Valid Consecration

[Resurrexi]

...

[aalpha1989]

Unless there's a state of emergency, I'd say it's valid but illicit.

Hi from college, by the way! I'm finding that I have a lot less free time and will not be on phatmass very much...

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1634332' date='Aug 21 2008, 11:57 PM']Unless there's a state of emergency, I'd say it's valid but illicit.

Hi from college, by the way! I'm finding that I have a lot less free time and will not be on phatmass very much...[/quote]

BTW, to consecrate the Eucharist apart from the rites and ceremonies of the Mass (or Divine Liturgy if you are Eastern Catholic) is gravely sacrilegious and should never be done.

[Resurrexi]

To the person who said that the baptism wouldn't be valid, I would just like to let you know that if Baptism scenario is valid, then today the Church has no priests or bishops, or at least a good number of the men who claim to be priests and bishops of the Church today wouldn't be validly ordained or consecrated.

When someone is in extreme danger of death and has not been baptized (and if he is over the age of reason desires to receive the Sacrament and has the correct dispositions), priests, deacons and even lay people have, since time immemorial, baptized that person with only the part of the ceremony described in the first scenario. The persons who were baptized in this manner were never rebaptized either conditionally or absolutely unless there was a real doubt that the minister baptized validly.

Many people who were baptized in this manner were ordained priests, and then probably even consecrated bishops. Those bishops would have ordained more priests and consecrated more bishops. If their baptisms had been invalid, then so would also their priestly ordinations and episcopal consecrations.

Therefore, whenever these priests would ordain priests and bishops, these priests and bishops wouldn't be validly ordained and consecrated either, and so these invalid ordinations and consecrations would go on and on until there were more and more invalidly ordained priests and bishops.

Thanks be to God, the type of baptism described in the first scenario is, indeed, certainly valid, as was taught by the Ecumenical Council of Florence:

[quote name='D 696']Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered into the universe through the first man, "unless we are born of water and the Spirit, we cannot," as the Truth says, "enter into the kingdom of heaven" (cf.John 3:5). The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water; it makes no difference whether cold or warm. The form is: I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Yet we do not deny that through these words: Such a (this) servant of Christ is baptized in the name of the Father and of the Holy Ghost* or:Such a one is baptized by my hands in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,a true baptism is administered since the principal causes, from which baptism has its power is the Holy Trinity; the instrumental cause, however, is the minister, who bestows the sacrament externally; if the act which is performed through the minister himself, is expressed with the invocation of the Holy Trinity, the sacrament is effected. The minister of this sacrament is a priest, who is competent by office to baptize. In case of necessity, however, not only a priest or a deacon, but even a layman or a woman, yes even a pagan and a heretic can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church and has the intention of doing as the Church does. The effect of this sacrament is the remission of every sin, original and actual, also of every punishment which is due to the sin itself. Therefore, no satisfaction must be enjoined for past sins upon those who immediately attain to the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God.[/quote]

Edited August 22, 2008 by StThomasMore

[Resurrexi]

I have a question for those who voted that if one merely said the Words of Institution over the bread and wine, transubstantiation wouldn't occur. Do you have any proof from Sacred Tradition for this? Do you have any proof from the Magisterium of the Church? What about from the immemorial practice of those Churches in communion with the Holy Father?

[mommas_boy]

As I recall, only those words are required for the sacrament to take place validly. I'm not sure about the liceity, however.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1636605' date='Aug 24 2008, 09:45 AM']As I recall, only those words are required for the sacrament to take place validly. I'm not sure about the liceity, however.[/quote]

Validly, yes. Licitly, certainly not. If the only thing a priest did was take bread and wine and say the Words of Consecration over them, that would be [i]very[/i] sacrilegious.

Edited August 24, 2008 by StThomasMore

[Theosopher]

Baptism is different than the other Sacraments. In case of emergency, for instance, anyone, even a non-Christian, can confect the Sacrament if they have the intention to do with the Church does in Baptism, and they pour the water and pronounce the formula. (Baptism is of course one of the only two Sacraments that a layperson can confect.)

The other two are different, particularly the Blessed Eucharist. He comes to us through the entire prayer of the Mass, which culminates in the Words of Consecration.

Therefore, the answer to 1 is yes and the answer to 2 and 3 is no.

Edited September 1, 2008 by Theosopher

[Resurrexi]

You are correct about Baptism, but incorrect about everything else.

Paul VI taught: "SACRAMENTUM CONFIRMATIONIS CONFERTUR PER UNCTIONEM CHRISMATIS IN FRONTE, QUAE FIT MANUS IMPOSITIONE, ATQUE PER VERBA: «ACCIPE SIGNACULUM DONI SPIRITUS SANCTI»." (Divinae consortium naturae) That is, "The sacrament of Confirmation is conferred through the unction with chrism on the forehead, which is done by imposition of the hand, and through the words: 'Receive the seal of the Gift of the Holy Spirit." This is the administration of the Sacrament, and none of the other ceremonies are essential for validity.

As for the Form of the Eucharist, the Ecumenical Council of Florence taught: "Forma huius sacramenti sunt verba Salvatoris, quibus hoc confecit sacramentum; sacerdos enim in persona Christi loquens hoc conficit sacramentum. Nam ipsorum verborum virtute substantia panis in corpus Christi, et substantia vini in sanguinem convertuntur: ita tamen, quod totus Christus continetur sub specie panis et totus sub specie vini. Sub qualibet quoque parte hostiae consecratae et vini consecrati, separatione facta, totus est Christus." (D-S 1321) That is, "The words of the Savior, by which He instituted this sacrament, are the form of this sacrament; for the priest speaking in the person of Christ effects this sacrament. For by the power of the very words the substance of the bread is changed into the body of Christ, and the substance of the wine into the blood; yet in such a way that Christ is contained entire under the species of bread, and entire under the species of wine."

Pretty clear that only the Words of Institution have the power of consecration. BTW, the teaching of the Church that baptism is validly administered by laymen, so it isn't very consistent to deny one part of the Council and accept another.

Edited September 1, 2008 by StThomasMore

[Deb]

I voted yes to all of them cuz that answer just felt right. I know for sure that it is yes for baptism and probably for confirmation, but not sure on the consecration. I think that the main thing is that the words are said and the priest has the intent. That is all that Jesus Christ did at the last supper. So, yea, I am sticking with yes to all.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Deb' post='1645510' date='Sep 2 2008, 01:26 PM']I voted yes to all of them cuz that answer just felt right. I know for sure that it is yes for baptism and probably for confirmation, but not sure on the consecration. I think that the main thing is that the words are said and the priest has the intent. That is all that Jesus Christ did at the last supper. So, yea, I am sticking with yes to all.
[/quote]

The Magisterium says yes to all of them. For sure

[goldenchild17]

the baptism is definitely valid in this case. The other two I'm not fully sure right now. I have to pull out some sources before I would say definitely. But I'm leaning towards probably not valid for the confirmation, and possibly not valid for the consecration. but for simplicity I voted yes, no, no

Edited September 4, 2008 by goldenchild17

[phatcatholic]

valid but illicit, in all three cases described above.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1647030' date='Sep 4 2008, 12:17 AM']the baptism is definitely valid in this case. The other two I'm not fully sure right now. I have to pull out some sources before I would say definitely. But I'm leaning towards probably not valid for the confirmation, and possibly not valid for the consecration. but for simplicity I voted yes, no, no[/quote]

Well, I guess Eastern Catholics for more than 1500 years have been confirmed invalidly, then. And I guess that the wine doesn't transubstantiate at Divine Liturgies either

[goldenchild17]

I'm not going to get sucked into an argument with you when you can't even stop dissing your own church's lawful decisions. peace. Edited September 24, 2008 by goldenchild17