Side by side comparison

[DominusTecum]

I would also add to my above post that the intention of the framers of a rite is certainly enough to presume invalidity, because it is presumed that if one is saying it then one is in agreement with those who framed the rite, and thus has a protestant ideology. However, this does not automatically invalidate, it merely tells us what we already knew, that we should absolutely not frequent the sacraments of this, because the sacrament may or may not be confected, due to the questionable intention. Nonetheless, it may be valid, if a proper intention does exist. It is a purely academic question with regard to the Anglican "Mass," but it is not academic when it comes to the Novus Ordo, because this is the prudent position adopted by the majority of traditionalists, especially the SSPX.

[gladius_veritatis]

 It is a purely academic question with regard to the Anglican "Mass," but it is not academic when it comes to the Novus Ordo, because this is the prudent position adopted by the majority of traditionalists, especially the SSPX.

But there is no Sacrament apart from the Sacrifice, and the rite either embodies (is) a Sacrifice or it does not - if not, then no Sacrament is confected. 

 

You cannot alter the whole framing of the rite by your own "intention" ("make up for it"), as you cannot make invalid words valid, just by your intention.

[DominusTecum]

So you are saying that when Cardinal Mindszenski (I'm sure I butchered that spelling) was in prison, and he wished to nourish himself with the body and blood of Our Lord, so he procured from a guard some wine and a communion host, and said the words of consecration over them, he was in fact NOT consecrating the body and blood of Our Lord? The priest's intention is what matters, not the rite. We are not permitted to question the priest's intention under normal circumstances, in the old rite, because the old rite supplies the intention with it's clearly sacrificial language, and so we must assume that if the priest says it, he means it. However, the new rite and 1549 Anglican rite do not supply this sacrificial intention, therefore the validity of the consecration hinges upon the personal intention of the priest, whether HE intends for it to be a sacrifice, or merely a "celebratory meal." When things were normal, the only rites which did NOT have a clear sacrificial intention embodied in the rite were heretical rites to be strictly avoided, but now, as we have the Novus Ordo, we may no longer make a blanket condemnation of defect of intention, because it is certainly possible that Catholic priests saying the Novus Ordo can have a correct intention and consecrate validly, assuming that the words of consecration in the Novus Ordo are valid. Most believe that they are, however, some, sedevacantists in particular often, believe that the Latin Novus Ordo words of consecration are not sufficient to confect the sacrament.

 

 

[gladius_veritatis]

So you are saying that when Cardinal Mindszenski (I'm sure I butchered that spelling) was in prison, and he wished to nourish himself with the body and blood of Our Lord, so he procured from a guard some wine and a communion host, and said the words of consecration over them, he was in fact NOT consecrating the body and blood of Our Lord? The priest's intention is what matters, not the rite.

The good Cardinal, if he only used the words of consecration, violated canon 817 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law (which held sway then, no matter whether one accepts the 1983 Code or not).

 

"Can. 817. Nefas est, urgente etiam extrema necessitate, alteram materiam sine altera aut etiam utramque, extra Missae celebrationem, consecrare."

 

As for the validity/invalidity of such an action, it cannot be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt - either way.   Saint Thomas argues that at least the Institution Narrative must also be said for validity, and others say the entire Canon must be said to make it valid.  As I said, I cannot prove (once and for all) such an action would be invalid, but neither can anyone prove it would be valid.

 

This Sacrament is one with the Sacrifice in which it is framed, which is why priests do not just consecrate outside of Mass in order to bring viaticum to people, but they take Hosts which have been consecrated during Mass.  This is also why, if the rite is framed heretically (i.e., the framing is not that of a Sacrifice), it is invalid.

 

Did you read about Cardinal M. doing this in some book of his?  Did it say he only said the words of consecration?  Even if he did, it still would not prove anything either way (other than his own objective guilt and the illicit nature of his action), but I was just curious.