Can Eucharist be Consecrated Without Celebrating a Full Mass?

[CentralFLJames]

I don’t know if this has been addressed before but I was curious what would happen if there was insufficient reserved consecrated hosts in the tabernacle to accommodate an unexpected demand on viaticum (e.g. a large emergency with many dieing - hurricane etc.) and benediction services? I could imagine an unforseen emergency of a priest who normally performs the daily mass sacrifice was indisposed for medical or emergency reasons and the tabernacle simply “ran out” of hosts due to a Deacon substituting a simple Communion Service instead of mass. I saw this scenario one day where the priest had an emergency and could not celebrate the regularly scheduled morning mass. A deacon came in to distribute communion to the faithful from tabernacle supply. Fortunately in this case we did not deplete the full tabernacle supply of consecrated hosts. But it stuck in my mind and I was wondering what would happen if they did run out?

My investigation lead me to discover that it appears that if just the 8 essential Words of Institution are spoken by an ordained Catholic Priest over the unconsecrated bread and wine that he can effect the sacraments of Eucharist without conducting a full mass. I don’t know if the bishops forbid this practise or not on a dioceses by dioceses basis but was curious what the ins and outs of this are. Do both species need to be present and does the priest need to first eat and drink both species before returning the excess to the tabernacle?

Can anyone verify if this is true and give any more insights and actual Catholic practices?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

James

 

[FrDavid96]

Theoretically, it’s possible.

It is also a grave abuse and is strictly forbidden regardless of the circumstances.

Redemptionis Sacramentum (172.d) defines this as “graviora delicta” (a grave/most serious abuse) which, by definition, is one step below sacrilegious.

[172.] Graviora delicta against the sanctity of the Most August Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Eucharist are to be handled in accordance with the ‘Norms concerning *graviora delicta *reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’, namely:

a) taking away or retaining the consecrated species for sacrilegious ends, or the throwing them away;
b) the attempted celebration of the liturgical action of the Eucharistic Sacrifice or the simulation of the same;
c) the forbidden concelebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice with ministers of Ecclesial Communities that do not have the apostolic succession nor acknowledge the sacramental dignity of priestly Ordination;
d) the consecration for sacrilegious ends of one matter without the other in the celebration of the Eucharist or even of both outside the celebration of the Eucharist.

The fact that it’s forbidden indicates that it’s possible because the document says the “consecration” rather than “attempted consecration” In any case, either the real consecration or the simulated consecration outside of Mass is still a grave abuse.

 

[Digitonomy]

Good questions. I won’t address the issue of what is normally done or prescribed as far as reserved hosts, or if the hosts should run out.

On the more basic issues,
Yes, most opinions I’ve read agree the Eucharist can validly be confected outside the context of a mass.
It is however forbidden to do so.
If one or the other species is absent, the bread or wine present can still validly be transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ.
Once again, this is forbidden, and it’s rather iffy whether that would constitute a real mass - we were discussing this several weeks ago in another thread.
The priest is required to consume both species, and again there is doubt whether we could say a mass has taken place if the priest fails to do so.

Finally, your post implies that a full mass is not celebrated unless everyone seeking the Eucharist is accommodated. This is not the case - it is still a valid mass if only the priest partakes.

 

[phorgan1]

I’m confused–d. said outside of the celebration of the Eucharist…is that the same as outside of the Mass? It seems be beg the same question. If consecrating the bread and wine for good reasons outside of a Mass is a valid celebration of the Eucharist, then it seems that what you quoted wouldn’t apply.

Patrick

 

[CentralFLJames]

This is great information and insight.

So it sounds like it can be done but it puts the priest at risk of committing a grave sin since we lose the context of the mass. But it certianly seems that The Lord would approve of exceptions for extraordinary cases. For example what about in cases of emergency work where we have major loss of life, property and many wounded in a predominantly Catholic Country or a battlefield condition where many need last rites. I suppose the argument could be made - “why in an emergency would a priest or deacon be carrying around unconsecrated hosts when he could just as easily elect to carry consecrated hosts?”. This is true. But it just seems that there might be a case where a church was badly damaged (act of war etc.) and the rectory supply of unconsecrated hosts were physically available but the tabernacle was destroyed or inaccessible due to debris or vandalism etc. In such a case I could see where there might be much collateral damage and a priest might need to perform a quick consecration to have viaticum to administer last rites to people that were being brought to church in a major disaster and dieing. I know it all sounds extreme but I am surprised that The Church does not grant exceptions for extraordinary conditions.

All in all though I am at least happy to hear that The Church has an explicit policy as well as a licit theological position on this.

If I were a priest I think I would always have on my possession a few hosts like the ministers of the sick deliver to those in the hospital. I suppose one could always divide the consecrated hosts into ever smaller portions to administer to whoever is in need during an emergency.

James

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I don’t know if this has been addressed before but I was curious what would happen if there was insufficient reserved consecrated hosts in the tabernacle to accommodate an unexpected demand on viaticum (e.g. a large emergency with many dieing - hurricane etc.) and benediction services? I could imagine an unforseen emergency of a priest who normally performs the daily mass sacrifice was indisposed for medical or emergency reasons and the tabernacle simply “ran out” of hosts due to a Deacon substituting a simple Communion Service instead of mass. I saw this scenario one day where the priest had an emergency and could not celebrate the regularly scheduled morning mass. A deacon came in to distribute communion to the faithful from tabernacle supply. Fortunately in this case we did not deplete the full tabernacle supply of consecrated hosts. But it stuck in my mind and I was wondering what would happen if they did run out?

My investigation lead me to discover that it appears that if just the 8 essential Words of Institution are spoken by an ordained Catholic Priest over the unconsecrated bread and wine that he can effect the sacraments of Eucharist without conducting a full mass. I don’t know if the bishops forbid this practise or not on a dioceses by dioceses basis but was curious what the ins and outs of this are. Do both species need to be present and does the priest need to first eat and drink both species before returning the excess to the tabernacle?

Can anyone verify if this is true and give any more insights and actual Catholic practices?

http://tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn...hurch-lowville.org/eucharistWallpaper1024.jpg

James

Consecrating one species without the other is forbidden, Not celebrating a complete Mass is a very grave abuse.

I’m not sure when you speak of a “morning Mass” if you are speaking of a Sunday Mass or a weekday Mass?

There should not be a Communion service in place of a weekday Mass, there is no obligation for weekday Mass.

Sunday Mass should could be replaced with a Communion service if no priest is available because there is a Sundy obligation and most people will show up as usual. A Communion service is not a replacement for Sunday Mass as there is no obligation when Mass is not available.

If no Hosts are available a Liturgy of the Word shuld be conducted, a Catholic is only required to receive Holy Communion once a year.

 

[Digitonomy]

But it certianly seems that The Lord would approve of exceptions for extraordinary cases. For example what about in cases of emergency work where we have major loss of life, property and many wounded in a predominantly Catholic Country or a battlefield condition where many need last rites.

You might suppose this to be true, but our guidance from the Church indicates otherwise.

Can. 927
It is absolutely wrong, even in urgent and extreme necessity, to consecrate one element without the other, or even to consecrate both outside the eucharistic celebration.
Source

CentralFLJames:

All in all though I am at least happy to hear that The Church has an explicit policy as well as a licit theological position on this.

Happily this is the case for most important aspects of our faith.

phorgan1:

I’m confused–d. said outside of the celebration of the Eucharist…is that the same as outside of the Mass? It seems be beg the same question. If consecrating the bread and wine for good reasons outside of a Mass is a valid celebration of the Eucharist, then it seems that what you quoted wouldn’t apply.Patrick

You weren’t clear whether “d.” was Digitonomy or FrDavid; I’m guessing from the context you mean the latter. In any case, my use of the term “Eucharist,” in suggesting that it can be confected outside of mass, may not be quite accurate. I used the term loosely to refer to the accidents of bread and wine which have become the body, blood, soul, and divinity. This is generally true, but since I specified outside the mass, I’m not sure of the extent that it qualifies to be called the Eucharistic sacrifice - FrDavid may be able to elaborate. Given the disparity between how I used the term, and how Redemptionis Sacramentum uses it, I’d lean toward the Holy Father’s choice of vocabulary.

Also, you used the phrase “consecrating the bread and wine for good reasons outside of a Mass.” I’m not sure whether there ever exists any good reason for this.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Consecrating one species without the other is forbidden, Not celebrating a complete Mass is a very grave abuse.

I’m not sure when you speak of a “morning Mass” if you are speaking of a Sunday Mass or a weekday Mass?

There should not be a Communion service in place of a weekday Mass, there is no obligation for weekday Mass.

Sunday Mass should could be replaced with a Communion service if no priest is available because there is a Sundy obligation and most people will show up as usual. A Communion service is not a replacement for Sunday Mass as there is no obligation when Mass is not available.

If no Hosts are available a Liturgy of the Word shuld be conducted, a Catholic is only required to receive Holy Communion once a year.

Thanks Br. Rich.
I was referring to morning DAILY mass. If no mass was said due to the priest being late or absent then a Eucharistic Minister or Deacon will sometimes do a simple communion service.

Sometimes there can be a surge of attendees and I have been wondering how much “supply” of consecrated host is kept on hand. It seems to me that the Eucharistic ministers are rotating out prior day’s consecrated hosts during each daily mass and daily replacing with freshly consecrated hosts for storage-preservation purposes. I also wonder if there is a canon rule on how long a consecrated host can be kept in the tabernacle or on display during adoration in the monstrance.

You might suppose this to be true, but our guidance from the Church indicates otherwise.
Canon 927:

Can. 927
It is absolutely wrong, even in urgent and extreme necessity, to consecrate one element without the other, or even to consecrate both outside the Eucharistic celebration.
Source

Thanks, Can. 927 seems to be the final word on the matter.

James

 

[benedictgal]

Thanks Br. Rich.
I was referring to morning DAILY mass. If no mass was said due to the priest being late or absent then a Eucharistic Minister or Deacon will sometimes do a simple communion service.

Sometimes there can be a surge of attendees and I have been wondering how much “supply” of consecrated host is kept on hand. It seems to me that the Eucharistic ministers are rotating out prior day’s consecrated hosts during each daily mass and daily replacing with freshly consecrated hosts for storage-preservation purposes. I also wonder if there is a canon rule on how long a consecrated host can be kept in the tabernacle or on display during adoration in the monstrance.

Thanks, Can. 927 seems to be the final word on the matter.

James

And, lest we forget what Redemptionis Sacramentum has to say on the matter, at least regarding Communion services:

[166.] Likewise, especially if Holy Communion is distributed during such celebrations, the diocesan Bishop, to whose exclusive competence this matter pertains, must not easily grant permission for such celebrations to be held on weekdays, especially in places where it was possible or would be possible to have the celebration of Mass on the preceding or the following Sunday. Priests are therefore earnestly requested to celebrate Mass daily for the people in one of the churches entrusted to their care.

Now, if a Eucharistic Minister is present, there is no need for a Communion service, since he will be the one celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Please remember that the priest and bishop are Eucharistic Ministers, as they are the only ones who can confect (cause to happen) the Sacrament. Laity are called Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

I know that I had to do a couple of the weekday CS at the request of the parish (a year ago), but, I did these with great reluctance because of the citation from RS. However, the only reason why I did them was because the ones who have been doing it were doing it all wrong and they did not know what they were doing. There was an instance where a deacon read the Eucharistic prayer and skipped over the consecration. The way I saw it is that if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself. Thankfully, I have not had to do one anymore, since my PV (after admonishing me) noted that we should not even have them in the first place.

 

[CentralFLJames]

And, lest we forget what Redemptionis Sacramentum has to say on the matter, at least regarding Communion services:

Now, if a Eucharistic Minister is present, there is no need for a Communion service, since he will be the one celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Please remember that the priest and bishop are Eucharistic Ministers, as they are the only ones who can confect (cause to happen) the Sacrament. Laity are called Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

I know that I had to do a couple of the weekday CS at the request of the parish (a year ago), but, I did these with great reluctance because of the citation from RS. However, the only reason why I did them was because the ones who have been doing it were doing it all wrong and they did not know what they were doing. There was an instance where a deacon read the Eucharistic prayer and skipped over the consecration. The way I saw it is that if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself. Thankfully, I have not had to do one anymore, since my PV (after admonishing me) noted that we should not even have them in the first place.

Of course only a priest or bishop can confect the sacrament of Eucharist. I did misuse a term saying Eucharistic Minister rather than Extraordinary Ministers. I don’t know how to account for picking up that wrong vocabulary except by perhaps never hearing a priest refer to himself in that terminology and likely from hearing the Extraordinary Ministers refer to themselves by ther term “Eucharistic Lay Ministers” or some truncating it out to just “Eucharistic Minister” as an abbreviation when their street clothes make it clear that they are not ordained.

Sorry for the confusion…

James

 

[phorgan1]

Theoretically, it’s possible.
…
Redemptionis Sacramentum (172.d) defines this as “graviora delicta” (a grave/most serious abuse) which, by definition, is one step below sacrilegious.

[172.] Graviora delicta against the sanctity of the Most August Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Eucharist are to be handled in accordance with the ‘Norms concerning *graviora delicta *reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’, namely:
…
d) the consecration for sacrilegious ends of one matter without the other in the celebration of the Eucharist or even of both outside the celebration of the Eucharist.
…

This is the d) that I was referring to. It doesn’t say outside the celebration of the Mass, it says outside the celebration of the Eucharist, which is normally part of the Mass. Which begs the issue and brings us back to the original question. “Can Eucharist be Consecrated Without Celebrating a Full Mass?”

 

[benedictgal]

This is the d) that I was referring to. It doesn’t say outside the celebration of the Mass, it says outside the celebration of the Eucharist, which is normally part of the Mass. Which begs the issue and brings us back to the original question. “Can Eucharist be Consecrated Without Celebrating a Full Mass?”

The original meaning of the word "eucharist’ is Thanksgiving. The Eucharist is also another term for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Thus, you cannot have the Eucharist without the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[CentralFLJames]

This is the d) that I was referring to. It doesn’t say outside the celebration of the Mass, it says outside the celebration of the Eucharist, which is normally part of the Mass. Which begs the issue and brings us back to the original question. “Can Eucharist be Consecrated Without Celebrating a Full Mass?”

Agree - let’s amend the question and ask if its sufficient to perform only the Liturgy of The Eucharist since this frames the Words of Institution & Epiclesis.

James

 

[benedictgal]

Agree - let’s amend the question and ask if its sufficient to perform only the Liturgy of The Eucharist since this frames the Words of Institution & Epiclesis.

James

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass entails both the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. If you just get there for the Liturgy of the Eucharist, meaning, you completely skipped over the Liturgy of the Word, especially the proclamation of the Gospel, you have not satisfied your Sunday Obligation.

 

[FrDavid96]

This is the d) that I was referring to. It doesn’t say outside the celebration of the Mass, it says outside the celebration of the Eucharist, which is normally part of the Mass. Which begs the issue and brings us back to the original question. “Can Eucharist be Consecrated Without Celebrating a Full Mass?”

In this particular case, when Redemptionis Sacramentum says “the celebration of the Eucharist” that term is synonymous with the word “Mass.”

The confusion is easy. There can be celebrations of the Eucharist outside of Mass, but again, in this context we can substitute the word “Mass” for the words “celebration of the Eucharist” as if the document said the following:

Graviora delicta against the sanctity of the Most August Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Eucharist are to be handled in accordance with the ‘Norms concerning graviora delicta reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’, namely:…the consecration of both species outside of Mass.

Try reading it that way, and see if it becomes more clear.

Again, it is possible for a priest to consecrate the Body and/or Blood of Christ outside of the Mass, but to do so is a most serious offense.

Can a priest do this? Yes.
May a priest do this? No.

 

[PacoG]

I could imagine an unforseen emergency of a priest who normally performs the daily mass sacrifice was indisposed for medical or emergency reasons and the tabernacle simply “ran out” of hosts due to a Deacon substituting a simple Communion Service instead of mass. I saw this scenario one day where the priest had an emergency and could not celebrate the regularly scheduled morning mass. A deacon came in to distribute communion to the faithful from tabernacle supply. Fortunately in this case we did not deplete the full tabernacle supply of consecrated hosts. But it stuck in my mind and I was wondering what would happen if they did run out?

Why would it be impossible for a priest to say Mass. The average weekday Mass takes about 15-20 minutes (from what I’ve seen posted on this board). Assuming its a regular weekday when he can skip the Gloria and the Credo and has one reading, a psalm and the Gospel with no homily, a priest could probably say a reverent and holy private Mass to consecrate the needed species in 10-15 minutes. (Am I right, Fr. David?)

 

[FaithPlusLove]

Just recently I attended a weekday Mass and when I went to drink from the cup, there was only a few drops left and several people behind me. I wondered what would happen if the next person drank the remainder.

 

[FrDavid96]

Why would it be impossible for a priest to say Mass. The average weekday Mass takes about 15-20 minutes (from what I’ve seen posted on this board). Assuming its a regular weekday when he can skip the Gloria and the Credo and has one reading, a psalm and the Gospel with no homily, a priest could probably say a reverent and holy private Mass to consecrate the needed species in 10-15 minutes. (Am I right, Fr. David?)

Sure, a Mass could be done in about 10 minutes (I happen to read/speak quickly–quick is my normal speed regardless of the circumstances, some priests might take longer of course). The issue here really isn’t one of time, it’s the principle that the Eucharist should never be consecrated outside of Mass. My typical daily Mass takes less than 15 minutes, and I do not rush anything.

 

[PacoG]

Sure, a Mass could be done in about 10 minutes (I happen to read/speak quickly–quick is my normal speed regardless of the circumstances, some priests might take longer of course). The issue here really isn’t one of time, it’s the principle that the Eucharist should never be consecrated outside of Mass. My typical daily Mass takes less than 15 minutes, and I do not rush anything.

But to posit the secondary question of the OP, would it be possible (and licit) for you to say an unscheduled Mass to consecrate an supply of hosts to fill a need for large need viaticum (for example in the event of a 9-11 situation or a bad train accident or a “dirty bomb” attack) where a lot of people needed last rites?

For that matter, are you bound by Mass schedules? If “the spirit moves you” to say an unscheduled Mass one afternoon, can you?

 

[Digitonomy]

"CentralFLJames:

Agree - let’s amend the question and ask if its sufficient to perform only the Liturgy of The Eucharist since this frames the Words of Institution & Epiclesis.

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass entails both the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. If you just get there for the Liturgy of the Eucharist, meaning, you completely skipped over the Liturgy of the Word, especially the proclamation of the Gospel, you have not satisfied your Sunday Obligation.

What is required to satisfy one’s Sunday obligation is a poor guideline to judge what is essential for either a) a mass to take place, or b) the Eucharist to be consecrated, which are the two issues CentralFLJames and phorgan1 seem to be batting around. For instance, the Gloria is an essential part of most Sunday masses - if you skip that, I would suggest you have not met your obligation. Yet it’s obviously not so essential that its absence would invalidate the mass, since it is licitly omitted during a number of masses.