Can someone please explain the consecration of the Eucharist to me?

[Holly3278]

Hey everyone. I have a question about the consecration of the most holy Eucharist. When the priest has finished consecrating the host, is it the only part of the Eucharist that is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus or is the wine also consecrated at this moment? Jesus is present from the moment that the host has been consecrated right, but only in the species of bread, right? Sorry, I am just really confused about this.

 

[MarkThompson]

Hey everyone. I have a question about the consecration of the most holy Eucharist. When the priest has finished consecrating the host, is it the only part of the Eucharist that is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus or is the wine also consecrated at this moment? Jesus is present from the moment that the host has been consecrated right, but only in the species of bread, right? Sorry, I am just really confused about this.

Yes. And since you stated it correctly in such plain terms, what’s to be so confused about?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Hey everyone. I have a question about the consecration of the most holy Eucharist. When the priest has finished consecrating the host, is it the only part of the Eucharist that is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus or is the wine also consecrated at this moment? Jesus is present from the moment that the host has been consecrated right, but only in the species of bread, right? Sorry, I am just really confused about this.

Truth is, we do not know at the exact moment when the bread and wine cease to exist and Jesus become present. All we know is at the end of the Eucharistic prayers, there is no more bread and wine, only the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[MarkThompson]

Truth is, we do not know at the exact moment when the bread and wine cease to exist and Jesus become present. All we know is at the end of the Eucharistic prayers, there is no more bread and wine, only the Body and Blood of Christ.

We know more than that. After consecrating each species separately (“This is my Body,” “This is … my Blood”) the priest elevates it for adoration, and genuflects in worship. If each species were not consecrated at that time, this Eucharistic adoration would be idolatrous.

 

[mullenpm]

It seems to me that the OP is saying that he believes that at the Consecration the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ is present only in the bread - and not in the wine.

Correct me if I misunderstood his question. If that is what he truly believes he is wrong. At the Consecration the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ is present in both bread and wine.

 

[ConstantineTG]

We know more than that. After consecrating each species separately (“This is my Body,” “This is … my Blood”) the priest elevates it for adoration, and genuflects in worship. If each species were not consecrated at that time, this Eucharistic adoration would be idolatrous.

The answer I provided came from the discussion on the Epiclesis, on whether the bread and wine became the Eucharist only after the Epiclesis. Of course in the Divine Liturgy, the Epiclesis came after the Words of Institution. In the OF it comes before, and in the EF its not explicit. The answer was that the entire Eucharistic prayer is needed to confect a valid Eucharist, and we do not know the exact moment the bread and wine changes. Adoring the bread and wine is not wrong because we are offering it to God to become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. In the Divine Liturgy the clergy would make a deep bow of reverence as well even before the Epiclesis. But at this point we really aren’t sure until the end of the Eucharistic Prayers that we have the Body and Blood of Christ on the altar. That is what the Church teaches.

 

[Holly3278]

It seems to me that the OP is saying that he believes that at the Consecration the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ is present only in the bread - and not in the wine.

Correct me if I misunderstood his question. If that is what he truly believes he is wrong. At the Consecration the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ is present in both bread and wine.

No, I was saying that at the consecration of the bread, only the bread is Jesus’ body, blood, soul, and divinity. And then when the consecration of the wine is complete, it is Jesus’ body, blood, soul, and divinity as well. It’s a two part consecration. Did I get this right?

 

[ConstantineTG]

It seems to me that the OP is saying that he believes that at the Consecration the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ is present only in the bread - and not in the wine.

Correct me if I misunderstood his question. If that is what he truly believes he is wrong. At the Consecration the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ is present in both bread and wine.

No, you are wrong. In your understanding of the OP’s question that is. He is asking if at the moment the priest completes the Words of Institution on the bread, that it is a valid Eucharist but the wine is still wine at this point (prior to the words for the wine is said).

 

[Vico]

Catechism of the Catholic Church 1353 In the epiclesis, the Church asks the Father to send his Holy Spirit (or the power of his blessing180) on the bread and wine, so that by his power they may become the body and blood of Jesus Christ and so that those who take part in the Eucharist may be one body and one spirit (some liturgical traditions put the epiclesis after the anamnesis). In the institution narrative, the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ’s body and blood, his sacrifice offered on the cross once for all. 1354 In the *anamnesis *that follows, the Church calls to mind the Passion, resurrection, and glorious return of Christ Jesus; she presents to the Father the offering of his Son which reconciles us with him. …
1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.207

Baltimore Catechism No 3:
Q. 894. At what part of the Mass does the Consecration take place?
A. The Consecration in the Mass takes place immediately before the elevation of the Host and Chalice, which are raised above the head of the priest that the people may adore Our Lord who has just come to the altar at the words of Consecration.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

No, I was saying that at the consecration of the bread, only the bread is Jesus’ body, blood, soul, and divinity. And then when the consecration of the wine is complete, it is Jesus’ body, blood, soul, and divinity as well. It’s a two part consecration. Did I get this right?

Yes. This is exactly what is taught about what happens at the Mass in the Latin rite of the Catholic Church. That is the reason for the separate elevations of the body and blood of Christ, to emphasize this truth.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

The answer I provided came from the discussion on the Epiclesis, on whether the bread and wine became the Eucharist only after the Epiclesis. Of course in the Divine Liturgy, the Epiclesis came after the Words of Institution. In the OF it comes before, and in the EF its not explicit. The answer was that the entire Eucharistic prayer is needed to confect a valid Eucharist, and we do not know the exact moment the bread and wine changes. Adoring the bread and wine is not wrong because we are offering it to God to become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. In the Divine Liturgy the clergy would make a deep bow of reverence as well even before the Epiclesis. But at this point we really aren’t sure until the end of the Eucharistic Prayers that we have the Body and Blood of Christ on the altar. That is what the Church teaches.

In the Latin rite Mass the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus at the words of consecration. We are sure of that.

In the Divine Liturgy the case is somewhat different.

Both liturgies are equally valid. The OP was questioning what happens at Mass.

 

[Like]

In the Latin rite Mass the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus at the words of consecration. We are sure of that.

In the Divine Liturgy the case is somewhat different.

Both liturgies are equally valid. The OP was questioning what happens at Mass.

[SIGN]AMEN[/SIGN]

 

[Evan]

In the Latin rite Mass the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus at the words of consecration. We are sure of that.

In the Divine Liturgy the case is somewhat different.

Both liturgies are equally valid. The OP was questioning what happens at Mass.

That’s not what the good sisters taught me at Catholic school. They went with what Constantine said. We know when it is bread and wine. We know when the Body and Blood are present. But we can only speculate on when this happens.

We kneel during the Eucharistic Prayer because a miracle occurs during the prayer. We kneel before the bread, for it is to become His body, before the host for it is His body. We bow to the altar for that is where the miracle occurs.

 

[AJV]

**Adoring the bread and wine is not wrong **because we are offering it to God to become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

Would you mind elaborating please? I can see a certain reverence for the bread and wine on account of their set-apart nature. But adoration?

 

[paul11b]

Both the “bread” and “wine”, become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. It happens to the “bread” when the priest says the words “This is My body” and it happens to the “wine” when the priest says “This is the cup of My Blood.” After the consecration we should no longer call it the bread and wine, it is the Body of Christ and the Precious Blood of Jesus. But either form is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ; so the Eucharistic minister that is giving out the Body of Christ could actually say “The Blood of Christ” and be correct and the Eucharistic minister giving out the Precious Blood of Jesus could say “The Body of Christ” and be correct also.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

That’s not what the good sisters taught me at Catholic school. They went with what Constantine said. We know when it is bread and wine. We know when the Body and Blood are present. But we can only speculate on when this happens.

We kneel during the Eucharistic Prayer because a miracle occurs during the prayer. We kneel before the bread, for it is to become His body, before the host for it is His body. We bow to the altar for that is where the miracle occurs.

In the 1950’s the good sisters in Baltimore taught us that in the Mass the change takes place during the consecration of the bread and wine when the priest says the words of institution. It’s obvious. When the priest, holding the bread, says “this is My body” at that instant it IS. They didn’t talk about Constantine or when this takes place during the Divine Liturgy.

If you look at the previously quoted question and answer from the Baltimore Catechism it is unmistakable; these words are spoken immediately before the elevations of the host and chalice.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Would you mind elaborating please? I can see a certain reverence for the bread and wine on account of their set-apart nature. But adoration?

The intention is the bread and wine are to become the Body and Blood of Christ. Since we do not know the exact moment, God doesn’t take it against us. He knows what is happening right there and then.

 

[ConstantineTG]

In the 1950’s the good sisters in Baltimore taught us that in the Mass the change takes place during the consecration of the bread and wine when the priest says the words of institution. It’s obvious. When the priest, holding the bread, says “this is My body” at that instant it IS. They didn’t talk about Constantine or when this takes place during the Divine Liturgy.

If you look at the previously quoted question and answer from the Baltimore Catechism it is unmistakable; these words are spoken immediately before the elevations of the host and chalice.

Have you been to a Divine Liturgy? You are speaking that as if the Anaphora in the Divine Liturgy is different from the Anaphora in the Roman Mass. It is not. The Words of Institution are spoken. Here is what goes on during Divine Liturgy Consecration and tell me how different is it from the Roman Mass

youtu.be/tAF6Ajt1WkE

Remember, the Liturgies are essentially the same thing expressed in different traditions. How it “works” in one works the same in all the other Rites. The essential parts of every Liturgy is the same.

 

[Holly3278]

Thank you everyone for your answers. They have been quite helpful.

 

[japhy]

It should be noted that the Roman Canon does not have an explicit pre-consecration Epiclesis (if it has one at all) – the Holy Spirit is not personally invoked to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. There is the Quam oblationem prayer right before the consecration, but that is addressed to God the Father (Quam oblationem tu, Deus, in omnibus, quaesumus, …] facere digneris: ut nobis Corpus et Sanguis fiat dilectissimi Filii tui, Domini nostri Iesu Christi.)

There is a post-consecration epicletic prayer (the so-called “epiclesis of communion”) in the Roman Canon, the Supplices te: Supplices te rogamus, omnipotens Deus …] ut quotquot ex hac altaris participatione sacrosanctum Filii tui Corpus et Sanguinem sumpserimus. This prayer is directed not so much towards the change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood, but towards our fruitful reception of the sacrament.

The Eastern anaphoras (except for one or two very ancient examples) do not have a pre-consecration Epiclesis; the Epiclesis always follows the words of Institution. The modern Eucharistic Prayers of the Roman Rite are a novelty in that regard, having the consecration after the Epiclesis, because Western theology (since Augustine, if not earlier) argues that the words of Christ bring about the change in the Eucharist.

I should also add that, at least in the early 20th century, official Orthodox teaching on the anaphora was that the words of Institution were read in a strictly historical and absolutely non-consecratory sense.