Italy cannot be "consecrated" because "proximity" is relative term and no one has to accept their definition and limit the "consecration" to just one wine cellar.
Every one of the first principles listed above that the SSPX and Bishop Fellay believe are false. They underpin a false theology that arrives at false conclusions that are inimical to the Catholic faith and the true worship of God.
Drew
Ladislaus,
Drew said the following:
"What is evident from this excerpt is the Sacrifice of the Mass is the context, the only context, for the consecration of the sacrament, and that is what the Church DOES, and she DOES this "with the whole of the Christian world.... from the very beginning" because it is what Jesus Christ DID. The intent to consecrate is subsumed in the context of the Mass and you will find no Church docuмent speaking otherwise."
Thus spoke St. Thomas Aquinas here (https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.III.Q83.A3.Rep8):
"Reply Obj. 8: The dispensing of the sacraments belongs to the Church’s ministers; but their consecration is from God Himself. Consequently, the Church’s ministers can make no ordinances regarding the form of the consecration, but only concerning the use of the sacrament and the manner of celebrating. And therefore, if the priest pronounces the words of consecration over the proper matter with the intention of consecrating, then, without every one of the things mentioned above—namely, without house, and altar, consecrated chalice and corporal, and the other things instituted by the Church—he consecrates Christ’s body in very truth; yet he is guilty of grave sin, in not following the rite of the Church.
So, Drew, St. Thomas says it is possible to confect the Sacrament while "not following the rite of the Church." Do you call him a heretic?
"The intent to consecrate is subsumed in the context of the Mass and you will find no Church docuмent speaking otherwise."
Drew
Defects may occur also in the performance of the rite itself, if any of the required elements is lacking, as in the following cases: if the Mass is celebrated in a place that is not sacred, or not lawfully approved, or on an altar not consecrated, or not covered with three cloths; if there are no wax candles; if it is not the proper time for celebrating Mass, which is from one hour before dawn until one hour after noon under ordinary circuмstances, unless some other time is established or permitted for certain Masses; if the priest fails to wear some one of the priestly vestments; if the priestly vestments and the altar cloths have not been blessed; if there is no cleric present nor any other man or boy serving the Mass; if there is not a chalice, with a cup of gold, or of silver with the inside gold-plated; if the paten is not gold-plated; if both chalice and paten are not consecrated by a bishop; if the corporal is not clean (and the corporal should be of linen, not decorated in the middle with silk or gold; and both corporal and pall should be blessed); if the priest celebrates Mass with his head covered, without a dispensation to do so; if there is no missal present, even though the priest may know by heart the Mass he intends to say.
De defectibus, 31
What is evident from this excerpt (from the Council of Florence on the Eucharist) is the Sacrifice of the Mass is the context, the only context, for the consecration of the sacrament, and that is what the Church DOES, and she DOES this "with the whole of the Christian world.... from the very beginning" because it is what Jesus Christ DID. The intent to consecrate is subsumed in the context of the Mass and you will find no Church docuмent speaking otherwise."
Drew
Angelus,
I appreciate your posting my entire comment when you reply. I do not know if it was your intent or just the way the posting works, but in the last post the citation from the Council of Florence on the Eucharist is entirely missing. My quote that you cite above is directly quoting from the Council of Florence docuмent on the Eucharist which is important in understanding the authority of the citation.
(https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/why-sspx-cannot-defend-catholic-tradition-bakery-wine-cellar-consecrations/msg896334/#msg896334)Re: Why SSPX Cannot Defend Catholic Tradition - Bakery & Wine Cellar Consecrations (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/why-sspx-cannot-defend-catholic-tradition-bakery-wine-cellar-consecrations/msg896334/#msg896334)
« Reply #93 on: Yesterday at 11:07:30 PM »
The quote from St. Thomas is pertinent and there is nothing in this quote with which I could disagree. I have repeated several times what St. Thomas is saying, that is, it is God who is doing the consecration. He is the formal and final cause. The priest is only the instrumental cause. Again, all causes must work for the same end.
I assume you are citing St. Thomas to refute my statement:
Firstly, St. Thomas' quotation is not a "Church docuмent." Secondly, St. Thomas is not saying that a priest can consecrate the blessed Sacrament outside of Mass.
St. Thomas is censoring a priest as "guilty of grave sin, in not following the rite of the Church." That is, the priest is not paying attention to the specified rubrics of the Mass established by the Church. He gives specific examples such as not using a "consecrated chalice and corporal." The Church requires the use of a "consecrated chalice and corporal" and a priest saying Mass who does not use a "consecrated chalice and corporal" sins in not following the "things instituted by the Church." The context of St. Thomas is a priest offering Mass and willfully negligent in the prescribed rubrics. He sins but it does not invalidate the consecration in the Mass. De defectibus says the same thing:
These defects do not invalidate the sacrifice of the Mass or the sacrament but are imputed as sins to the priest. With St. Thomas, the intent by the priest to consecrate is subsumed in the intent to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The priest's intention to offer the Mass is the context of the citation.
I repeat again, citing the Council of Florence on the Eucharist:
Drew
Drew said that it is a mistake to think that:
"...bread can be consecrated without wine,..."
St. Thomas Aquinas addressed that very question here (https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.III.Q78.A6):
"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 (A. 5, ad 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."
Is St. Thomas Aquinas a heretic, Drew?
In a reply to you,
Re: Why SSPX Cannot Defend Catholic Tradition - Bakery & Wine Cellar Consecrations (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/why-sspx-cannot-defend-catholic-tradition-bakery-wine-cellar-consecrations/msg896334/#msg896334)
« Reply #93 on: Yesterday at 11:07:30 PM »
[....] The priest is the necessary instrumental cause of the consecration; God is the formal and final cause. The causes must act together or the end is not achieved. The intention of the priest must be to do what the Church DOES and that is not simply to effect consecration but also and more importantly to offer sacrifice from which the consecration is possible. If only bread and kool-aid are consecrated, even if the priest says the proper form over the bread there is no consecration of the bread because of a defect in matter and a defect in intention. We know this by divine and Catholic faith and those who deny it are heretics. God is omnipotent and omniscient. He is not fooled by intent of a malicious priest or even a stupid one.
When a priest with the right intention and the proper form and matter in the context of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass says the word of consecration over the bread, it is consecrated. The trouble with your theology is it denies God's revealed truth and holds His divine providence in contempt. Christ said, 'And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself.' The lifting up refers to the sacrifice; the drawing all things to Himself is union in the Holy Eucharist. You believe that there is no necessary relationship between the 'lifting up' and the union. Your theology is contemptible because it is demonic. After St. Peter's profession of faith, Jesus prophesied His passion, death and resurrection. St. Peter said, "Lord, be it far from thee, this shall not be unto thee," to which Jesus replied, "Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men" (Matt 16:23). You cannot have union with Jesus Christ without the sacrifice and a theology that teaches otherwise is satanic. [....]
Drew
"This renewal has also shown clearly that the formulas of the Roman Missal ought to be revised and enriched. The beginning of this renewal was the work of Our predecessor, this same Pius XII, in the restoration of the Paschal Vigil and of the Holy Week Rite, which formed the first stage of updating the Roman Missal for the present-day mentality."
OHS 1956, page 11: Elimination of the Gospel passage which connects the institution of the Eucharist with the Passion of Christ (Matthew 26: 1-36).
Fr. Stefano Carusi Commentary: We now come to a pass that to us seems the most disconcerting, above all because it seems, as far as the archives reveal, that the Commission had decided not to change anything in regard to the Passion, since it was of the most ancient origin (Msgr. Nicola Giampietro, op. cit., pp. 304, 305*). Nevertheless, we know neither how nor why the narrative of the Last Supper was expunged. It is hard to believe that for simple motives of saving time thirty verses of the Gospel would be struck out, especially considering the relevance of the passage concerned. Up till then, tradition desired that the narration of the Passion in the Synoptics always include the institution of the Eucharist, which, by virtue of the sacramental separation of the Body and Blood of Christ, is the herald of the Passion. The reform, with a single stroke aimed at a fundamental passage of Sacred Scripture, obscured the vital relation of the Last Supper, the sacrifice of Good Friday, and the Eucharist. The passage on the institution of the Eucharist was eliminated as well from Holy Tuesday and Holy Wednesday, with the astounding result that it is nowhere to be found in the entire liturgical cycle! This was the result of a climate of hasty change, which disrupted centuries-old traditions yet was incapable of considering the entirety of Scripture read during the year.
(*Msgr. Nicola Giampietro, liturgical historian, kept the notes and minutes of the discussions of the preparatory commission preserved in the archives of the Congregation of Rites.)
Are the institution of the Eucharist gospel verses included in the breviary? If they are, then some priests might not take much notice that it can't be found anywhere in the liturgical cycle. If it is not in the breviary, then mentioning this detail should really make them think.In short, no. The Roman Breviary does not have extensive readings from the Gospels. At Mattins when there is a Gospel, and that is not every day, there is just a 'fragment' of the Gospel that will be read at Mass, with a homily from one of the Fathers on that Gospel as the main part of the reading. Scripture, as in the OT and NT Acts and Epistles does get read extensively in a sequence throughout the year.
drew, I've seen enough of your posts to know that you don't know what you're talking about, asserting that it's heresy to hold that the bread could be consecrated validly without also consecrating the wine. That's ridiculous. And I have gone back to read the early part of the thread..
While +Fellay's bakery scenario is ridiculous, you go to the opposite extreme to claim that the bread cannot be validly consecrated without also consecrating the wine, which is almost equally absurd.
.
I don't really understand why there is such a long thread over something that no one would ever do, to consecrate all the bread in a bakery. If you think the question is relevant to some other point, then why not just discuss the main point directly instead of going on for page after page about this absurd scenario about some priest going into a bakery or wine cellar and consecrating all the matter there?
The Church made it clear that deficiencies in the Anglican rite itself made it impossible for the rite to supply the correct intention needed for sacramental validity. disbelief in Catechism 101 regarding form, matter, and intention.