Meanwhile, here was the SSPX response, which is certainly correct:

"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

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.

Really, such speculation should never happen as it would be very wrong to attempt such things.

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 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.

How does this work with the NO consecration? Is their bread indeed the body of our Lord?

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 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.

But a "mulligan" consecration of the wine would be within the Mass and part of the sacrifice, a totally different scenario than the "wine cellar" maverick consecration.

I'm a bit confused by your reference to "valid wine".  Are you simply saying "wine that can be validly consecrated", i.e., valid matter?

In such a case, in the TLM, nobody in the congregation would have any idea what was going on, and couldn't be confused by it.  Only the altar server would know, by the priest presumably whispering to him and saying "get me that cruet of wine again, I need it for a moment".

In the forward-facing Novus Ordo, though, it would be obvious that something had gone wrong, but then again, the level of liturgical illiteracy would mean that only the rare person would pick up on it.  I'm assuming that in such a case, the priest would whisper the words of consecration, so as not to disturb anyone by calling attention to the oversight.

It’s pathetic to see the confusion caused by emotionally dictated doctrine.

The consecration of one species without the other is indisputably valid (though excommunicable).

Can either be consecrated outside of the mass?

Yes (validly, but not licitly).

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.

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,

"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) 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.

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,

"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) 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?

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.

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,

"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) 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.

Okay, let me explain what I was getting at.  I was not referring to consecration taking place during Mass, viz. the holy sacrifice.  I was referring to, for whatever reason, the Body and Blood (either or both) being consecrated outside of the sacrifice, such as in the "bakery and wine cellar" scenarios.  I was speculating (and that's all it is, speculation) that the Church doesn't know whether such an ad hoc consecration outside of Mass would be valid, and in the absence of such knowledge, simply says "nefas est" without defining what actually would happen.

To speculate that a priest, in a gravely sinful and illicit act, could pick up a single host, or even place a single host on a paten (or a cocktail napkin, or whatever), outside of Mass, pronounce the words "hoc est enim corpus meum", and the host becomes the Body of Christ, seems to make the priest a kind of magician.  I have to question whether such a consecration would be valid, but that's all I can do, question, as I simply cannot say one way or the other.  My thinking here. is that the Church can't say either, so she doesn't.