A recent article written by Steve Skojek at 1 Peter 5, The “Novus Ordo Paradigm” — What It Is and Why It Matters, has been getting a good deal of positive attention in traditional circles; including among any number of my social media contacts.
When a friend stated that he planned to share it with “conservatives” who are hyper-sensitive to any critique of the Novus Ordo, I decided to read it.
For all of the good and valid points made in the article, and there are many, I feel compelled to caution readers not to share the article if they haven’t already; at least not without providing a major correction. [NOTE: If you have already shared the article on social media or elsewhere be sure to circle back offering the following rectification.]
The grave error in question concerns the following statement:
Technically, a priest has the power to consecrate the Eucharist anywhere. It’s legally forbidden, but he can do it. He can sit at a bar, drunk, and consecrate bread and wine if he says the right words with the right intention. He could even do the same thing at a satanic Mass for the purposes of desecration.
Frankly, I was positively stunned to read this; not because of the source, but mainly since so many people that I respect – people who should know better – had given the article a big thumbs up without making any mention of this horrendous falsehood.
Within the excerpt above, a link is provided to an article written by canon lawyer Cathy Caridi; presumably in support of Skojec’s stunning claim.
Oddly enough, however, Caridi’s article (which addresses a reader’s question that is quite unrelated) in no way lends credence to what Skojec stated; in fact, she pointed to Canon 927 in the new Code of Canon Law and her analysis of the normative Latin text makes it rather plain that he is incorrect.
The canon cited (in English) reads:
It is absolutely wrong, even in urgent and extreme necessity, to consecrate one element without the other, or even to consecrate both outside the eucharistic celebration. (CIC 917)
Even before dissecting the canon, Catholic commonsense alone suggests that the very notion of the Blessed Sacrament being confected by a drunken priest in a barroom, and worse, in the context of a Satanic rite, is as absurd as it is repugnant.
The words of consecration are not tantamount to a magical incantation that, strictly upon being pronounced by a priest, make Jesus appear as if ordered to do so; they are not hocus pocus, as the Protestants snidely allege.
At this, I’ll let Fr. Gregory Hesse explain (in the video HERE beginning at the 38-minute mark) in the measured, logical and eminently understandable way that only he can:
The intention of a Sacrament always has to be to do what the Church does; not to do what the Church wants, or to do what the Church did, or to do what the Church will do in the future, but to do what the Church does.
What is it what the Church does? Well, what the Church has always done is what the Church does. What the Church has always outlawed is what the Church does not. In the Code of Canon Law, be it the new Code of Canon Law or the old Code of Canon Law, or all the books before, it says to attempt to consecrate outside of Mass is “nefas” – sacrilege.
Nefas is a very strong Latin word derived from fas. Fas is Divine Law. Nefas, therefore, is not Divine Law; the contrary of Divine Law; therefore, something extremely evil. So, the canon in the old or the new Code of Canon Law should be translated, “to attempt to consecrate outside Mass is extremely evil.”
It is not the purpose of a law book to define if that is possible. It’s only the purpose of a law book to say if it’s allowed or not. Now, if the Church for 2,000 years has called the attempt to consecrate outside Mass a sacrilege, then you cannot say, you cannot say the Church does it.
That means if I was to play a terrible joke on our Lord, and if I attempted to consecrate the wine contained in this carafe, nothing would happen because it’s outside Mass; except that I will be in mortal sin, but otherwise nothing would happen.
Cathy Caridi echoed much of Fr. Hesse’s analysis, writing:
The Latin text of the canon (which is the only truly “official” version) is actually even stronger, although it’s difficult to find an equivalent phrase in English: the word nefas indicates that such an action is so horrible that it is utterly unthinkable! We’ve run into this term before in this space: in “Can a Priest Ever Reveal What is Said in Confession?” the word nefas was used with regard to a priest violating the seal of confession. This should give readers a pretty good idea of the seriousness with which the Church regards the notion of a priest consecrating either bread or wine outside of Mass. It is simply not to be done!
Clearly, that which is “unthinkable” and therefore “not to be done” is not “what the Church does.” It doesn’t get any simpler than that, folks.
At this, there can be no question whatsoever – at least in the minds of so-called “traditionalists” (aka Catholics) – that a drunken priest sitting at a bar (or in the context of a Satanic rite) cannot consecrate the Blessed Sacrament – even if he “says the right words” and genuinely intends for it to happen. In such cases, it would be outwardly manifest for all to see that the priest is not intending to do what the Church does; i.e., he is obviously intending to do what the Church most certainly does not do, and in fact never has done.
One of the dangers invited by Skojek’s claim to the contrary (in addition to being a grossly offensive misrepresentation of the Catholic faith that innocent readers, God forbid, may accept as dependable) is that it serves to confirm those countless “conservatives” who, while recognizing the deficiencies of the Novus Ordo, are hyper-focused on the idea that “Jesus is made present.”
Well, even though Mass at my parish is an LGBT hoedown designed to encourage wider acceptance of mortal sin, Jesus is still there on the altar!
There is a point at which the rite can cease to be the Mass (more Catholic commonsense) – this according to +Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
Furthermore it can be said without any exaggeration whatsoever, that the majority of Masses celebrated without altar stones, with common vessels, leavened bread, with the introduction of profane words into the very body of the Canon, etc. are sacrilegious, and they prevent faith by diminishing it. The desacralization is such that these Masses can come to lose their supernatural character, ‘the mystery of faith,’ and become no more than acts of natural religion …
The New Mass, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, is subject to the same reservations since it is impregnated with Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith. (Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics)
Pay close attention to what the Archbishop stated: The Novus Ordo, even when carried out by the book, is subject to doubt as to whether it may be devoid of supernatural character having become nothing more than an act of natural religion.
When this takes place, there is no Mass, and when there is no Mass, there is no consecration of the Blessed Sacrament.
An uncomfortable proposition for many “conservative” Novus Ordo Catholics to consider?
It most certainly is, but our conservative friends deserve the truth no matter how hard it is to hear. In fact, the true Faith should make them uncomfortable; they are – many of them innocently so – wrapped up in a false religion, or as Hilary White is quoted as saying in the article under review, “Novusordoism and Catholicism are not the same religion.”
No argument here!
This being so, I would venture to say that celebrations of the Novus Ordo lack supernatural character far more often than most Catholics – whether of the traditional or conservative kind – would care to imagine.
This is one of those elephant-in-the-room topics that the overwhelming majority of self-identified “traditional” Catholic commentators wouldn’t touch with a ten-foot pole. It is my conviction, however, that those blessed with a public voice in traditional Catholic media have an obligation to view ten-foot poles and elephant guns as basic tools of the trade!
Consider: If one day a future pope was to infallibly declare that every Novus Ordo ever offered was not the Mass and the Blessed Sacrament was never confected therein, who in their right Catholic mind could possibly be stunned?
At the very least, as things stand today there is considerable room for doubt regarding the Novus Ordo; in some cases more obviously so than others, and as Fr. Hesse also pointed out in the video linked above:
Blessed Innocent XI condemned the following sentence: “For pastoral reasons you may approach Sacraments according to the probability as to its validity.”
In other words, if there is reason to doubt, we may not approach.
But, then again, if we are to believe that a drunken priest in bar can conjure up Jesus…
“Mark this, apostle of the Heart of Jesus: all the cruelties and insults inflicted on our King on that first Maundy Thursday are less than a single thorn in comparison to the terrible crown of profanations, sacrileges, loneliness, desertion, treacheries and hate which He has daily received during the twenty centuries of His imprisoned sacramental life.”
-Fr. Mateo Crawley-Boevey, Jesus: King of Love
Mr. Skojec, like many trads, believes with certitude that Novus Ordo priests are priests and Novus Ordo Bishops are Bishops, so therefore Novus Ordo Eucharists are absolutely valid. He, and many, have no doubt. And who do they look towards to solidify their certitude? Well the very people they claim they must resist, of course. On the point of the validity of a barroom consecration, I think pre-V2 sacramental theology sources should be consulted.
I quickly read an online version of Pope St Pius V’s Bull De Defectibus. It outlines the situations that invalidate the Eucharist and then addresses other defects that may occur. To celebrate in “an unblessed place” is one such instance that creates a defect in the “Actual Ministry.” The text, however does not state that this defect invalidates the sacrament.
Good find Tom. I see what you are saying…it does not specify whether these particular defects invalidate the Sacrament. Having said that, it appears that Pius V’s Bull is only addressing defects within the context of Mass.
Skojec is assuming the Novus Ordo mass is valid. So he’s speaking within that context.
I’d taken Skojec’s statement to mean that he was stressing to Novus Ordoists that the setting (location) didn’t matter, in the sense that masses were held in the catacombs or secretly private residences during times of turmoil out of necessity; or that Father could also be drugged, in pain, or suffering a bad hangover, and it would still be valid; but naturally given this is nowhere near ideal for fault of the priest or a necessity of the times, that when you notice that, it can destroy your sense of the sacred. So from that aspect Skojec’s main point is why he and others avoid going to any Novus Ordo new rite mass at all, despite it’s assumed validity. because knowing all that they know, it is difficult to ‘go back.’
It is likely very clumsily worded to stress a particular point, particularly with the Black mass, but in context, I believe Skojec is presuming the NO rite remains the same and is still a mass, but the whole presentation around it makes it uncomfortable, and therefore they avoid it altogether if they can.
Now, whether the Rite of Paul VI is valid at all or not is a different topic.
I didnt read the whole piece, but based upon what I did read I think you are correct. I also think these examples were meant to be in the context of the mass….not just anywhere, any time.
Echo, echo, echo….. anyone, anyone, anyone?
It is painful for me to go to the Novus Ordo. I am an English speaker and it is less painful for me to go to the Spanish Novus Ordo than the English Novus Ordo though the music at the Spanish is raucous and circus-like. At least I do not have to listen to inane, heterodox sermons. I open my Edmund Campion Missal and pray the Traditional Latin Mass according to the Traditional Calendar. I go with trust that the Eucharist is confected.
Mr Skojec wrote a stirring piece. I rather thought the passage about consecrating in a barroom was for dramatic effect, but Louie what you wrote above rings true and Mr Skojec must cease to be careless in these matters. The Eucharist is the most profound reality in the Universe and we must speak of It with utmost care.
Thank you Louie.
I was listening to Michael Davies’ lectures on the Protestant Revolution in England, and he talked about the Western Uprising. In his discussion, there were 3 groups mentioned:
1) the “ordinary” Catholics, who saw their bishops and priests engaging in the new service, and assumed it must be right.
2) the Catholics who were disconcerted by it, realized what it was, and simply stopped going to church altogether. Within a few generations, many of these families had either formally apostatized by attending heretical services, or informally by not going anywhere.
3) the Catholics that refused to associate with heresy and took up arms to get their Mass back.
In the end, even Protestant scholars acknowledged that, the people being Catholic, if they had any strong leader to organize them and lead them to recapture the faith, it is highly likely that Catholics would have retaken the land, and the heresy would have been driven away.
We are in a similar situation here. Nearly 100% of the bishops imposed the NO on us, and nearly 100% of priests went along. Most awkwardly accepted the “reforms”, especially because the bishops and priests went along. A good many realized that it was bogus, and stopped going altogether, because it wasn’t the Mass. A few fought for the Mass of All Time, at great risk. Like the Western Uprising, the powers that be ostracized them and separated them from the real leaders.
Where is our Judas Maccabeus?
MrTeacherSir: Excellent non-echoing post. THANK YOU! Well articulated and excellent final question. I will echo it, if I may, “Where IS our Judas Maccabeus?
Hi Louie, in fact the Sacred Species may be confected outside of a valid Mass. Recall there are some actions that may be invalidate the Mass as such. For example where one or the other Species is lacking through negligence or another reason, or if the priest fails to Communicate (constituting sacrilege). While it is true that a priest’s intention to “do what the Church does” is required as to the validity of the Mass as a whole, note St Thomas Aquinas’ Summa, Tertia Pars Q 83, Art. 3, Reply to Objection 8: “And therefore if a 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.” In the extreme, satanic priests wouldn’t bother to offer black masses if they weren’t confecting the Most Blessed Sacrament – and certainly the enemy would inform them of this.
Louie, you are wrong and Steve Skojec is right.
I don’t read Mr Skojec. I didn’t read his article you refer to, I address only his statement you quoted:
“Technically, a priest has the power to consecrate the Eucharist anywhere. It’s legally forbidden, but he can do it. He can sit at a bar, drunk, and consecrate bread and wine if he says the right words with the right intention. He could even do the same thing at a satanic Mass for the purposes of desecration.”
Instead of going through your arguments one by one I will try to go back to basics to back up my position. I will be as brief as possible.
What is needed to confect the Host?
– a priest
– words of consecration
– proper intentions
– proper matter.
Let me stop for a while at intentions. Proper intentions mean that priest wants to do what the Church does, which means he wants change substance of bread and wine into Body and Blood of Our Lord. He does not need to intend to consume the Host, he does not need to intend to venerate it, he does not need to believe in all Church’s dogmas, in particular he does not need to believe in transformation. There are Eucharistic miracles where priest didn’t believe in transubstantiation, but still was doing whatever Church does (kind of “whatever” attitude), have seen on his eyes bread becoming Flesh. Of course his disbelieve disappeared momentary, but this Host, and many before, were consecrated without believe in real presence.
Priest consecrating in the bar do have the power to do so. But he is not allowed to. Law condemns such acts so strongly precisely because “bar consecration” can be valid, means can take place. “Bar consecration” is sacrilege. Law does not allow for any consecration outside the Mass – that is the reason for not consecrating in Good Friday but day before, although technically it is doable.
What is needed for Mass? Two elements: transubstantiation and communion of the priest.
So technically “bar Mass” is possible as well. You still are not allowed to participate, it is still sacrilege.
To better see point I want to make, let’s look at other situation. Mass at Russian Orthodox Church. We have all elements needed for confection, we have all elements needed for mass, we have reverence, beautiful, traditional liturgy and yet you and I can not attend this Mass. Why? Because there is only one Mass allowed for Roman Rite and it is Roman Mass (called TLM). Well, there are exceptions, for example if no Roman Mass is available you can, and should, and must, if it is Holy Day of Obligation, assist in licit Mass of other Catholic rite, Dominican rite for example, but let’s focus on normal situation. Orthodox Mass, “bar Mass” are off limits, law does not allow for them, thus you are not allowed to attend. The same is situation with black Mass and with Novus Ordo Mass (NOM).
Unusually people are surprised to see NOM at this list. Yes, they sometimes are able to sense abuses or sacrilege acts taking place at many NOM, even those making Mass invalid, but, they think, if NOM is done “by the book” then it is different story. No, it is not. NOM is illicit, means it is not allowed.
I suspect that behind your attempt to “invalidate” NOM is believe that another blogger expressed plainly. Ann Barnhardt said that if Roman Mass is not available for you then you have to go to NOM. She produced plenty of emotional arguments and one rational: you can/have to go to NOM because it is valid Mass. I think the same thought is in your mind. This is false premise, this is wrong. Validity of Mass is not enough. Ann recognizes NOM as illicit, if you agree with what I said before, you read Ann’s words as: (if no Roman Mass is available) you have to participate in sacrilege to fulfill your Sunday obligation. This is an absurd. You can not participate in what Church’s Law does not allow unless you think you know better.
Mater of validity of NOM should be discussed more often. I’m convinced it is illegal, but gladly hear opposite arguments.
Now, if you don’t agree with with what I said and want to bring up one of your arguments to look at in in details, please do.
I’m ‘long time reader, first time writer’. Hope you don’t mind opening line, I think it carries some sense of humor.
Louie before I read any comments I’m going to say thank you so much for this. This is a topic so often left out or veiled by vague commentary, it is extremely hard to extract the conclusion that we are talking about two different religions. I would imagine this tough conclusion may be easier to find for cradle Catholics than converts. It took us years and only fairly recently came to this conclusion. Perhaps seeing the destruction coming out of Rome has made it impossible for us to see it any other way. You know, that being the case, without Bergolio et al, this situation would have dragged out for an even longer time, right? I hate saying this, but is it possible in God’s grand design that this is why BXVI had to step aside so Francis could come in, to shorten the time Catholics suffered it. Events like that sometimes seem a stretch, but I don’t know. I always wonder about BXVI’s claim that God told him to step aside. I can’t imagine he’d make that up, but anything’s possible today.
I also wonder what this means for Confession at the NO church.
Again, thanks Louie, I really appreciate your insights. Please keep mentioning this now and then to help other Catholics who are trying to find their way with no one helping them.
“he does not need to believe in all Church’s dogmas…”
Stop right there. He is most emphatically not a member of the Catholic Church if he doesn’t.
The Russian Orthodox are not members of the Catholic Church, but their validly ordained priests have the power to consecrate. They consecrate outside of an approved mass, outside of an approved place (their churches are no more sacred than a barroom), but they INTEND to consecrate so the sacrament is valid. I hate to admit it, but I think Skojec is right on this one.
Being within Catholic Church is not the requirement for validity of consecration.
You are always on the modernists for saying contradictory things. If my memory is not playing tricks on me. Fr. Hesse gave a talk on the “Wonder Bread Factory” where his conclusions were the same as Mr. Skojeks. Was that before or after this talk?
Was it that Fr. Hesse in his “Wonder Bread Factory” story going to take a jug of wine with him to make it a Mass (consecrate both species) and the consecration of wine alone in this example makes it invalid, because it’s not a Mass at all? If that were the case his words above “that means” would not make any sense.
“Clearly, that which is “unthinkable” and therefore “not to be done” is not “what the Church does.” It doesn’t get any simpler than that, folks.”
Schism is unthinkable and not to be done, and not what the Church does. But it does not in itself render sacraments invalid.
The Church never does that what is contrary to the Will of the Father. When a priest, bishop, or pope does as he pleases rather than as he should, he establishes his own false church in contradiction to the Church.
Jesus certainly knew that the weeds He said “He did not want the Angels to pluck out,” would do the unthinkable! That is, the Church has to rule on the validity of the unthinkable!
Because it does appear Fr. Hesse does contradict himself on this particular point, I lean toward the belief that such sacrilegious “unthinkable” consecrations would be valid, because the priest sufficiently did what the Church does.
And there it is Sedevacantists at 1:20:59 “the document of pope Pius XII does not apply because it’s a schismatic rite!”
Applied application: If the New Mass was not against the dogma of Trent and the doctrine of Constance which renders it illicit and schismatic, it’s failure to demonstrate the purpose of the sacrament in the way the TLM demonstrates the purpose of the sacrament, would render it invalid at all times and in all places as pope Pius XII states. The law of pope Pius XII just simply does not apply to the New Mass, but the law of Trent does. Sedevacantists follow the doctrine of Popes they don’t believe are Popes, the New Novel Rite is the Roman Rite.
But Pope Leo XIII seems to have 2 conditions for validity (48:01) while Pope Pius XII seems to have only one condition. Is it possible Pope Pius XII’s position is trumped by his predecessor Pope Leo XIII? When taking out what demonstrates the purpose of a sacrament occurs, one would also have to state publicly that you did not intend to do what the Church does when administrating the sacrament? Both conditions have to be met to render the sacrament invalid?
The justification to conditionally re-ordain all those of the New Novel Rite is that we reject Satan and all his works and all his pomps! The New Novel Rite Mass is Satan’s work!
All of these issues should be addressed in pre V2 Sacramental Theology books. I would not trust any theology source from the NO institution. That goes for “Fr” Hesse who was a member of the V2 NO sect.
Yes, the Catholic Church has always stated that the Orthodox sacraments were valid. However, I still think we need to see what the pre-V2 teachings are regarding the validity (not liciety) of consecration outside mass/divine liturgy. As far as I’m concerned, neither Steve Skojec nor “Fr” Hesse qualify.
I once told Bishop Richard Williamson (BTW, I’m not a member of the SSPX) that if Pope St. Pius X, Pope St. Pius V and Pope St. Peter were to walk into the room, I would instantly recognize and proclaim that they were all three valid popes. I would, without batting an eye, say “I believe that they are valid popes.”
However, if Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI (Francis? Forget it!) were to walk into the room, I would not recognize—due to their heresy and blasphemy—that they were valid popes. Therefore, I would NOT say “I believe that they are valid popes.” Someone told me that I was a sedevacantist. I asked them “How so”? They said, “You said that PVI, JPII and BXVI were not valid popes.” I then said, “I did NOT say that. What I said was that I would not say that I believe that they were valid popes.”
I don’t know if they ever caught the distinction between what they were saying and what I was saying. The fact is, a sedevacantist proclaims, “The VII claimants to the papacy are NOT valid popes.” For me to believe something I have to have irrefragable proof that it is true. Otherwise, I have to say that I don’t believe it.
The same thing applies here. I made the statement that someone who does not accept (i.e. believe) in all of the dogmas of the RCC is not a member of that Church. I did not say that only a member of the RCC would have the power to consecrate. Here again, I personally do NOT believe that men who are not members of the RCC (and validly ordained priests, at that) have the power to consecrate. That’s different from my saying “Only validly ordained priest of the RCC have the power to consecrate.” So, if we had a pope like the ones we had prior to 1958, then this could be settled. Roma locuta est, apud clausa est.
I made the statement that someone who does not accept (i.e. believe) in all of the dogmas of the RCC is not a member of that Church.
I did not say that only a member of the RCC would have the power to consecrate.
Here again, I personally do NOT believe that men who are not members of the RCC (and validly ordained priests, at that) have the power to consecrate.
Not sure what “power” you have in mind. Can you answer this quiz? Of course you don’t have to.
Validly ordinated priest that presently is outside the Church (for any reason), using proper words, with intention to do what the Church does, consecrates bread (proper matter).
A) nothing changed, bread remains bread
B) there is no bread anymore but Body of Our Lord
C) you don’t know
D) you need more information
If A) please tell why do you think so,
if D) what else do you need to know?
If you can not choose any of above, please tell what is your take on described situation, but, please, please, take an effort to make it short and to the point.
Yes, a validly ordained priest who is outside Holy Mother Church can confect the sacrament. I was taught that in Catholic school in early fifties. As far as non-priests confecting the sacrament, for a valid ministry it was necessary for Christ to establish a ministry to carry out his work and that he commissioned his Apostles to do this (Matthew 28:19–20). The Apostles in turn consecrated others, i.e. priests, to assist them and to carry on the work of the sacraments of Baptism, Penance, Matrimony, Extreme Unction, and the Holy Eucharist. That means that only priests can confect the Eucharist. I was taught that Catholics can receive valid Holy Eucharist from the hands of an Eastern Orthodox priest but only if RCC Eucharist is unavailable, that proviso inserted because Eastern Orthodox are schismatic. Was I concise?
Yes, thank you. We are in agreement at least in general level. I don’t attempt to dive into details as my knowledge is limited.
The only possible doubt, if I may, is here:
I was taught that Catholics can receive valid Holy Eucharist from the hands of an Eastern Orthodox priest but only if RCC Eucharist is unavailable, that proviso inserted because Eastern Orthodox are schismatic.
Not sure what “can” means here. Physically you definitely can. Legally? I’m not sure. I can imagine circumstances where it can be legal (stretch of imagination), but if you mean that Catholic can attend Eastern Orthodox Mass, even if no RCC is available to him (no by his choice), I can not agree. It doesn’t mean I’m right. I will research but I’ve never seen such opinion before hearing you and Ann. I need Church documents.
Reason you can not attend EOM is very reasonable to me. The Church can not allow you to expose your faith to any danger, your salvation is the most important thing. By attending EOM you do exactly so, even if you don’t think so. This is, of course, obvious in case of NOM.
Above comment is a response to mothermostforgiving.
“Can” means that it will be a valid Eucharist. One also “may” receive the EO Eucharist. Okeydokey?
To a lawyer conversant with criminal law (in my case, that of England and Wales), the salient word in Fr. Hesse’s explanation is “attempt.”
” In the Code of Canon Law, be it the new Code of Canon Law or the old Code of Canon Law, or all the books before, it says to attempt to consecrate outside of Mass is “nefas” – sacrilege.”
Most criminal offences can be committed as either completed offences (for example theft, where a thief grabs cash out of an open till) or attempts (where a thief attempts to grab cash from a till but fails because he cannot reach).
However, it is possible to cite an example of an offence where the attempt itself is in fact the completed offence, as in the case of attempting to pervert the course of justice (for example, by intimidating a witness). The very fact that the offender’s wrongdoing has come to light means that the course of justice has not been perverted, so therefore the failed attempt in itself is the full offence.
So on my reading of Fr. Hesse’s words, the presence of the word “attempt” explains it all. Whatever a nefarious priest or his onlookers may think, any attempt to consecrate bread or wine without fully complying with canon law remains just that, an attempt, not actual consecration. But he hasn’t merely attempted to break canon law: he has actually done so.
Good call. Here in the U.S. we lawyers call them inchoate crimes, such as solicitation of prostitution.
No problem with validity, at least on my side.
Problem with “may”. I think “may not”, but, as said, I need Church’s document saying either way. Quick search :
It seems that we are both right 🙂
Catholic can not attend EOM
in special situations, when “necessity requires”, Catholic “can receive valid Holy Eucharist from the hands of an Eastern Orthodox priest”. Attendance to EOM is not specified but I suppose this is logical. Will have to study it more. Thanks
As mentioned earlier, it would be better if we could find some pre V2 sources. Hesse was formed in a NO seminary and worked for the NO institution. I think we all agree that since V2 there have been serious errors coming from Rome. So much so that we should doubt them all. Otherwise we are picking and choosing which part of the post V2 magisterium we accept and which part we reject. Better to disregard the entire NO Magisterium till sanity is restored in Rome.
Which Code are we talking about 1917 or 1983?. One is Catholic, the other one allows non Catholics to receive communion.
Thank you, Knitted Brows, for your comment. What you said seems reasonable and I don’t think anybody can have problems with what you say. Please notice though, that attempt to consecrate outside of Mass being nefas does not exclude validity of consecration outside the Mass per se. Actually it doesn’t say anything about validity, it may mean that nefas is extended also to attempted (invalid) consecrations.
@Tom please don’t attack Fr. Hesse as kind of sport. If you think that he said something wrong – just point it out. As far as I know Fr. Hesse worked for the Church and was fighting NO “novelities” with teachings of Magisterium.
I talked 1983. Can you tell what 1917 says?
Ditto. Thanks for the canonlawmadeeasy link. I’ll check it out.
Canon 817 of 1917 Code of Canon Law:
“It is nefarious, even if urged by extreme necessity, to consecrated one matter without the other, or even both outside the celebration of the mass.”
This and other surrounding canons from the 1917 code of Canon law imply that consecration *can* happen ( ie, it’s valid) outside of mass and in places other than church. However, there are a number of scenarios where it would be wrong to do so ( ie, illicit, but still valid).
There seems to be no pre-V2 support that a consecration in a bar, no matter how sordid it might be, would be *invalid*.
As a lawyer by training, I like your analogy! Is it an inchoate crime to solicit another to attend the Novus Ordo Missae?
Fr Hesse had a great talent for eruditely but simply explaining matters of great concern regarding liturgy, doctrine, etc. post the revolution of the Vatican II Council. May his soul rest in peace.
We have become too wicked a people; we have no holy leader willing to sacrifice all in his zeal for God and the salvation of souls. We pray for holy pope, bishops, priests and religious. As St John Eudes stated, bad priests are a sign of God’s anger with His stubbornly-disobedient people.
Sacrilege is ubiquitous in the New Mass (nothing new can be part of the Faith).
We have become too wicked a people; we have no holy leader willing to sacrifice all in his zeal for God and the salvation of souls. We pray for holy pope, bishops, priests and religious. As St John Eudes stated, bad priests are a sign of God’s anger with His stubbornly-disobedient people.
Bottom line: Don’t attend any apparent Mass where there is sacrilege, blasphemy, heresy, advocacy of or failure to condemn grave evil . . . where the Faith and morals are under attack, and one’s soul endangered in any way. Its effects (the radical reinvention of Holy Mass) have been insidious but profound – masses living in unrepentant mortal sin with the encouragemt of non serviam clergy, and mass apostasy, acknowledged or otherwise.
MC, I am not attacking him. Just reminding everyone that his qualifications to be an credible source on Catholic Sacramental Theology must include the fact that he was formed and associated with the NO institutions. He had a personal interest in the position that NO sacraments are valid. That is not a position shared by all traditionalists. The only “authoritative” source we have that NO sacraments are valid is from the NO modernist hierarchy themselves. Of course they are going to say they are valid!
MC, no because I do not have access to the 1917. The 1983 contains heresy and should never be used as an authoritative source.
MC, I can try to find the 1917 canon for you, but I won’t have time today.
I did a few minutes to do some quick research re: 1917 Code (Canon 1258) that pertains to the same subject as 1983 Code (Canon 844):
Canon 1258 – § 1 – It is not licit for Catholics to attend or take part in an active way in non-catholic ceremonies.
There were no exceptions other than PASSIVE attendance at non-Catholic weddings and funerals.
Its the heretical 1983 Code issued by the Herisiarch Wojtyla that changed the doctrinally proper condemnation of attending non Catholic worship. Please folks, stop using post V2 sources to come up with conclusions and insights to this crisis. The crisis is a result of the V2 magisterium.
I don’t go to bars, black masses or the Novus Ordo, so I’m safe.
Tom, main subject of Louie’s post was that “bar consecration” and “bar Mass” can’t be valid. I think we agree that it really can. Knitted Brows noted any attempt to consecrate outside Mass (presumably licit Mass) is nefas, regardless if consecration is valid or not.
Re Fr Hesse. Nobody denies his NO ‘experience’, he explained it himself. For what I know he did exactly what you suggest: examining NO in light of Magisterium and pre V2 papal documents, and he treated NO as new religion. Actually I just listened again one of his talks about NOM where he shows that there is high probability that NOM in many cases is not valid, maybe even in general, but he didn’t judged it definitely, leaving it for future pope. NOM can be valid or can be not – either way you are not allowed to participate. This is broad topic and I don’t think it’s right place and time to discuss it. Hope you agree.
I only suggest that if you disapprove anything what Fr Hesse said, just bring it up. It is possible for him to be mistaken. I noticed that sometimes, because he covers so wide fields, he makes shortcuts in thinking, what, with your (general “your”) mindset, can give you wrong impression of what he actually said.
Lynda, I don’t know St John Eudes but the same is in Jeremiah (if I’m not mistaken) where God warns people that if they not convert, he will send them priests that lead them to damnation.
Not so fast 🙂
Indeed, dear brother in Christ.
In his book ‘The Priest: His Dignity and Obligations’ St John Eudes wrote that God permits bad priests as a sign that He is thoroughly angry with His people. In Chapter 11, Qualities of a Priest St John Eudes writes:
“Bad priests are a sign of God’s anger
THE MOST EVIDENT MARK of God’s anger and the most terrible castigation He can inflict upon the world are manifested when He permits His people to fall into the hands of clerics’ who are priests more in name than in deed, priests who practice the cruelty of ravening wolves rather than the charity and affection of devoted shepherds.
Instead of nourishing those committed to their care, they rend and devour them brutally. Instead of leading their people to God, they drag Christian souls into hell in their train. Instead of being the salt of the earth and the light of the world, they are its innocuous poison and its murky darkness.
St. Gregory the Great says that priests and pastors will stand condemned before God as the murderers of any souls lost through neglect or silence. Tot occidimus, quot ad mortem ire tepidi et tacentes videmus. Elsewhere St. Gregory asserts that nothing more angers God than to see those whom He set aside for the correction of others, give bad example by a wicked and depraved life.’
Instead of preventing offenses against His Majesty, such priests become themselves the first to persecute Him, they lose their zeal for the salvation of souls and think only of following their own inclinations. Their affections go no farther than earthly things, they eagerly bask in the empty praises of men, using their sacred ministry to serve their ambitions, they abandon the things of God to devote themselves to the things of the world, and in their saintly calling of holiness, they spend their time in profane and worldly pursuits.
When God permits such things, it is a very positive proof that He is thoroughly angry with His people, and is visiting His most dreadful anger upon them. That is why He cries unceasingly to Christians, “Return, 0 ye revolting children . . . and I will give you pastors according to my own heart” (Jer. 3, 14-15). Thus, irregularities in the lives of priests constitute a scourge visited upon the people in consequence of sin.”