Author Topic: Why SSPX Cannot Defend Catholic Tradition - Bakery & Wine Cellar Consecrations (Read 21678 times)

trad123 · « **Reply #90 on:** July 27, 2023, 12:33:04 AM »

A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law by Charles Augustine Bachofen

Book III, Volume IV

1925

https://archive.org/details/commentaryonnewc0004bach/page/154/mode/2up

Quote

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

drew · « **Reply #91 on:** July 27, 2023, 07:09:28 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on July 26, 2023, 09:21:27 PM

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

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

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

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.

Fr. Gregory Hesse
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:

Quote

“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 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
« Reply #52 on: July 25, 2023, 08:16:35 PM »

Quote

...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

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

Angelus · « **Reply #92 on:** July 27, 2023, 09:28:42 PM »

Quote from: drew on July 27, 2023, 07:09:28 PM

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.

Fr. Gregory Hesse
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
« 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-[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.

drew · « **Reply #93 on:** July 27, 2023, 11:07:30 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on July 27, 2023, 09:28:42 PM

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-[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.

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:

Quote

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

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

Yeti · « **Reply #94 on:** July 28, 2023, 06:56:32 AM »

Quote from: drew on July 27, 2023, 11:07:30 PM

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #95 on:** July 28, 2023, 07:30:40 AM »

Quote from: Yeti on July 28, 2023, 06:56:32 AM

.

No, because he must be in physical proximity to the matter he consecrates.

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #96 on:** July 28, 2023, 07:32:15 AM »

Quote from: drew on July 27, 2023, 11:07:30 PM

You are defending bakery and wine cellar consecrations.

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 · « **Reply #97 on:** July 28, 2023, 07:54:45 AM »

That citation from Bachofen cited by trad123 nicely sums up what I've been saying as well. Yes, the consecration of the bread species alone turns it into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord provided that the priest intends to consecrate both. If he intends to consecrate only the bread species, there's some dispute among theologians about whether that would be valid, though all agree that it would be sacrilegious. And the reason is NOT that both species are required matter for the Sacrament, but because it is contrary to the intention of the Church, and the priest would not be intending to do what the Church does, namely, to always consecrate both species. If the priest INTENDED to consecrate only one, that's where there can be a dispute about its validity. And, if a priest intended to consecrate a bakery, that would certainly be contrary to the Church's intention. St. Thomas also adduces the same rationale, that the Church would be instructing both the priest and the faithful to commit idolatry if that were not the case. If the priest were interrupted before completing the second one, the intention would still have been there to consecrate both species, and thus the first consecration is valid.

While I haven't read this thread all the way back to what kicked off this debate, if it has to do with the validity of the NOM because of the invalid form for the consecration of the wine, there would certainly be no Mass, but if the priest intended to offer a Mass, the consecration of the bread might be valid. But there I would argue that the intention of the entire Novus Ordo Rite is not a Catholic intention. It was admittedly written to minimize the sacrificial aspect of the Mass and make it more in line with Protestant heresy, not to mention that the Offertory was removed and replaced, blasphemously, with a тαℓмυdic blessing. I hold that the NOM does not express the intention of the Church regarding the Mass. Then, of course, the NO Rites of Episcopal Consecration and Priestly Ordination are both defective, the former almost certainly invalid, the latter doubtfully so.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #98 on:** July 28, 2023, 09:18:27 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on July 28, 2023, 07:30:40 AM

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #99 on:** July 28, 2023, 09:31:11 AM »

+Fellay was wrong regarding the bakery consecration, but that has nothing to do with the question at hand. But this wouldn't be the first time that Bishop "Hindu in Tibet" Fellay was wrong about something.

I don't know the original context about the defective wine matter. If the priest knew it was defective matter, e.g. was setting out to consecrate bread and Coca Cola, the consecration of the bread would be invalid. But if he THOUGHT that he was consecrating valid matter, but let's say it was grape juice instead, his intention would still be upright even if he made an error in fact.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #100 on:** July 28, 2023, 09:34:00 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on July 28, 2023, 09:18:27 AM

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.

Angelus · « **Reply #101 on:** July 28, 2023, 12:25:17 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on July 28, 2023, 09:34:00 AM

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.

In Cantate Domino the "intention" is defined precisely as the "intention of confecting/effecting [conficiendi]." This definition limits the scope of intention to the "Sacramental effect." The Sacrament being referred to by Eugene IV is the "the consecration of the body" confected with the form "Hic est enim corpus meum." Nothing else. No mention of any intention to perform the Holy Sacrifice as necessary to confect the Sacrament that the Pope describes.

Again, Cantate Domino (Denzinger-[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 [conficiendi], 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.

drew · « **Reply #102 on:** July 28, 2023, 02:35:28 PM »

Quote from: Yeti on July 28, 2023, 06:56:32 AM

No, because he must be in physical proximity to the matter he consecrates.

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.

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

Yeti · « **Reply #103 on:** July 28, 2023, 03:10:20 PM »

Drew, I am very surprised that you are writing articles on sacramental theology and you not only do not know this information, but do not even seem to know how to look it up. I looked in my copy of Jone, and in two minutes I got the answer.

Jone #492:

Quote

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 · « **Reply #104 on:** July 28, 2023, 03:12:59 PM »

Quote from: drew on July 27, 2023, 11:07:30 PM

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

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:

"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?