Consecration of Bread and Wine

[Sasha_by_Sea]

I am a new visitor to Forums/Catholic.com. And i am also new to Forums…forgive any mistakes or wrong format.
The past two months I have been Altar Server and EMinister. We were trained by one of the priest in my church.
Yesterday during morning mass, i was attending mass in the pews, the server
forgot to bring the bread for the priest on the Chalis. When Priest started the Eucharistic preparation he realized the missing host. He took a bread from the unconsecrated ceboriam and used it to proceed with the prayers, Meantime the server brought the large host (actually 2 they were stuck together) The priest placed the extra host to the side on the altar. My question to the panel is. **was the extra host consecrated anyway?/**U]At the end of the mass, the priest left it on the altar. The server asked and the priest said it was not consecrated. I thought everything on the altar gets consicrated. Thank you:shrug:

 

[TheMc]

I am a new visitor to Forums/Catholic.com. And i am also new to Forums…forgive any mistakes or wrong format.
The past two months I have been Altar Server and EMinister. We were trained by one of the priest in my church.
Yesterday during morning mass, i was attending mass in the pews, the server
forgot to bring the bread for the priest on the Chalis. When Priest started the Eucharistic preparation he realized the missing host. He took a bread from the unconsecrated ceboriam and used it to proceed with the prayers, Meantime the server brought the large host (actually 2 they were stuck together) The priest placed the extra host to the side on the altar. My question to the panel is. **was the extra host consecrated anyway?/**U]At the end of the mass, the priest left it on the altar. The server asked and the priest said it was not consecrated. I thought everything on the altar gets consicrated. Thank you:shrug:

Only what the priest intends to be consecrated is consecrated. Often, he intends to consecrate what is on, and in the vessels that is on the corporal, a white, 1x1 foot cloth that is placed below the sacred vessels.

For instance, priests celebrating alone often place the cruets on the epistle side of the altar. By no means are they intending to consecrate the wine in the cruet.

 

[ConstantineTG]

If the priest intended to consecrate the bread, then it is consecrated. If it is his intention not to consecrate it, then it is not. I think the fact that he put it aside means he didn’t intend to consecrate it. Therefore it is still bread.

 

[Sasha_by_Sea]

Thank you so much for the great responses.
Very helpful. Feel more at peace now. God bless.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The more interesting question here is, had the priest not notice there were two pieces of bread stuck together and proceeded to consecrate them believing there is only one piece of bread, would the other piece have also become the Body of Christ?

 

[Sasha_by_Sea]

I don’ t think so. The bread was to the side of the corpral.
That is where I saw the server point and ask the priest as
he processed down after benediction. Thank you

 

[Love_Divine]

The more interesting question here is, had the priest not notice there were two pieces of bread stuck together and proceeded to consecrate them believing there is only one piece of bread, would the other piece have also become the Body of Christ?

Ooh, that’s a doozy.

Another thing, say it’s a large congregation and there isn’t room for everything on the altar, what’s left on the side table that the priest intends to consecrate also gets consecrated. Makes me wonder what the range is.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Ooh, that’s a doozy.

Another thing, say it’s a large congregation and there isn’t room for everything on the altar, what’s left on the side table that the priest intends to consecrate also gets consecrated. Makes me wonder what the range is.

The answer with that one is yes. I think that happens with large, outdoor Papal Masses.

 

[CEM5]

The more interesting question here is, had the priest not notice there were two pieces of bread stuck together and proceeded to consecrate them believing there is only one piece of bread, would the other piece have also become the Body of Christ?

I believe if the two pieces became consecrated then, yes, it would have become the body of Christ just as all the other hosts become the Body of Christ that the laity partake of. Don’t forget that after the Consecration of the larger Host, the Priest breaks the Host and all partake of it before the smaller consecrated Hosts are shared by the rest of the congregation.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I believe if the two pieces became consecrated then, yes, it would have become the body of Christ just as all the other hosts become the Body of Christ that the laity partake of. Don’t forget that after the Consecration of the larger Host, the Priest breaks the Host and all partake of it before the smaller consecrated Hosts are shared by the rest of the congregation.

But catch here is the priest is intending to consecrate only one host and he knows he only has one host but in fact there were two. Those in the ciborium, he also is aware of the hosts there and intends to consecrate it.

 

[CEM5]

But catch here is the priest is intending to consecrate only one host and he knows he only has one host but in fact there were two. Those in the ciborium, he also is aware of the hosts there and intends to consecrate it.

Ah, yes, nevertheless, those 2 pieces are being held in his hand and the words of consecration are being said. Therefore, it goes to reason, that it matters not what the Priest intended, but that he held up those pieces and once the words of consecration were said over them, they then become the Body of Christ.

Just as no matter that a Priest who may not believe in the transubstantiation (loss of faith or doubting), once that Priest says those ancient Traditional words, the bread becomes the Body of Christ, for it is not the Priest who changes the bread but God who does. The Priest is only acting on behalf of Christ. That is why it is a miracle.

 

[Sasha_by_Sea]

But one of the large hosts was by itself on the side on the altar. i was told that
that was not consecrated because the priest said it had not been consecrated.
Here i thought that everything upon the altar is.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Ah, yes, nevertheless, those 2 pieces are being held in his hand and the words of consecration are being said. Therefore, it goes to reason, that it matters not what the Priest intended, but that he held up those pieces and once the words of consecration were said over them, they then become the Body of Christ.

Just as no matter that a Priest who may not believe in the transubstantiation (loss of faith or doubting), once that Priest says those ancient Traditional words, the bread becomes the Body of Christ, for it is not the Priest who changes the bread but God who does. The Priest is only acting on behalf of Christ. That is why it is a miracle.

But one of the large hosts was by itself on the side on the altar. i was told that
that was not consecrated because the priest said it had not been consecrated.
Here i thought that everything upon the altar is.

No, not everything on the altar is automatically consecrated. And yes, intent does matter! Remember that what makes a Sacrament valid is Matter, Form and Intent. If the minister of the Sacrament has no intention to do what the Church intends with the Sacrament, then there is no Sacrament. An atheist pouring water on someone and saying the words for baptism, but is intentionally mocking the Church, is not baptizing. There is no baptism. But if he intends to baptize because a person requests him to do it and he does so cooperate, then it is a valid baptism.

Same for the Eucharist. If the priest intends to make the bread the Body and Blood of Christ, then it will. If he put it down on the altar because the is thinking he doesn’t need to consecrate it, then it will not be consecrated. To say that the words alone change the bread and wine is not accurate. What if the priest is in a seminary teaching seminarians about the proper way to do the consecration and he is holding a bread and says the words? Of course his intention there is to teach, not to consecrate the Eucharist.

 

[CEM5]

No, not everything on the altar is automatically consecrated. And yes, intent does matter! Remember that what makes a Sacrament valid is Matter, Form and Intent. If the minister of the Sacrament has no intention to do what the Church intends with the Sacrament, then there is no Sacrament. An atheist pouring water on someone and saying the words for baptism, but is intentionally mocking the Church, is not baptizing. There is no baptism. But if he intends to baptize because a person requests him to do it and he does so cooperate, then it is a valid baptism.

Same for the Eucharist. If the priest intends to make the bread the Body and Blood of Christ, then it will. If he put it down on the altar because the is thinking he doesn’t need to consecrate it, then it will not be consecrated. To say that the words alone change the bread and wine is not accurate. What if the priest is in a seminary teaching seminarians about the proper way to do the consecration and he is holding a bread and says the words? Of course his intention there is to teach, not to consecrate the Eucharist.

I recall being taught that intent does not matter - if the Priest correctly says the Traditional words of consecration, even if that Priest doubts in the miracle, the Host (and those smaller ones for the rest of the congregation) ARE changed into the Body of Christ (body, blood and soul). It is God who changes and makes the miracle - not the Priest.

As for the 2nd larger Host being placed to the side: I don’t believe it was consecrated because, just as the bible, cloths, and other items are upon the Altar are not transubstantiated, so too not the 2nd larger Host.

As for teaching, I believe in order for the “changing” to take place, it has to be within the context of the Mass. (And of course by a validly ordained Priest). Just anyone saying those words will not make the bread become the Body of Christ.

blessings,
\CEM

P.S. As for Baptism, anyone can baptize another validly (conditionally) and only in extreme cases, and yes, intent is important on behalf of the one baptizing. The belief in the Trinity is a must along with saying the proper words of baptism and having water.

However, whereas anyone can baptize another, it is not the same with the Consecration of the Host: only a validly ordained Priest/Bishop can consecrate the bread/host. And in that case, the Priest is only acting on behalf of the Lord who does the miraculous change of transubstantiation.

For example, the miracle of Lanciano, the monk celebrating Mass had doubts as to whether the host really became the true body and blood of our Lord, Christ. While he was saying the words of consecration (with doubt in his heart, not really believing), God changed the bread and the miraculous thing that occurred: this time the appearance was of actual flesh, which to this day still exists and has been tested and found to be the flesh of the heart.

So, no matter that a priest would have doubts, if he says the proper words of consecration during Mass, the bread WILL be changed (transubstantiation).

 

[Digitonomy]

I recall being taught that intent does not matter - if the Priest correctly says the Traditional words of consecration, even if that Priest doubts in the miracle, the Host (and those smaller ones for the rest of the congregation) ARE changed into the Body of Christ (body, blood and soul).

The key here is that the priest does not have a contrary intent. He may be thinking “Nothing’s going to happen, but I guess I’ll go through the motions again to keep the paycheck coming.” Despite his lack of belief in what the Church teaches will result from the actions, by the fact that he agrees to go through the consecration shows that in a minimal way he intends to do what the Church intends.

CEM5:

As for the 2nd larger Host being placed to the side: I don’t believe it was consecrated because, just as the bible, cloths, and other items are upon the Altar are not transubstantiated, so too not the 2nd larger Host.

I think this will depend on exactly what intent the priest has. If he is specifically intending to consecrate only the single host he sees in his hand, then all else would not be consecrated. If he intends to consecrate what is in front of him, but excluding the hosts on the end of the altar, then the second host would be consecrated. I suspect the second is more likely, and in the absence of a specific intent to exclude, any hosts in the usual area (the top of the altar) would be consecrated.

CEM5:

As for teaching, I believe in order for the “changing” to take place, it has to be within the context of the Mass. (And of course by a validly ordained Priest). Just anyone saying those words will not make the bread become the Body of Christ.

We have discussed this in several other threads, and never has anyone produced any evidence that validity of consecration is dependent on being in a mass.

CEM5:

P.S. As for Baptism, anyone can baptize another validly (conditionally) and only in extreme cases, and yes, intent is important on behalf of the one baptizing. The belief in the Trinity is a must along with saying the proper words of baptism and having water.

Intent here follows the same rules as I mentioned earlier. As mentioned by another poster above, even an atheist can baptize. Obviously he wouldn’t believe in the trinity, but the fact that he is uttering what he considers a superstitious incantation shows that he intends to do what the Church intends.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I recall being taught that intent does not matter - if the Priest correctly says the Traditional words of consecration, even if that Priest doubts in the miracle, the Host (and those smaller ones for the rest of the congregation) ARE changed into the Body of Christ (body, blood and soul). It is God who changes and makes the miracle - not the Priest.

What do you mean by “traditional words of consecration”. There is a formula to the words, but they are not meant to be exact word-for-word the same everywhere. Each tradition has a slightly different way of saying the words.

Also, its not magic hocus pocus. Saying the words alone does not make a Sacrament. As I have said, there are three things that make a Sacrament valid:

1. matter - the correct external/physical sign. ex. wheat bread and grape wine for the Eucharist, water for Baptism, Sacred Chrism for confirmation, etc.
2. form - proper words spoken by the proper minister(s). A lay person cannot consecrate the Eucharist, two men cannot get married. You cannot make a marriage vow “for as long as I love”. It should be “for as long as I live.” And you cannot baptize in the Name of Jesus only, or substitute the names of the Trinity for something else.
3. intent - to do as the Church wills with the Sacrament.

As for the 2nd larger Host being placed to the side: I don’t believe it was consecrated because, just as the bible, cloths, and other items are upon the Altar are not transubstantiated, so too not the 2nd larger Host.

Like I mentioned, the three things needed for a valid Sacrament. The Bible, cloth, microphone, etc. are not valid matter. They can never be transubstiantiated.

As for teaching, I believe in order for the “changing” to take place, it has to be within the context of the Mass. (And of course by a validly ordained Priest). Just anyone saying those words will not make the bread become the Body of Christ.

I already told you what is needed for a valid Sacrament. I too am a Catechist, trust me, I know what I’m saying.

The Eucharist can be consecrated outside of Mass, but the Church forbids it. Notice the Church has no power to say it cannot happen outside of Mass, but rather as a discipline forbids anyone under any circumstances to do it. Sacraments can be confected outside the proper rite. This is the illicit vs. invalid discussion. A Sacrament can still be valid even though its illicit. But illicit can carry penalties.

P.S. As for Baptism, anyone can baptize another validly (conditionally) and only in extreme cases, and yes, intent is important on behalf of the one baptizing. The belief in the Trinity is a must along with saying the proper words of baptism and having water.

No, the belief in the Trinity is not important. An atheist can Baptize, or a heretic (and some heretics do not believe in the Trinity). They do not need faith, only to do what the Church intends for baptism. It means they should intend the person to be baptized in Christ, even though if it means to them just doing a favor for that person.

However, whereas anyone can baptize another, it is not the same with the Consecration of the Host: only a validly ordained Priest/Bishop can consecrate the bread/host. And in that case, the Priest is only acting on behalf of the Lord who does the miraculous change of transubstantiation.

It is the Lord who acts in all Sacraments, not just the Eucharist. In fact, it is the Holy Spirit that changes the bread and wine, that is why we have the Epiklesis together with the Anaphora.

For example, the miracle of Lanciano, the monk celebrating Mass had doubts as to whether the host really became the true body and blood of our Lord, Christ. While he was saying the words of consecration (with doubt in his heart, not really believing), God changed the bread and the miraculous thing that occurred: this time the appearance was of actual flesh, which to this day still exists and has been tested and found to be the flesh of the heart.

But what happened in Lanciano is not transubstantiation. It wasn’t the Eucharist because the accidents were changed as well.

So, no matter that a priest would have doubts, if he says the proper words of consecration during Mass, the bread WILL be changed (transubstantiation).

Intent is different from doubt. Intent is doing what the Church wills, even if you don’t believe it, even if you don’t agree with it. Doubt has to do with faith. They are not the same thing.

 

[JM3]

What do you mean by “traditional words of consecration”. There is a formula to the words, but they are not meant to be exact word-for-word the same everywhere. Each tradition has a slightly different way of saying the words.

Also, its not magic hocus pocus. Saying the words alone does not make a Sacrament. As I have said, there are three things that make a Sacrament valid:

1. matter - the correct external/physical sign. ex. wheat bread and grape wine for the Eucharist, water for Baptism, Sacred Chrism for confirmation, etc.
2. form - proper words spoken by the proper minister(s). A lay person cannot consecrate the Eucharist, two men cannot get married. You cannot make a marriage vow “for as long as I love”. It should be “for as long as I live.” And you cannot baptize in the Name of Jesus only, or substitute the names of the Trinity for something else.
3. intent - to do as the Church wills with the Sacrament.

vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20040528_lineamenta-xi-assembly_en.html

When the Eucharist is Validly Celebrated

1. The sacrament is “the visible sign of a sacred reality and the visible form of an invisible grace.”[111] This definition of the Council of Trent is still valid, since it refers to the elements which constitute the Sacrament of the Eucharist: the minister, those who receive the Sacrament and the perceivable aspects.

As for the matter of the Sacrament, the Eucharist can only be celebrated with bread and wine, with some drops of water to express the union of the holy people with the sacrifice of Christ.[112] The water, however, is not strictly necessary for validity.[113] According to our Catholic faith, the form of the Sacrament is the words of consecration, which are essential and solely necessary.[114]

 

[japhy]

vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20040528_lineamenta-xi-assembly_en.html

As for the matter of the Sacrament, the Eucharist can only be celebrated with bread and wine, with some drops of water to express the union of the holy people with the sacrifice of Christ.[112] The water, however, is not strictly necessary for validity.[113] According to our Catholic faith, the form of the Sacrament is the words of consecration, which are essential and solely necessary.[114]

That means that the only necessary words are the words of consecration. You don’t need to say, for example, “On the night he was betrayed, he took bread…”

 

[Digitonomy]

According to our Catholic faith, the form of the Sacrament is the words of consecration, which are essential and solely necessary.

That is a good point that Constantine TG didn’t make clearly (since he wasn’t really addressing that aspect). As long as you have the proper matter and intent, the words of institution alone are both sufficient and necessary to achieve the proper form for transubstantiation. This is Church teaching as to the Latin rite Eucharistic Prayer. It follows that the same may be true as well for Eastern rites, although Eastern tradition does not identify a specific moment (right after the words of institution) when transubstantiation has taken place, and in at least one valid Eucharistic Prayer the words of institution are not explicit and so can’t be isolated from the rest of the prayer.

 

[ConstantineTG]

vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20040528_lineamenta-xi-assembly_en.html

When the Eucharist is Validly Celebrated

1. The sacrament is “the visible sign of a sacred reality and the visible form of an invisible grace.”[111] This definition of the Council of Trent is still valid, since it refers to the elements which constitute the Sacrament of the Eucharist: the minister, those who receive the Sacrament and the perceivable aspects.

As for the matter of the Sacrament, the Eucharist can only be celebrated with bread and wine, with some drops of water to express the union of the holy people with the sacrifice of Christ.[112] The water, however, is not strictly necessary for validity.[113] According to our Catholic faith, the form of the Sacrament is the words of consecration, which are essential and solely necessary.[114]

I should have emphasized on “alone”. Yes, the words are important in all Sacraments, not just the Eucharist. But the words alone does not make a Sacrament. It means the words must be said by a proper minister, using proper matter with the proper intent. 2 of 3 or 1 of 3 does not make a Sacrament. You must have all three. Therefore its wrong to conclude that just saying the words will consecrate the bread. There must be intent as well, among other things.