Can a priest consecrate the entire contents of a bread bakery or a wine cellar?

[TomH1]

So, in theory, could single priest consecrate all the bread and wine in the world?

I suppose if you want to come up with what are hypothetical situations the answer is yes because they always allow for the ridiculous. However, the facts are the priest’s intention has to be what the Church intends. The Church does not intend to consecrate all bread and wine in the world at any Mass because that would be, of course, ludicrous.

 

[FiveLinden]

So yes, it’s ludicrous, so why would Jesus have instituted a practice capable of being put to such ludicrous ends?

 

[Zaccheus]

jimXroberts:

If a priest were to attempt to consecrate the contents of a bakery or wine cellar without the authority of ordinary and Pope, it would be a sacrilegious act and not at all in keeping with the mandatum of Jesus.

Indeed, but, as far as I know, the contents would become the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ.

No. Not in those circumstances. The priest’s power to consecrate is not magic. God grants the consecration. God would not consecrate a wine cellar just because someone said the words.

 

[FiveLinden]

God grants the consecration. God would not consecrate a wine cellar just because someone said the words.

Where and by whom is this taught?

 

[Zaccheus]

Zaccheus:

God grants the consecration. God would not consecrate a wine cellar just because someone said the words.

Where and by whom is this taught?

I decline to bandy scripture quotes with you.

I will however leave you with this thought.
The purpose of the eucharist is that the faithful may eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood. This is why it’s done in the context of the Mass.
There would be no point to consecrating some random bakery or wine cellar.
Since it happens at the will of God through the actions of the priest, it is not going to happen by accident.

 

[MikeInVA]

BlockquoteThe 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.

I think the bishop was saying that we should err on the side that the bread and wine is consecrated and act accordingly. It would be a greater wrong to treat the Lord’s body and blood disrespectfully than to erroneously believe than something unconsecrated is consecrated.

 

[TomH1]

so why would Jesus have instituted a practice capable of being put to such ludicrous ends?

He did not. I have no idea where you are trying to go with this.

 

[FiveLinden]

I decline to bandy scripture quotes with you

I know it is not in scripture. I was hoping you could point to something from a Doctor of the Church, or formal Church teaching. What you have said seems to contradict what St Thomas Aquinas had to say (above).

 

[mdgspencer]

.
Here are some of the thoughts about this that run through my head.
One time Saint Augustine heard some children playing, who said “I baptize you,” giving the baptismal formula. Did they actually baptize the other children? However, he thought not, because they didn’t actually have the intention of baptizing someone.
In another case, some bishops consecrated Lake Michigan. I have sometimes thought about this. Did they actually bless the lake? Sometimes I have my doubts, but i actually don’t know.
By the way, I find this discussion very interesting.

 

[mdgspencer]

We seem to have gotten to a side issue here. Does the bread and wine at mass actually become Christ?
Here is what supports this to my mind.

Luke 22:19. Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

John 6:52-57. Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

 

[Elf01]

I think the bishop was saying that we should err on the side that the bread and wine is consecrated and act accordingly. It would be a greater wrong to treat the Lord’s body and blood disrespectfully than to erroneously believe than something unconsecrated is consecrated.

Treating it as if it was not conscerated when it was would be sacralige. Treating it as if it was consecrated when it was not would be idolatory. Neither is a good option.

 

[dochawk]

God grants the consecration. God would not consecrate a wine cellar just because someone said the words.

The so called “Liberal Catholic” denomination in the US, at the least.

They use modern RC liturgical form and vestments, but deny that ordination is necessary. “Whoever” will be the “celebrant” at any given week, and back in the pews the next.

They give new meaning to “open communion”, and purport to consecrate all of the bread and wine in a restaurant upon entry, in the delusion that the consumption of the same will benefit nonbelievers . . .

(Yeah, read the byzcath.org forums for a few years, and you retain all kinds of odd stuff :crazy_face:)

In another case, some bishops consecrated Lake Michigan. I have sometimes thought about this. Did they actually bless the lake? Sometimes I have my doubts, but i actually don’t know.

On Theophany, it is routine in the east to bless a nearby major river, if available.

A couple of years ago, the EC and EO Romanian patriarchs did this jointly . . .

But blessing and consecrating are not the same thing.

The Eucharist is consecrated. Theophany Water is consecrated (byzantine). I can think of no other examples offhand of consecration rather than blessing–and this thread is about consecrating the Eucharist.

hawk

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

Treating it as if it was not conscerated when it was would be sacralige. Treating it as if it was consecrated when it was not would be idolatory. Neither is a good option.

Two different issues at play here, though. In the first case, at best, we’re dealing with negligence. That’s a harder thing to sidestep in terms of fault/sinfulness. In the second case, it wouldn’t be intentional, and you can’t sin by accident.

 

[Zaccheus]

Treating it as if it was not conscerated when it was would be sacralige. Treating it as if it was consecrated when it was not would be idolatory. Neither is a good option.

I think you’'re leaving out the question of intent. Mistakenly believing something is consecrated is not idolatry: it’s just being mistaken.
Better to not be mistaken but honest error does not an idolater make.
The same reasoning applies to the case in which someone mistakenly believes that a thing is not consecrated when in fact it is. Honest error is not sin.

Of course if someone does know a thing is consecrated and refuses to respect it that’s a different matter.

 

[Elf01]

Mistakenly believing something is consecrated is not idolatry: it’s just being mistaken.

The belief wouldn’t be. Treating the bread with the reverence due to the Eucharist would be.

I don’t really know which mistake would be worse to make.

 

[Zaccheus]

The belief wouldn’t be. Treating the bread with the reverence due to the Eucharist would be.

Hypothetical.
Here is a Communion host.
It has not yet been consecrated.
But I, Zaccheus, mistakenly believe it has been consecrated.
I therefore treat it with the reverence due the Eucharist.
You, @Elf01, agree that my mistaken belief is not sinful.

How, then, am I committing idolatry?
Is there perhaps a misunderstanding, in that we do not agree on what idolatry means in this context?

 

[Elf01]

Is there perhaps a misunderstanding, in that we do not agree on what idolatry means in this context?

I think you focus on culpability and I focus on the objective act.

I define idolatry as treating something that is not God as if it was.

 

[Zaccheus]

Fair enough.

 

[Dovekin]

The Eucharist is consecrated. Theophany Water is consecrated (byzantine). I can think of no other examples offhand of consecration rather than blessing–and this thread is about consecrating the Eucharist.

Chrism (myron) is consecrated.

In the Latin rite, the oils for exorcism and the sick are blessed early in the Chrism Mass, while the Chrism is consecrated after the Eucharist. (often changed in practice)

And then Virgins are consecrated, but is that the same thing?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

So are you saying that the safer position (pars tutior) is to assume the illicit consecration outside of Mass is (or may be) valid, and that it is less safe to assume it is invalid? Or the other way around?

Or put another way: a renegade priest consecrates a whole bakery full of bread by saying “this is My body” while standing in front of the bakery. He has in mind “I intend to consecrate any and all bread in this bakery that can be consecrated (valid matter, i.e., wheaten flour, water, and nothing else, at least nothing else in such quantities as to render it invalid matter), simply because I can”. Assuming it is not certainly the Body of Christ, do we then say “It could be the Body of Christ, and therefore It must be treated with the reverence due to It”, or “it’s probably not the Body of Christ, so it can be treated as ordinary bread, i.e., sold, eaten, thrown away, or what have you”? What is safer, to assume It is and to act accordingly, or to assume it is not?