Author Topic: Why SSPX Cannot Defend Catholic Tradition - Bakery & Wine Cellar Consecrations (Read 21663 times)

drew · « **Reply #105 on:** July 28, 2023, 03:14:09 PM »

Ladislaus,

I am the one that started this thread and wrote the title and subject matter. I opened it with a posted article that I wrote that discusses specific questions of concern. Now you say:

Quote

"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
« Reply #97 on: Today at 07:54:45 AM »

This is an admission that you do not know what the discussion is about and what the arguments are predicated upon. And yet, you are full of opinions you cannot wait to share.

Then you post:

Quote

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
« Reply #96 on: Today at 07:32:15 AM »

You "haven't read this thread all the way back to what kicked off this debate," and yet, you know what is an "irrelevant red herring" used to "falsely bolster (my) bogus position"?

But that's not enough for you. You posted to Yeti:

Quote

"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
« Reply #95 on: Today at 07:30:40 AM »

You have not read the article. You do not know the essentials of the question and then propose a question that implies I would accept Bishop Fellay's SSPX wine cellar consecration if there happens to be a loaf of bread in the cellar!

You have not learned anything. You are just as obtuse as ever. I can pull up entire threads where you comment again and again with your two cents worth of opinions while never understanding the essentials of the argument.

If you do not know what the discussion is about, and if you will not make the effort to discover what it concerns, then go elsewhere. But that would be impossible for you to do. The next time you attribute an opinion to me you should know what you are talking about and provide specific citations to back it up.

Drew

Ladislaus · « **Reply #106 on:** July 28, 2023, 03:15:01 PM »

That "conficiendi" just means carrying out to completion, and not a reference to the Sacramental effect.

St. Thomas was clear that the minister did not have to intend the Sacramental effect, but just had to intend to DO what the Church DOES. That is why an atheist can validly baptize, for instance. That is why a priest who does not believe in the Real Presence or in transubstantiation can still validly offer Mass.

Angelus · « **Reply #107 on:** July 28, 2023, 03:21:31 PM »

Quote from: drew on July 28, 2023, 02:35:28 PM

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

Drew said that it is a mistake to think that:

"...bread can be consecrated without wine,..."

St. Thomas Aquinas addressed that very question here:

"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?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #108 on:** July 28, 2023, 03:34:05 PM »

Quote from: drew on July 28, 2023, 03:14:09 PM

Ladislaus,

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.

drew · « **Reply #109 on:** July 28, 2023, 04:07:07 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on July 28, 2023, 03:12:59 PM

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?

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.
Re: Why SSPX Cannot Defend Catholic Tradition - Bakery & Wine Cellar Consecrations
« 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:

Quote

"The intent to consecrate is subsumed in the context of the Mass and you will find no Church docuмent speaking otherwise."
Drew

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:

Quote

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

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:

Quote

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

Drew

Angelus · « **Reply #110 on:** July 28, 2023, 04:48:42 PM »

Quote from: drew on July 28, 2023, 04:07:07 PM

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.
Re: Why SSPX Cannot Defend Catholic Tradition - Bakery & Wine Cellar Consecrations
« 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

So what precisely is required, in your opinion, for the wheaten host to be transubstantiated into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ? Please tell me exactly which words/actions in the Mass are required, since you do not seem to think that "the form," the "words of consecration" perform that function exclusively.

drew · « **Reply #111 on:** July 28, 2023, 06:37:02 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on July 28, 2023, 03:21:31 PM

Drew said that it is a mistake to think that:

"...bread can be consecrated without wine,..."

St. Thomas Aquinas addressed that very question here:

"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?

Angelus,

You need to read my posts with attention to what is said and is not said. In previous post I said:

Quote

In a reply to you,

Re: Why SSPX Cannot Defend Catholic Tradition - Bakery & Wine Cellar Consecrations
« 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

I am saying the same thing that St. Thomas says in your quotation, that is, in the context of Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and only in that context, with the correct form and matter of the sacrament, ant the requisite intention, that when the priest consecrates the bread before consecrating the wine, the bread is truly consecrated.

This does not occur outside of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass or inside a Mass using defective matter or employing a defective form. For example, we know by divine and Catholic faith, that is, by DOGMA, that the matter of the sacrament is BREAD AND WINE. If a priest offers Mass, correct in every detail except in using the matter of with bread and kool-aid, he consecrates neither the bread nor the kool-aid because of a defect in both matter and intention either of which alone is sufficient to make the consecration invalid.

You and the SSPX believe that bread alone can be consecrated without wine; you believe that wine can be consecrated without bread; and you believe that consecration of either species can occur alone and without the Mass. This is the theology that has brought the SSPX to believing in bakery and wine cellar consecrations. St. Thomas does not defend anything of the sort. As said before, St. Thomas holds that the blood and water that issued forth from the pierced side of Jesus Christ represents the sacraments of Baptism and Holy Eucharist. The sacrament is the fruit of the Passion, Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Sacrifice is the cause of the True Presence in the Holy Eucharist. The Mass is the representation of this same sacrifice and without this sacrifice there is no Holy Eucharist.

You have provided now two quotations from St. Thomas to ultimately enroll him in defense of your theology of bakery and wine caller consecrations. It will not work. You cannot bend him to your ideology.

Drew

drew · « **Reply #112 on:** August 19, 2023, 09:32:31 PM »

CathInfo posters, who are fixedly devoted to the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal that was adopted by the SSPX as their liturgical standard in the early 1980s, and who are defenders of Bakery and Wine Cellar consecrations, having no practical experience of the immemorial "received and approved" liturgical tradition, are most likely ignorant of the first Bugnini transitional Missal instituting the 1956 Holy Week changes, so, this should be of interest.

Bakery and Wine Cellar consecration theology drives a wedge between the Passion and the Holy Eucharist. This theology believes that wine can be consecrated alone without bread, it believes that bread can be consecrated alone without wine, and it believes that either species can be consecrated alone or together without the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. As said before, this is the theology of the Novus Ordo.

Pope Paul VI introducing the Novus Ordo Missal in 1969 said:

Quote

"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."

Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae (OHS), published November 16, 1955 and became effective during Holy Week of 1956, eliminated many immemorial liturgical customs. One novelty adopted was the uniting of the readings of Passion and the Gospel that heretofore were distinct readings. In 1956 they were not only combined together but the Passion reading eliminated the institution narrative of Holy Eucharist!

Fr. Stefano Carusi wrote a treatise entitled, "The Reform of Holy Week in the Years 1951-1956 from Liturgy to Theology by Way of the Statements of Certain Leading Thinkers (Annibale Bugnini, Carlo Braga, Ferdinando Antonelli)" that was published in Disputationes Theologicae, translated to English by Fr. Charles W. Johnson, and made available through Rorate Caeli. This was previously posted on CathInfo but received relatively few readings and no comments. Fr. Carusi writes:

Quote

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.)

There you have it! It was Bugnini and his liturgical commission who drove a deep wedge between the Passion and the Holy Eucharist destroying their necessary relationship for benefit of "present-day mentality." Do you suppose that Bugnini had the presence of mind to envision Bakery and Wine Cellar consecrations as the end result of his theological-liturgical novelty?

Drew

St Giles · « **Reply #113 on:** August 20, 2023, 11:23:39 AM »

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.

Philip · « **Reply #114 on:** August 21, 2023, 12:29:06 PM »

Quote from: St Giles on August 20, 2023, 11:23:39 AM

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.

In Holy Week on Palm Sunday the Gospel fragment is from St Matthew (read later at the Blessing of Palms), on Monday of Holy Week there is no Gospel at Mattins; on Tuesday no Gospel; on Wednesday no Gospel; on Maundy Thursday again no Gospel but, 3rd nocturn, St. Paul's Ep to the Corinthians concerning the Holy Eucharist; on Good Friday, 3rd nocturn, St Paul to the Hebrews; and, for Holy Saturday again Hebrews.

So there is no reading in the Breviary of the Gospel accounts of the Institution of the Eucharist or Passion.

Yeti · « **Reply #115 on:** August 21, 2023, 01:09:44 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on July 28, 2023, 03:34:05 PM

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?

MarylandTrad · « **Reply #116 on:** August 21, 2023, 07:54:19 PM »

Quote from: Yeti on August 21, 2023, 01:09:44 PM

.

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 relevance of the bakery example is that it shows the SSPX believes the Eucharist can be validly consecrated without the correct matter and without the correct intention, something which even an elementary Catechism student would know is false.

Drew already discussed the main point directly in his original post when he shared the Church's reasoning for declaring the Anglican orders invalid. 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. The pertinence as it relates to the current crisis in the Church should be obvious. Does the Novus Ordo rite, which was initially defined as a memorial meal, supply the intention that is necessary for the valid consecration of the Holy Eucharist?

This question was asked and addressed by the most apt traditionalists from the very beginning, some of whom Drew referenced. The SSPX will tragically never ask or address this question because they have already shown a disbelief in Catechism 101 regarding form, matter, and intention.

Vigano, as quoted in the original post, pointed out how it is evident Rome is purposefully driving a majority of traditional Catholics into the SSPX fold. Vigano seems to think the goal is to drive all traditional Catholics into the SSPX so that Rome can then excommunicate the one, centralized traditional community. Drew observes the same as Vigano regarding Rome's promotion of the SSPX, but he appears to be questioning whether Rome might be doing this for another reason, namely because Rome is aware that the SSPX has taken weak, theologically unsound positions on both the liturgy and dogma.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #117 on:** August 21, 2023, 08:12:11 PM »

Quote from: MarylandTrad on August 21, 2023, 07:54:19 PM

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.

It seems the Pope made a terrible mistake, because Lad assures me that as long as the priest performs a rite in a serious manner, he is guaranteed to have the proper intention…even if he doesn’t.