Consecration of Eucharist outside of Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter CEM5
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CEM5

Guest
There was discussion on another thread where a poster said that the Eucharist could be consecrated outside of the actual Mass.

I would like to state that this information presented was incorrect and provide Canon law from the Church:

intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P39.HTM

Canon 927 clearly states that “It is absolutely forbidden, even in extreme urgent necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other or even both outside the eucharistic celebration.” The “Eucharistic celebration” is the Mass!

It was also stated that the Miracle of Lanciano where the Host, when consecrated by a Priest who doubted the miracle of Transubstantiation, was changed into actual human heart cells, and the wine was changed into actual human blood, that this was not reallyTransubstantiation because the “accidents” of appearance was changed.

As for the Miracle of Lanciano: It IS transubstantiation, (The Real Presence), and not only one miracle took place, but TWO because not only was the substance changed but the “accidents” have also changed.

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

I feel it is important to present facts since so many people read posts and when there is contradicting information, it can be misleading and confusing for those looking for truth.

God bless,

CEM 🙂
 
CEM5 said:
It was also stated that the Miracle of Lanciano where the Host, when consecrated by a Priest who doubted the miracle of Transubstantiation, was changed into actual human heart cells, and the wine was changed into actual human blood, that this was not reallyTransubstantiation because the “accidents” of appearance was changed.

As for the Miracle of Lanciano: It IS transubstantiation, (The Real Presence), and not only one miracle took place, but TWO because not only was the substance changed but the “accidents” have also changed.

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

I feel it is important to present facts since so many people read posts and when there is contradicting information, it can be misleading and confusing for those looking for truth.

God bless,

CEM 🙂
Click to expand...
Yes, presuming transubstantiation occurred, it was accompanied by an event of transformation.

I know no reason to believe transubstantiation did not occur – I only mention it because by *transformation *we commonly mean a change of form without a change of substance eg a caterpillar into a butterfly, or a human infant into a human adult.

tee
 
“forbidden” means not allowed, so does that mean the substance in consecrated even though it is illicit?
 
PLAT said:
“forbidden” means not allowed, so does that mean the substance in consecrated even though it is illicit?
Click to expand...
I think that the fact that it is forbidden means that it can be done. Otherwise it would say ‘attempt to consecrate’.
 
The Miracle at Lanciano is not transubstantiation. Since the accidents became flesh and blood, that is not what transubstantiation means. Transubstantiation means the the substance changes while the accidents remain. The accidents obviously did not remain bread and wine.

As for consecration, yes, it is possible to consecrate outside of Mass. If it wasn’t, why forbid it? The Church would have outright said it was invalid. Also, its quite possible that during the first few years of Christianity, consecration happens outside of a Liturgical service as the Apostles were still forming the Church. I could be wrong, but if you base on the reading on the Road to Emmaus, it was a very simplistic Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharist compared to what we have today or even 1000 years ago.
 
A Mass can be complete even though short and celebrated outside a church (on an approved altar stone, etc.). Airport Masses at O’Hare usually lasted 5 to 7 minutes, including a homily, and the Catholic airport chaplains never left anything out. So why would a priest consecrate outside of Mass, when it’s just as quick to do it inside Mass?

And if you don’t expect to have time, why wouldn’t a priest just go get previously consecrated Hosts and/or Precious Blood, and a pyx and/or special flask?

Also, an approved Mass format doesn’t have to be very elaborate to be valid and licit; it just has to have been approved by the Church. On the Road to Emmaus, Jesus as the Church’s Head was certainly in a position to authorize Himself. 🙂
 
Mintaka said:
A Mass can be complete even though short and celebrated outside a church (on an approved altar stone, etc.). Airport Masses at O’Hare usually lasted 5 to 7 minutes, including a homily, and the Catholic airport chaplains never left anything out. So why would a priest consecrate outside of Mass, when it’s just as quick to do it inside Mass?

And if you don’t expect to have time, why wouldn’t a priest just go get previously consecrated Hosts and/or Precious Blood, and a pyx and/or special flask?

Also, an approved Mass format doesn’t have to be very elaborate to be valid and licit; it just has to have been approved by the Church. On the Road to Emmaus, Jesus as the Church’s Head was certainly in a position to authorize Himself. 🙂
Click to expand...
I know a Mass can be quick, but 5-7 minutes? With a homily? It takes at least 5 minutes to do the 2 readings and the psalm.
 
Phemie said:
I know a Mass can be quick, but 5-7 minutes? With a homily? It takes at least 5 minutes to do the 2 readings and the psalm.
Click to expand...
Maybe weekday Mass with one reading. And definitely without a Homily. But the priest has to be speaking really fast to say the entire Mass in that time. And of course all optional parts out.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Maybe weekday Mass with one reading. And definitely without a Homily. But the priest has to be speaking really fast to say the entire Mass in that time. And of course all optional parts out.
Click to expand...
Weekday Masses have 2 readings, NT & Gospel + psalm. The only optional parts are the Gloria, the Creed and the Sign of Peace.
 
The Miracle at Lanciano is not transubstantiation. Since the accidents became flesh and blood, that is not what transubstantiation means. Transubstantiation means the the substance changes while the accidents remain. The accidents obviously did not remain bread and wine.
Click to expand...
This would be true if only the corpus and sanguis were involved. However* anima* and divinitas are also part of the equation, as in trans+sub+stare (across+under+exists). However, some theologian may prove me wrong.
 
ProVobis said:
This would be true if only the corpus and sanguis were involved. However* anima* and divinitas are also part of the equation, as in trans+sub+stare (across+under+exists). However, some theologian may prove me wrong.
Click to expand...
My understanding of it is that the accidents remain. If everything changes including the accidents, then its called something else.
 
ConstantineTG said:
My understanding of it is that the accidents remain. If everything changes including the accidents, then its called something else.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is called a double miracle! :)Your own words say “everything changes” that “everything” includes substance and appearance.

The understanding of the Church is that not only DID transubstantiation occur, but an ADDITIONAL miracle where not only the bread and wine became the REAL PRESENCE, (Transubstantiation), but additionally, the miralce of the appearance ALSO changed. This is a twofold miracle!

The “Real Presence” is the term referring to Christ’s actual presence in the elements of the bread and the wine that have been transubstantiated. That is why we worship the Consecrated Host, because it IS the Real Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.

The Church does not subtract the actual miracle of the Real Presence (recall that the bread and wine were consecrated!) just because of a second miracle occuring. The miracle of Lanciano is just one of many, what the Church calls, and officially recognizes, as Eucharistic Miracles. The Host and Wine were consecrated (thus became the Real Presence) at Lanciano. The substance changed AND the appearance changed. Two miracles, not just one.

Paragraph 1376 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states,

The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation (CCC, 1376).

blessings,
CEM
 
ProVobis said:
This would be true if only the corpus and sanguis were involved. However* anima* and divinitas are also part of the equation, as in trans+sub+stare (across+under+exists). However, some theologian may prove me wrong.
Click to expand...
hi ProVobis,

I believe you got it right! 🙂

As the Church teaches, transubstantiation is more than just the bread becoming the body and blood of Christ: It is the Real Presence of Jesus wholly there in Body, Blood, Soul and Divinty, and this occurs at the Consecration.

A true miracle each time.

Extraordinary Eucharistic miracles do occur, and I read that the average is about every 50 years (no idea why that number! 🤷 ) but those “extra” miracles do not negate the actual consecration (therefore the Transubstantiation).

These extra miracles involving the Eucharist are actually for the faithful, since disbelievers will always try to negate God’s miracles.

blessings,
CEM
 
From the 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum:

“[60.] In the celebration of Mass, the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist are intimately connected to one another, and form one single act of worship. For this reason it is not licit to separate one of these parts from the other and celebrate them at different times or places.[135] Nor is it licit to carry out the individual parts of Holy Mass at different times of the same day.”

In the 1963 Sacrosanctum Concilium (vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html ):

“56. The two parts which, in a certain sense, go to make up the Mass, namely, the liturgy of the word and the eucharistic liturgy, are so closely connected with each other that they form but one single act of worship. Accordingly this sacred Synod strongly urges pastors of souls that, when instructing the faithful, they insistently teach them to take their part in the entire Mass, especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top