Consecration of already Consecrated hosts

[LighthouseRon]

I’ll apologize up front as this seems like kind of silly question but this question came up yesterday that stumped me. What if Consecrated Hosts were Consecrated again? This is assumming it would be somehow accidental in that the priest didn’t know they were already consecrated. I think great care needs to be given to prevent this from happening but being human as we all are, it could happen somehow. Is the priest sinning by attempting to Consecrate them again? If he didn’t know I don’t see how it could be a sin for him but would it affect the Body Of Christ in any way? What (if any) would be the negative affects of this?

Thanks for indulging me.

 

[japhy]

What if Consecrated Hosts were Consecrated again?

The only valid matter for Eucharistic consecration are bread and wine. Since consecrated hosts are no longer bread, they can’t be “re-consecrated”.

If he didn’t know I don’t see how it could be a sin for him but would it affect the Body Of Christ in any way?

I would give the priest the benefit of the doubt, that he didn’t know what he was attempting to consecrate had in fact already been consecrated. (I’d pray Jesus does too. I don’t see how this could be considered a sin.) The only problem I see arising from this is if absolutely no consecration takes place during the Mass. What I mean is, if all the hosts that a priest intends to consecrated have already been consecrated, then the Eucharistic Prayer is incomplete because the priest never consecrates any bread. That makes the Eucharistic consecration incomplete (wine consecrated but not bread).

But that’s really unlikely…

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I’ll apologize up front as this seems like kind of silly question but this question came up yesterday that stumped me. What if Consecrated Hosts were Consecrated again? This is assumming it would be somehow accidental in that the priest didn’t know they were already consecrated. I think great care needs to be given to prevent this from happening but being human as we all are, it could happen somehow. Is the priest sinning by attempting to Consecrate them again? If he didn’t know I don’t see how it could be a sin for him but would it affect the Body Of Christ in any way? What (if any) would be the negative affects of this?

Thanks for indulging me.

There would be no negative result. however this could never happen unless someone intentionally did it.

 

[FrDavid96]

I’ll apologize up front as this seems like kind of silly question but this question came up yesterday that stumped me. What if Consecrated Hosts were Consecrated again? This is assumming it would be somehow accidental in that the priest didn’t know they were already consecrated. I think great care needs to be given to prevent this from happening but being human as we all are, it could happen somehow. Is the priest sinning by attempting to Consecrate them again? If he didn’t know I don’t see how it could be a sin for him but would it affect the Body Of Christ in any way? What (if any) would be the negative affects of this?

Thanks for indulging me.

Consecrated Hosts cannot be “consecrated again.” Even if this were to be attempted, they wouldn’t be consecrated a second time.

If consecrated Hosts are accidentally mixed with the unconsecrated ones, then only the new ones would be Consecrated at that Mass (the others would be unchanged–still the Body of Christ). Here, the priest would have to be genuinely ignorant of the fact, or he would not do it.

A priest who intentionally attempted to consecrate already consecrated ones would indeed be comitting a sin.

The only time a priest might willingly have both kinds on the altar would be if something went wrong, like someone mixing unconsecrated hosts in with the consecrated ones for some reason, or if one who is not a validly ordained priest were to mix hosts from a simulated Mass in with the consecrated ones. But even here, that would NOT be the proper thing to do.

 

[centurionguard]

Consecrated Hosts cannot be “consecrated again.” Even if this were to be attempted, they wouldn’t be consecrated a second time.

If consecrated Hosts are accidentally mixed with the unconsecrated ones, then only the new ones would be Consecrated at that Mass (the others would be unchanged–still the Body of Christ). Here, the priest would have to be genuinely ignorant of the fact, or he would not do it.

A priest who intentionally attempted to consecrate already consecrated ones would indeed be comitting a sin.

The only time a priest might willingly have both kinds on the altar would be if something went wrong, like someone mixing unconsecrated hosts in with the consecrated ones for some reason, or if one who is not a validly ordained priest were to mix hosts from a simulated Mass in with the consecrated ones. But even here, that would NOT be the proper thing to do.

As a Sacristan for twelve years I only heard of one instance when a priest felt obligated to re consecrate a Ciborium filled with host because an acolyte had told the priest that a Ciborium filled with unconsecrated host on the credence table was accidentally mixed with consecrated host and placed inside the tabernacle by a Eucharistic minister after Holy Communion. Apparently; the person who was in charge of liturgy placed too many host in a Ciborium before Mass and forgot to place it on the Alter before consecration.

 

[Digitonomy]

The only problem I see arising from this is if absolutely no consecration takes place during the Mass. What I mean is, if all the hosts that a priest intends to consecrated have already been consecrated, then the Eucharistic Prayer is incomplete because the priest never consecrates any bread. That makes the Eucharistic consecration incomplete (wine consecrated but not bread).

So long as there is a consecration, even if only one species, could we still say that a mass has taken place?

 

[japhy]

So long as there is a consecration, even if only one species, could we still say that a mass has taken place?

Canon 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.”

A true Mass requires the separate consecration of both elements. So I would answer your question in the negative.

 

[Penitant]

Even if the priest had a ciborium full of already consecrated hosts by some accident, doesn’t a priest normally have a larger host that he uses for the Fraction and that he consumes himself (wholly or partially)? He wouldn’t be taking that host from the ciborium (since it would have been fractured if it had been already consecrated), so there would still be a valid consecration.

It could be that he doesn’t have any larger host available, but that would require what seems to be two very unlikely events to happen at the same time: accidental use of consecrated hosts and lack of the larger host.

Of course, I’m sure that there are some parishes that don’t use the larger hosts, but I can’t remember that being the case for any that I’ve been to recently.

Pax Vobiscum,
Zach

 

[Cristiano]

So long as there is a consecration, even if only one species, could we still say that a mass has taken place?

Canon 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.”

A true Mass requires the separate consecration of both elements. So I would answer your question in the negative.

Why are you answering in the negative? The “absolutely wrong” speaks clearly to illicitness but it is not clear to me that it also speaks to the lack of validity.

 

[japhy]

Why are you answering in the negative? The “absolutely wrong” speaks clearly to illicitness but it is not clear to me that it also speaks to the lack of validity.

I see your point; I don’t think my connection is as final as I made it sound.

But the question must be repeated then: is a “Mass” wherein only one element is consecrated a valid Mass? How could it be?

 

[Digitonomy]

But the question must be repeated then: is a “Mass” wherein only one element is consecrated a valid Mass? How could it be?

If we have both the Body and Blood of Christ, that seems to me more important than that we have both the bread and wine. Whether it’s enough to constitute a mass is not clear.

 

[FrDavid96]

If we have both the Body and Blood of Christ, that seems to me more important than that we have both the bread and wine. Whether it’s enough to constitute a mass is not clear.

I’m not sure if this is true or not, and of course I can’t verify it, but I once heard that Pope Pius XII shortly after WWII was approached by some priests who were in concentration camps. They admitted to saying “Mass” with only bread, and asked if this had been valid. According to the story the Pope simply said “you did what you had to do” without actually addressing whether or not it was valid. This may be true, and someone might be able to provide documentation, or the opposite may be reality. I’m just adding this to the mix.

 

[AHapka]

The only time a priest might willingly have both kinds on the altar would be if something went wrong, like someone mixing unconsecrated hosts in with the consecrated ones for some reason, or if one who is not a validly ordained priest were to mix hosts from a simulated Mass in with the consecrated ones. But even here, that would NOT be the proper thing to do.

In this case, if this were to happen couldn’t the following take place…

We know that the only hosts which are consecrated are those that the priest intends to consecrate. So therefore, couldn’t a priest take at least one unconsecrated (for sure) host and then say “this is my body” while only intending to consecrate those which are not? Then it would seem to me that he would not be intending to consecrate those which already are, but yet consecrating those which are not. Therefore, they would all end up consecrated.

I will be interested to hear your opinion…

 

[FrDavid96]

In this case, if this were to happen couldn’t the following take place…

We know that the only hosts which are consecrated are those that the priest intends to consecrate. So therefore, couldn’t a priest take at least one unconsecrated (for sure) host and then say “this is my body” while only intending to consecrate those which are not? Then it would seem to me that he would not be intending to consecrate those which already are, but yet consecrating those which are not. Therefore, they would all end up consecrated.

I will be interested to hear your opinion…

That’s one possibility. However, because it’s a serious abuse of the Eucharist to attempt to re-consecrate, and therefore even the appearance of doing so should be strictly avoided, the better option is to consume all the questionable hosts in private. The situation you described should only be done in an “emergency” so-to-speak, and as a last resort.

 

[Penitant]

In this case, if this were to happen couldn’t the following take place…

We know that the only hosts which are consecrated are those that the priest intends to consecrate. So therefore, couldn’t a priest take at least one unconsecrated (for sure) host and then say “this is my body” while only intending to consecrate those which are not? Then it would seem to me that he would not be intending to consecrate those which already are, but yet consecrating those which are not. Therefore, they would all end up consecrated.

I will be interested to hear your opinion…

I would doubt that this would be the case. That’s almost like saying a priest intends only to consecrate the hosts that will be distributed at this Mass, so that will be left over are unconsecrated and don’t need to be reserved. It’s a slightly different situation (one intention is related to a past event, the other to a future), but it’s still a priest trying to base his intention on something that he couldn’t possibly know.

Pax Tecum,
Zach

 

[Digitonomy]

I would doubt that this would be the case. That’s almost like saying a priest intends only to consecrate the hosts that will be distributed at this Mass, so that will be left over are unconsecrated and don’t need to be reserved. It’s a slightly different situation (one intention is related to a past event, the other to a future), but it’s still a priest trying to base his intention on something that he couldn’t possibly know.

You raise an interesting question - does the ability of a priest to limit his intent only apply to location (these here, but not those over there), or can it apply to other qualities as well, whether they are easily discernible or not (only the unleavened hosts, not the leavened bread in the same container)?

 

[FrDavid96]

You raise an interesting question - does the ability of a priest to limit his intent only apply to location (these here, but not those over there), or can it apply to other qualities as well, whether they are easily discernible or not (only the unleavened hosts, not the leavened bread in the same container)?

Intention only goes so far. For a priest to purposely have bread which would be illicit matter (leavened in the West or unleavened in the East) would itself be an abuse. A priest cannot intentionally commit an abuse, but justify it by the “intent.”

It’s nearly impossible to honestly have the intention to not-consecrate the bread which is being offered. If it’s in the vessel, it’s being consecrated. If it’s on the altar (especially on the corporal) then it’s being consecrated. The reason why pre-consecrated hosts are different is because to re-consecrate them is itself an impossibility, so regardless of intention, re-consecration cannot happen.

Intention has to be interpreted within the limits of being reasonable. Since having one vessel of bread, but intenting to consecrate only certain hosts would not be reasonable intent, it would not apply. There is no legitimate reason to have bread which is not-to-be-consecrated mixed in with that-which-is

Let’s put this another way. When consecrated hosts are placed on the altar with unconsecrated ones, it is not the intention of the priest to not-consecrate which prevents the consecration; instead it’s the fact that they cannot be re-consecrated, no matter what. Intention comes into play here only in the sense that the priest does not have the intention to commit a sin by attempting re-consecration. Perhaps that should have been said much earlier.

 

[FrDavid96]

I would doubt that this would be the case. That’s almost like saying a priest intends only to consecrate the hosts that will be distributed at this Mass, so that will be left over are unconsecrated and don’t need to be reserved. It’s a slightly different situation (one intention is related to a past event, the other to a future), but it’s still a priest trying to base his intention on something that he couldn’t possibly know.

Pax Tecum,
Zach

That would be impossible. As you’ve already pointed out, the priest cannot commit an act of consecration in the present which would depend upon something happening in the future. If that were the case, then the Body of Christ would not be present until someone receives the Host–and we already know that to be heresy. Likewise it is a heresy to say that the consecration is removed if the Host is not consumed. The consecration occurs when the words of Christ are spoken. At that moment, all the bread is consecrated, regardless of what might or might not occur in the future.