Providence, it seems, is leading us to focus with greater intensity upon a question of critical importance; namely, whether or not the consecration of the Blessed Sacrament is possible outside of Mass.
As readers will certainly recall, the present debate began on these pages when I responded to an article written by Steve Skojec, wherein he maintained that a drunken priest at a bar can validly consecrate bread and wine “if he says the right words with the right intention.”
At this point, it’s safe to say that this proposal is as false as it is repugnant, if for no other reason than the fact that intent, which is required for validity, is a function of the will. As Aquinas teaches:
…an animate instrument, such as a minister, is not only moved, but in a sense moves itself, in so far as by his will he moves his bodily members to act. Consequently, his intention is required… (ST III, Q. 64, A. 8)
I had previously provided the following, which speaks directly to drunkenness on the part of the minister and its corrupting effect on intent:
…[H]e who would administer a sacrament in a drunken, or somnambulistic, or hypnotic state, would perform an action that is null, even though before the occurrence he might have had the most formal intention of doing what the Church does; for in that abnormal state he no longer acts as a rational being capable of being the representative of Christ and the Church. (Very Rev. P. Pourrat, Theology of the Sacraments, pg. 393)
While this particular case is well and truly closed, a video of a 2011 conference given by Bishop Bernard Fellay had surfaced in the process in which he told the following story:
The priest was mad at the bishop. He went into a bakery and he consecrates the whole bakery. Another one went into the cellar of the bishop and he consecrated all the wine. Well, it’s sacrilegious, but it’s valid.
For the record, I believe that Bishop Fellay’s intent was to make a broader point during a lengthy conference. That said, I also believe that his comments were, at the very least, imprudent and very likely incorrect.
In any event, this video now being part of the public debate, the SSPX was moved to weigh-in with an article of their own under the title, Is the Consecration of Bread and Wine Outside of Mass Valid? We will examine that article here. It begins:
Bishop Fellay … sought to clarify the Church’s teaching on form, matter, and intention with respect to the Eucharist by recalling anecdotes concerning wayward clerics who consecrated an entire bakery and a wine cellar. The Bishop’s point was that threshold for intention is not as high as some Catholics suspect and that even illicit consecrations are still presumed valid.
Unfortunately, Bishop Fellay went quite a bit beyond simply clarifying what constitutes the intention required for validity when he asserted, more than once and with what appears to be absolute certitude, “It’s valid!”
The article goes on:
In response, some murmurers have opined that a minister who attempts to consecrate a bakery or wine cellar outside of Mass can never have the right intention, that is to do what the Church does, because the act is intrinsically sacrilegious. Others have expressed incredulity toward the idea that a priest could validly consecrate such a vast amount of bread and wine, whether or not the consecration was performed in a sacrilegious manner.
Though the crux of the present discussion centers around the former question concerning the Mass, the matter of quantity is a legitimate consideration as well.
Consider: If indeed consecration is valid outside of Mass (i.e., pretty much anywhere if only the words of consecration are spoken along with the intent to consecrate – and silently, at that), then what is to prevent a priest from secretly consecrating all of the bread in a given zip code, or a certain nation, or the entire world for that matter?
You see, when the argument in favor of unrestricted validity is taken to its logical conclusion, its absurdity is plainly revealed. Even so, the unnamed SSPX author continues from on high:
Both of these objections are without merit. Instead of casually speculating about such things on the Internet or leaning on théologie de bistrot, it is far more prudent to look to the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, who addresses both topics in his Summa Theologiae (ST).
The article then provides a citation from the Summa “On the Quantity of the Sacrament:”
In ST IIIa, q 74, a 2, c, St. Thomas writes:
Some have maintained that the priest could not consecrate an immense quantity of bread and wine, for instance, all the bread in the market or all the wine in a cask. But this does not appear to be true, because in all things containing matter, the reason for the determination of the matter is drawn from its disposition to an end, just as the matter of a saw is iron, so as to adapt it for cutting. But the end of this sacrament is the use of the faithful. Consequently, the quantity of the matter of this sacrament must be determined by comparison with the use of the faithful. But this cannot be determined by comparison with the use of the faithful who are actually present; otherwise the parish priest having few parishioners could not consecrate many hosts. It remains, then, for the matter of this sacrament to be determined in reference to the number of the faithful absolutely. But the number of the faithful is not a determinate one. Hence it cannot be said that the quantity of the matter of this sacrament is restricted.
Though Aquinas here mentions “all the bread in the market or all the wine in a cask,” it is clear that he does so only in order to stress that the quantity under consideration may indeed be vast, or more properly, without strict limit.
NB: In addressing the specific question of quantity, however, St. Thomas makes reference no less than three times to “the use of the faithful,” at one point even narrowing his comments to those “who are actually present.” He also speaks of “parishioners,” and twice he mentions “the number of the faithful.”
It is manifestly obvious given these numerous allusions to the faithful that St. Thomas is speaking specifically about consecrations done within the celebration of the Mass. One may even reasonably argue that he simply assumes that it is understood by all that when one speaks of consecration, one necessarily also speaks of Holy Mass.
More to the point, it must be acknowledged that nowhere does St. Thomas even hint that a consecration outside of Mass may be valid; indeed, he doesn’t directly address that question at all, which leads one to wonder why the SSPX writer chose to cite him in the first place.
That said, Aquinas does provide a certain insight into the matter, albeit indirectly.
A thorough reading of his treatment of the Eucharist (ST III, Q. 73-83) plainly reveals that his entire discourse on the subject is written under the presumption that the consecration is taking place within the Mass, and not just anywhere. In fact, Q. 83 specifically addresses “The Rite of this Sacrament,” and guess what, it is the Mass, or in the case of the Eastern Rites, the Divine Liturgy!
Consider as well the following from the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, which was granted an imprimatur at a time when such provided a measure of assurance:
In truth, the Eucharist performs at once two functions: that of a sacrament and that of a sacrifice. Though the inseparableness of the two is most clearly seen in the fact that the consecrating sacrificial powers of the priest coincide, and consequently that the sacrament is produced only in and through the Mass…
Get that? The sacrament is produced only in and through the Mass…
This opinion is neither unsafe nor imprudent; much less is it held by just a small ill-informed group of internet warriors, as the SSPX author condescendingly suggests.
Consider, for instance, the eminent pre-conciliar Thomist, Fr. Raphael Walter Farrell, O.P., one of the most celebrated theologians of the past century, whose multi-volume masterwork The Companion to the Summa was published from 1939 to 1941.
In the section wherein Fr. Farrell comments upon St. Thomas’ treatment of the Eucharist, he makes it perfectly plain that he understands Aquinas to be speaking of “consecration in the Mass,” a phrase he repeats numerous times. More importantly, perhaps, is the fact that his commentary also reflects the opinion that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the sacrament are inseparable as he writes:
In instituting the sacrament and sacrifice, Christ said to His apostles: “Do this in commemoration of me.” … They accomplish the sacrament in the consecration of the Mass.
The SSPX article went on to cite St. Thomas with regard to intention (you may read it there), but this too fails to shed any light on the question at hand concerning consecration outside of Mass.
In conclusion, the SSPX author, whomever he may be, fell woefully short in his approach to the question posed in the title to this disappointing article, Is the Consecration of Bread and Wine Outside of Mass Valid?
Rather than exploring the matter with humility, as one in search of the truth wherever it may lead and whatever it may be, he evidently chose to begin with the answer he preferred, only then to proceed by shoe-horning as best he could the Summa Theologiae in such a way as to make it fit.
Now, what was that about bistro theology?
Once again, I am truly disappointed by the SSPX district house – which I presume is where these articles for their website are penned. Who is behind these missteps, one after another? The Angelus magazine is not of the calibre it used to be either. What is going on? Another scandal in the making is that they have invited a NO priest to speak at the Angelus press conference, Fr. Kilcawley, whose expertise is NFP and Theology of the Body. You can’t make this stuff up! Fr. Wegner will be speaking at the Tradcumenical Catholic Identity Conference too!
Apparently the Society has decided to give up the fight and join the ranks of the other impotent “traditional” Ecclesia Dei groups in order to gain human respect. Those very groups that their founder warned to stay away from because they are enemies Tradition. It looks like Michael Matt’s wish has come true.
Another question I would like answered is why doesn’t the SSPX identify the author(s) of their articles?
I posted my comment without the benefit of reading Catherine Sarto’s comment. I believe we were posting at the same time. I totally agree with Catherine. The SSPX is slowly but surely integrating with the ecumenical spirit of Vatican II. The SSPX leadership (whoever they are!) has lost their vision and their mission to “restore all things in Christ”. Why???
Why the surprise at what The SSPX is doing?
Since the schismatic consecrations by Bishop Emeritus Lefebvre, all of the Masses celebrated by them are gravely illicit, criminal, and sacrilegious – at least according to Catholic Tradition.
ABS-How would you categorize the Novus Ordo masses?
They decided to soften their approach at The Angelus about six years ago. A shame. Just when they should be speaking most vigorously against the Judas Council and its apotheosis, Francis, they’ve gone soft. Pitiful.
Related, let’s say one wanted to submit an essay to The Angelus on the third-world invasion (of both the illegal AND LEGAL variety) of European countries. Title: “Asia for Asians, Africa for Africans…but White Countries for Everyone: The Jews’ Formula for White Genocide.” The Angelus would no doubt reject such an essay on the grounds of its being… wait for it… here it comes…raaaaAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYcciiisss and anti-semIIIIIIIIItic. So many CatholiCucks today. Just plain pitiful.
The N.O. is a Lil’ Licit Liturgy
Dear Alphonsus.. It is weird because they used to have several defensible articles posted there about the Messias-Deniers but that cite was scrubbed.
Maybe too much opposition from The jews?
Who knows, but what was posted there was not Jew hatred or anything remotely like that; there were posts that spoke the truth about them
That’s right. I’ve found several essays on the Jews that were formerly on the SSPX site but are now accessible only on Roy Schoeman’s site! For example:
Note that though it looks like that’s the SSPX site, it’s actually Roy’s site. I believe Roy saves these as an indictment against the SSPX.
Great analysis, Louie.
ABS-You were very explicit in categorizing the SSPX Masses. Now you are tongue tied about the N.O. Liturgy?
I would argue that the NO is not a mass and therefore the consecrations are invalid, if we are to assume that Transubstantiation only occurs during a Mass or Divine Liturgy. The NO is a meal, not a sacrifice.
Yeah, Schoeman is a showman and he uses the words of Jesus -Salvation is from the Jews – out of context as those words were spoken before His salvific death on the Cross and so since then, salvation is from JESUS CHRIST, not Jews
Dear My2cents. What was written about the SSPX masses is from Tradition.
Specifically, a Papal Encyclical.
The very meaning of “intent” is quite simple in truth as Truth, as our Blessed Dominus Deus commanded that only those with faith, as a child, will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. As the Angelic Doctor taught, only when the intellect conforms to, “reality as it is”, do we have “truth”. We know with divine certitude that Holy Mother the Church,”only”, has as, “only ever”, has, the “intent” to consecrate bread and wine, within the divine act of Transubstantiation. This we know occurs, Transubstantiation, only within the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass-the bloodless representation of the Holy Sacrifice of Calvary-as that is how our Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ Himself instituted the act of consecration, which placed it then and there, into time and space, at the Last Supper. Period and end. As God Who simply is pure Intellect and Will cannot err, and as God is One, His intent must be one with Him, as God’s act is simply One Continuous Act, as God was, is, and will be, now. He simply gave us His intent as He indeed gave it to us. To suggest that His intent was, somehow other than, to place the exquisitely specific and singular act of Consecration, when and where into time and space He willed it to be, is to suggest that God can have an intent, “other than”, that intent which was objectively manifest by Him. To suggest this, is to suggest that God can deceive and/or He can err. Period and end. Truth is, the intellect conforming to, “Reality as it Is”, and not reality as we think it is. God bless and keep you and yours’. In caritas.
Thank you, ABS. However, I don’t think you answered my question about the N.O. masses. Perhaps, I need a Professional Brain Surgeon to understand your response. Would you like to try again?
How little you truly know and how woefully lacking in formation you are in regards to the Holy Mass and the Most Blessed of All Sacraments. Bishops and priests in various concentration camps throughout history have offered Mass, in some cases, in their hands. Gaining the matter of wine from raisins and procuring some little wheat bread and having in all consecrated without any altar at all being present outside of their consecrated hands. At a full black Mass, which includes an actual consecration, an evil priest makes present the the Very Body and Blood of the Lord, though that is not what the Church would ever wish. Where does it say that a priest is limited in consecrating proper matter when he uses a proper form? You fail to understand just how vulnerable our dearest Eucharistic Lord has allowed Himself to be in the hands of a priest.
Purgatory is a place where people have to sit and watch themselves on a wide-screen bickering about points of religion they defended as if they knew beyond all shadow of a doubt. Where do people get such certainty.
The SSPX does nothing for me. I can’t get enthusiastic about an order that keeps the lid on truth as they do. I can’t see much daylight between the SSPX and any other order. They seem to want to be Sweden, they really don’t make any controversial points (defend the faith). They don’t criticize what Francis says or does. They don’t warn the faithful. This may be unfair but they seem to be merely appeasers. They are completely irrelevant in my life as a Catholic, and I’m a trying-to-be-faithful Catholic with my hopeful ear to the ground. But it’s crickets out here. I guess the SSPX doesn’t care about me, I’m not at an SSPX Mass, not putting my check in the collection, so the fate of my soul is of little concern to them.
The man or men who have something to lose but stand up there and call Francis out anyway will have my full attention, as Abp. Vigano does. The SSPX seems to have something to lose and they guard it. That’s just my take and I don’t know anything.
“Captcha”, perhaps you need to go back and read, or re-read, Louie’s article from 5 August: “Consecration outside of Mass”
He gives a good selection of references to back up what he is saying with regards to the Consecration only being permitted within Mass. At the top of the article there is a link to a Novus Ordo Watch article which provides more references.
As for your claim that priests in concentration camps merely pronounced the form over some bread and wine outside of the context of Mass, what are your sources? Because I understand that is not the case. I have read two books by priests who were imprisoned in concentration camps: one is “Christ in Dachau” by Fr John Lenz, the other is “With God in Russia” by Fr Walter Ciszek. Fr Lenz was in a Nazi camp (Dachau), Fr Ciszek in a Soviet gulag. Dachau had several thousand priests, and the Nazis permitted them to use a barracks as a chapel and they said Mass. There are even photos of them in the large barracks chapel. Fr Ciszek, on the other hand, would secretly say Mass at night when he could. I do not recall ever reading that they only said the form – they knew what the Church taught and only Consecrated during Mass.
It’s best we stick with the teachings of the Church, be they catechisms, theology manuals, writings of the Popes and Doctors of the Church… anything provided it is before Vatican II. Better that than rely on anecdotal evidence provided by the SSPX and Bishop Fellay which, as Louie concludes is “bistro theology”. They just make things up.
And your little jab to Louie about “how little you truly know and how woefully lacking in formation you are” is quite ironic, because that statement could easily be applied to you.
This example seems to have two problems with it. First, most regular breads have invalidating matter in them like fats, salt, and sugar. Second, you cannot consecrate one species only, which makes the idea of consecrating a cellar’s worth of wine moot as well. Bishop Fellay’s example might have been posed for rhetorical effect, but it fails on technical and sacramental theology grounds. He should just be humble and admit his error, posed for rhetorical effect, and move on.
Do you attend the Bogus Disordo?
The SSPX has gained a measure of mainstream respectability in recent years. A modest measure, surely, but still more than they’ve ever had. Having tasted the diabolically sweet honey of mainstream respectability, it appears that the SSPX is incrementally watering down in their craving for yet more respectability. This follows a general trend. Today’s “conservatives,” and now increasingly even “traditionalists,” are yesterday’s revolutionaries. Pitiful.
Was it an accident that Satan’s last temptation of Christ in the desert was for boundless worldly power and prestige? CatholiCucks, burning with unquenchable lust for mainstream respectability, would have fallen for this temptation.
“Do you seek the applause of madmen? Are you not then also mad?”
I agree with your assessment, Alphonsus. Add to the desire for human respect, a good dose of naivite, and you have a much weakened Society, which is becoming softer and more effeminate with each new class of ordinands.
The new priests have been raised in a bubble, and have not really experienced the crisis we’re in and do not have the fighting spirit of those who have had to break away from the Novus Ordo religion and find the True Mass on their own. It’s all been handed to them on a silver platter, and that inevitably results in complacency, to a certain extent.
The common belief by Society priests and faithful that “Pope Francis likes us” is the very frightening reality that there is a dangerous level of trust of this dictator pope coupled with silence from the pulpits on any criticism of him, which leads one to believe that they are desperately trying to avoid anything that may ruin “the deal”. Pathetic indeed.
ABS answered your question
There is an illusionary neocon bubble around a large segment of trad priests, seminarians and laity nowadays. Sheltered in the relative calm of their apostolates and seminaries. I guess they’ll have to feel the pain again. These people just… don’t… learn.
Great post and research once again Louie! This topic of validity brings to mind the debate on the validity of an Episcopalian minister”s conversion to Catholicism who wished to be ordained a Catholic priest in our diocese. He was never told that he would have receive the permission of his wife to live as brother and sister before and in order to be ordained. Canon law, even the watered down 1983 code, has requirements for validity, ie certain course requirements, the wife’s approval and signature for the ordination ( not because he would be working long hours but because it is understood that she would be forfeiting her right to the marital embrace and would have to live as brother and sister) and a list of other qualifications.
My point is that yes there are many aspects to consider when it comes to validity. When I asked this Catholic convert, want to be priest, if he and his wife were told of this requirement of continence he said no. Just like the countless deacons that are never told or taught about the theological foundations of priestly celibacy and the requirement for continence. I also believe that this convert’s course instructions might have been very lax. I believe he might have been given a pass because he was an Episcopalian. All this to say, I do not call him by the name of father but of Mr. because of the spiritual scandal he causes me. ( By the way he has told me he respects me for being so forthright. Too bad however it appears not enough respect to care to do anything about his very dubious ordination).
Anastasia, there is absolutely nothing in Catholic sacramental theology that prohibits a married man to be ordained a priest. Nor is there anything theological that requires married priests to be celibate. Any issue of celibacy is strictly canonical. This Episcopalian minister could be validly ordained by a real Bishop using a real ordination rite. From what you tell us, the man was ordained with the new rite by a new “bishop.” So the result is the same, he is not a priest. Please research your claims beforehand. The proper minister(s), using the proper form and matter without expressly stating a negative intention is all it takes to confect a sacrament validly. So many trads do not understand this and try to use unknowable internal intentions of ministers to invalidate the sacraments of certain classes of people in the conciliar church. Practically all the sacraments in the conciliar church are doubtful regardless of which minister attempts to administer them.
Canon law is supposed to be based and formed on theological foundations. Canon law is there to protect and support the doctrines of the Catholic Church. They are not there for arbitrary disciplines that can be changed on a whim and have no concern for doctrines or are not rooted in theological foundations. I suggest you do your homework and read what all the councils since apostolic times had to say about continence for married clergy. Here is a great book that quotes all the councils and is somewhere you can begin your studies on this., “Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy” by Father Christian Cochini. To quote the back cover of the book,
“Father Christian Cochini has made a thorough examination, based on years of extensive research , of the topic of clerical celibacy in the first seven centuries of the Church’s history.
He examines the question of when the tradition of priestly celibacy began in the Latin Church, and is able to trace it back to its origins with the apostles. He examines evidence about the marital status of every known bishop, priest or deacon of the period and gives an exhaustive list of married clerics from apostolic times until the end of the seventh century, a list that includes not only the Western Church, but the East and also the Nestorian, Novatian and Pelagian Church. Then Cochini examines the relevant Church documents, papal letters, ecclesial an even secular legislation as it relates to the topic of priestly celibacy. He also provides a survey of scholarly literature on the topic.
This is the definitive scholarly statement on the discipline of priestly celibacy in the Church East and West. What Cochini shows through patristic sources and conciliar documentation is that from the beginning of the Church, although married men could be priests, they and their wives were required to vow celibacy before ordination, meaning they intended to live a life of continence. He provides extensive document ion, a bibliography and an index.”
I hope this helps you in some big way.
Show me the binding text of a papal document, not a theologians view. I for one see the wisdom that the Roman Catholic Church insisted on by mandating a celibate priesthood. You, and the sources you cite, make a great case for the continuation of the discipline of a celibate priesthood. But nothing you assert or can cite can ever prove that only celibate men can receive Holy Orders. For according to Catholic sacramental theology, the matter for Holy Orders is a bishop laying hands upon a male. The form is to univocally invoke the Holy Ghost and bestow upon him the powers of the priesthood.
It is believed through scripture and tradition that St. Peter, the first pope, was married….or, at least, had been married since Our Lord healed his mother-in-law. Is it known whether any of the other apostles were married and, if so, did they have families? I guess it could be debated that Chasity within the married state makes more sense than Celibacy with regard to the priesthood. Just wondering.
Peter was married and continent.
The Jewish Priests who served in the Temple, even though married, were required to be continent (no sexual content with their wives) during their service there because it was required of them that this men be 100% forced on spiritual maters.
Well, what about Catholic Priests who offer the sacrifice daily?
“The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy” documents how celibacy/continence was a requirement for priests since the get go but, sadly (notethe respondent in here), most are anxious to get rid go this requirement for Catholic Priests even though Catholic Priests are supposed to be alter Christus, and He was celibate.
Sexual activity is the devil’s cat paw he has been using to try and separate the Catholic Priesthood from Jesus and His Church.
Look at how many just can’t wait to destroy the ancient custom of celibacy/continence as though it were no big deal
Note how many soi disant trads are radicals when it comes to sex
Celibacy + Holy See
What is it with men who ask others to do work they should be doing?
They are adults who are supposed to know the Faith
Canon 277 1. Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven, and are therefore bound to celibacy. Celibacy is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can more easily remain close to Christ with an undivided heart, and can dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and their neighbor .
2. Clerics are to behave with due prudence in relation to persons whose company can be a danger to their obligation of preserving continence or can lead to the scandal of the faithful.
Celibacy and or continence, for the priesthood if one was married, is based on Holy Scripture (Mt 19:12; Lk 18:28-30; 1Cor 7:32-34;etc.) and has a tradition dating back to apostolic times as demonstrated by the many documented counsels in “Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy”. Although the word celibacy is used one must not loose sight that it is continence that is the issue. Which of course includes chastity (purity). Please try not to confuse celibacy and continence. Continence is the key word here. Just because a man is married does not mean he cannot agree to live the life of continence freely. Priestly continence is a gift from the Holy Spirit that transforms a priest into a priest for the flock. Do your research. This is not just my opinion.
Celibacy and or continence for the priesthood is the teaching and tradition of the Catholic Church and is rooted in its theological foundations and doctrines. It is not just an arbitrary dicipline for earthly practical reasons of running the Church. The priest configures Christ. He is not just Christ’s representative. Christ had one bride, the Church. He did not have two brides. I could go on but I don’t want to take anymore time away from Louie’s great article on validity of the Mass. I will pray this helps.
I wonder too.
But a married man who is not celibate can still validly be ordained. Celibacy and/or abstinence may be a requirement for a licit ordination, but they are not requirements for a valid ordination. Your initial comment suggested that an ordination of a married episcopal minister may be invalid based on lack of celibacy. That assertion has no basis in Catholic sacramental theology that I have ever read about.
It seems to me that the SSPX relies in St Thomas as the last word on questions of dogma rather than, more properly so, as a starting point for a theological discussion. They did this way back when they were attacking the St Benedict Center over Baptism of Desire.
It is very distressing, indeed. We look in vain for bishops or priests to lead us in the One Holy Faith – ever unchanging and unchangeable. Dear God, grant us the grace to persevere in Faith and morals and not succumb to the desire for “respect of men” or the fear of rejection or persecution, particularly by one’s family members. Oh Sacred Heart of Jesus, I place all my trust in Thee.
The INTENT to do what the Church always intended, simply stated, is to consecrate the bread and the wine for the sole purpose of offering the “Spotless Victim”, the “Sacrificial Lamb” to Our Heavenly Father, in atonement for our sins and the sins of the whole world. This occurs as intended by God the Son, only in the context of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This INTENT is the same INTENT of Our Holy Mother the Church, throughout its history. To change the INTENT to mean the intent of the human agent, to consecrate and just leave it there, without offering the Victim to the Father is not the INTENT of the Church. This is as clear as daylight, and does not require the genius of St Thomas to explain.
Can’t we see how the Conciliar Church has changed through the Novus Ordo the primary intent of the church to be no longer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, but an invitation to a sacred meal, to which everyone of the faithful is invited! We all have witnessed how the priest raises the host in the novus ordo mass, and offers it to the people, rather than facing the altar, and raising the Host to the Heavenly Father, as a fitting and spotless Victim, the only Sacrificial Lamb acceptable to the Father Almighty.
We traditionalist should be all crying out to high Heaven, proclaiming the Truth as it is in reality, and not as the novus ordo crowds proclaim it to be, all being led to the slaughter, and not knowing that they re being mislead.
In Faith, Hope and first and foremost, in Charity. Deus Caritas Est!
Excellent comment, Veni Sancto. Intent relies on belief and faith. The N.O. has neither. The SSPX leadership will never admit this. That is why they are jumping on the train to nowhere.
Excellent comments. In the writings I think of Blessed Anna Emerich she has a view of the masons tearing down the Church and others trying to build it up again. Somewhere she says there will be a provision in the counterfeit Church for tradition. I wonder how this comes about? Which “soceity” will take the bait?
Form and matter, friend, form and matter…the words of consecration recited by a priest over proper matter work ex opere operato whether within the context of an entire Mass ritual or whether just the essential words themselves are spoken at a kitchen table. Those essential words of consecration are the very form of the Sacrament and are, in essence, the Mass itself…Calvary re-presented in an unbloody manner. If you insist that all consecrations of the Holy Eucharist or any Sacramental action must take place within the context of a ritual, then you invalidate countless emergency baptisms, or countless extreme unctions performed in mitigated form, or absolutions with just the “Deinde…”.