Would be happy and proclaim this as great news except…
Father Goldade has not to my knowledge clarified his claim that “the bread remains” when referring to the sacred Host. He doubled down on this claim when confronted by stating that ‘Trent’ teaches this. My argument is that transubstantiation means the ‘substance’ is changed, and if this is true how can our Lord when received in the ‘proper state’ by a person allergic to gluten cause that person great harm? Do we receive two different Hosts at Communion time? One is Jesus in all His ‘Gluten’ form and one who is Jesus in a ‘reduced or Gluten Free’ form? His unique answer was as Calvin claims, “the bread remains.” I have this in writing from him to me as the Prior of St Mary’s Kansas.
The “accidents” of bread remain, which include the effects of allergy or disease reaction from consumption. This is what Trent teaches. Since gluten makes up more than 50% of a grain of wheat, it can’t be completely removed to make bread, because “gluten free” wheat is not true wheat. As long as there is at least a trace of gluten in the flour used to make the bread, that bread is capable of being transubstantiated. Gluten-free bread is not.
Thank you for your comment . Please tell us exactly where it states that. Transubstantiation means the substance is totally changed and the only ‘accident’ is that the host still looks like bread, not that it retains the properties of bread.
Accidentia panis non manent sine subjecto [Accidents of the bread does not remain without the subject] / Denz. 582 - if you believe in the above, you are condemned together with Mr. Wycliffe by the Holy Church.
"sine subjecto" is in fact Catholic (as there is no substance of bread/wine after the consecration) so they are NOT actually condemning this part but "non manent"
Thus, the Catholic Encyclopedia says:
"The second, so far as the text is concerned, might be considered as merely a different wording of the first, were it not that the history of the council shows that Wyclif had directly opposed the Scholastic doctrine of "accidents without a subject" as absurd and even heretical (cf, De Augustinis, De re sacramentariâ, Rome, 1889, II, 573 sqq.), Hence it was the intention of the council to condemn the second article, not merely as a conclusion of the first, but as a distinct and independent proposition; wherefore we may gather the Church's teaching on the subject from the contradictory proposition; "Accidentia panis manent sine subjecto," i.e. the accidents of bread do remain without a subject. Such, at least, was the opinion of contemporary theologians regarding the matter; and the Roman Catechism, referring to the above-mentioned canon of the Council of Trent, tersely, explains: "The accidents of bread and wine inhere in no substance, but continue existing by themselves." "
"The gentlemen above... by "accidents" mean what the Catechism calls "species" - Yes, that is true but my comment referred to the stance of the "gentleman" attacking Fr. Goldade and wondering "how can our Lord when received in the ‘proper state’ by a person allergic to gluten cause that person great harm" Which is, as far as I observed, quite a popular error today i.e. some kind of idealism rejecting reality of the accidents and taking them a sort of illusion.
Correction: I am Not attacking Fr. Goldade, just expressing his claim and my understanding of what St. John Fisher argued against at the council. Let them be anathema’ is pretty clear. I hoped he would clarify, and correct the record.
The list includes none of the prominent liberal priests, which is a relief. Does anyone have any information on the candidates? Any positive or negative indications?
I was expecting someone from Switzerland, but I was not expecting two Frenchmen, one of whom comes from a notable family, possibly French nobility (Bp. de Galarreta comes from Spanish nobility). Also, they all come from large (probably all Traditional Catholic) families.
"However, the lifting of the excommunications legitimised the SSPX in the eyes of many, leading to an influx of a certain number of persons seeking the Latin Mass, without sharing the SSPX’s perspective on the Crisis in the Church. It seems probable that at least some of these persons will detach themselves from the SSPX if excommunications are indeed declared."
--
Yes, it is very probable especially as SSPX had a great influx of the faithful during&after the Cov-19 scamdemic. These people were convinced by closed NO churches or using para-liturgical fetishes and working SSPX ministry at the same time - not by "Vatican II" or "post-Vatican II" crisis analysis.
Could be that the society wants to continue to fit its foot in the print of Archbishop Lefebvre. Or a restraining tactic; if eight men were consecrated there is a likelihood of one or two reaching the faithful conclusion of 'sedevacante'.
Curious if there is any follow up to the potential for excommunication of the entire society as schismatic given it will adhere to the act of consecration by acceptance. Difference in 1988 was creation of ED groups as an escape but that doesn't hold now as they already exist even though less wide spread than they were, after TC.
I'm guessing they didn't want to deconcentrate power too much in picking only four bishops. I think six would've been more prudent. There should be one based in the Asia-Pacific region and one for Africa.
I am bookmarking your website so I can return to it: thank you 📑
Would be happy and proclaim this as great news except…
Father Goldade has not to my knowledge clarified his claim that “the bread remains” when referring to the sacred Host. He doubled down on this claim when confronted by stating that ‘Trent’ teaches this. My argument is that transubstantiation means the ‘substance’ is changed, and if this is true how can our Lord when received in the ‘proper state’ by a person allergic to gluten cause that person great harm? Do we receive two different Hosts at Communion time? One is Jesus in all His ‘Gluten’ form and one who is Jesus in a ‘reduced or Gluten Free’ form? His unique answer was as Calvin claims, “the bread remains.” I have this in writing from him to me as the Prior of St Mary’s Kansas.
Could you quote his exact statement?
All the accidents of the bread and wine remain (the appearance, the smell, the taste), but not the substance.
The “accidents” of bread remain, which include the effects of allergy or disease reaction from consumption. This is what Trent teaches. Since gluten makes up more than 50% of a grain of wheat, it can’t be completely removed to make bread, because “gluten free” wheat is not true wheat. As long as there is at least a trace of gluten in the flour used to make the bread, that bread is capable of being transubstantiated. Gluten-free bread is not.
Thank you for your comment . Please tell us exactly where it states that. Transubstantiation means the substance is totally changed and the only ‘accident’ is that the host still looks like bread, not that it retains the properties of bread.
Thank you for your follow up.
Accidentia panis non manent sine subjecto [Accidents of the bread does not remain without the subject] / Denz. 582 - if you believe in the above, you are condemned together with Mr. Wycliffe by the Holy Church.
"sine subjecto" is in fact Catholic (as there is no substance of bread/wine after the consecration) so they are NOT actually condemning this part but "non manent"
Thus, the Catholic Encyclopedia says:
"The second, so far as the text is concerned, might be considered as merely a different wording of the first, were it not that the history of the council shows that Wyclif had directly opposed the Scholastic doctrine of "accidents without a subject" as absurd and even heretical (cf, De Augustinis, De re sacramentariâ, Rome, 1889, II, 573 sqq.), Hence it was the intention of the council to condemn the second article, not merely as a conclusion of the first, but as a distinct and independent proposition; wherefore we may gather the Church's teaching on the subject from the contradictory proposition; "Accidentia panis manent sine subjecto," i.e. the accidents of bread do remain without a subject. Such, at least, was the opinion of contemporary theologians regarding the matter; and the Roman Catechism, referring to the above-mentioned canon of the Council of Trent, tersely, explains: "The accidents of bread and wine inhere in no substance, but continue existing by themselves." "
(The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist)
"The gentlemen above... by "accidents" mean what the Catechism calls "species" - Yes, that is true but my comment referred to the stance of the "gentleman" attacking Fr. Goldade and wondering "how can our Lord when received in the ‘proper state’ by a person allergic to gluten cause that person great harm" Which is, as far as I observed, quite a popular error today i.e. some kind of idealism rejecting reality of the accidents and taking them a sort of illusion.
Correction: I am Not attacking Fr. Goldade, just expressing his claim and my understanding of what St. John Fisher argued against at the council. Let them be anathema’ is pretty clear. I hoped he would clarify, and correct the record.
The list includes none of the prominent liberal priests, which is a relief. Does anyone have any information on the candidates? Any positive or negative indications?
I was expecting someone from Switzerland, but I was not expecting two Frenchmen, one of whom comes from a notable family, possibly French nobility (Bp. de Galarreta comes from Spanish nobility). Also, they all come from large (probably all Traditional Catholic) families.
"However, the lifting of the excommunications legitimised the SSPX in the eyes of many, leading to an influx of a certain number of persons seeking the Latin Mass, without sharing the SSPX’s perspective on the Crisis in the Church. It seems probable that at least some of these persons will detach themselves from the SSPX if excommunications are indeed declared."
--
Yes, it is very probable especially as SSPX had a great influx of the faithful during&after the Cov-19 scamdemic. These people were convinced by closed NO churches or using para-liturgical fetishes and working SSPX ministry at the same time - not by "Vatican II" or "post-Vatican II" crisis analysis.
Why only four?
very good question.
Could be that the society wants to continue to fit its foot in the print of Archbishop Lefebvre. Or a restraining tactic; if eight men were consecrated there is a likelihood of one or two reaching the faithful conclusion of 'sedevacante'.
Curious if there is any follow up to the potential for excommunication of the entire society as schismatic given it will adhere to the act of consecration by acceptance. Difference in 1988 was creation of ED groups as an escape but that doesn't hold now as they already exist even though less wide spread than they were, after TC.
A personal prelature with Schneider at its head would be a nice conquest from Rome’s vantage point.
Only four; very disappointing.
I'm guessing they didn't want to deconcentrate power too much in picking only four bishops. I think six would've been more prudent. There should be one based in the Asia-Pacific region and one for Africa.