Does transubstantiation require that the priest touch the bread and the wine, or that he focuses his attention on it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Donald.n.riggs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Donald.n.riggs

Guest
Does transubstantiation require that the priest physically touch the host and the wine, or does it require that he focus his attention on the host and the wine? How close must the priest be to the host and the wine at the time of transubstantiation?
 
Last edited:
Donald.n.riggs said:
it require that he focus his attention on the host and the wine?
Click to expand...
He does. If you were, for example, to put a host under the altar cloth and Father were to celebrate Mass on that altar, that hidden host would not become Christ because the priest didn’t intend to consecrate that host.
 
He doesn’t put his fingers in the wine or touch each host during the blessing. He holds up the chalice and one host. He may prepare multiple chalices, and parcel hosts for multiple people to serve. So touching it must not be critical. He does consume his own portion of course and touches it in that way.
 
Our Lord held the bread and the chalice when blessing it. The priest or bishop, acting in persona Christi, do the same. The alteration in substance occurs by the power of the Holy Spirit.
 
If you think about it, did Jesus touch the wine, when HE consecrated it into HIS blood?
Of course HE did not, the wine was contained in the cup. Which HE held up.
But it turned the wine into HIS blood nonetheless.
So touching, is not as important as are the words, the intent and the presence.
The Priest, the bread and the wine. All come together in the most beautiful miracle of all time.
Peace!!!
 
Last edited:
There are four requirements for valid consecration:
  1. Valid form
  2. Valid matter
  3. Ordained priest
  4. Intention of the priest
 
Others have pointed out the four requirements.

While intention is certainly one of them, I’ve heard that it’s “the valid form” that actually causes the transformation.

Just like Jesus is the word made flesh, and God “spoke” the universe into existence, God makes truth from His words and speech. It’s the words that cause the transformation. It’s not just a requirement that needs to be met, the words of Jesus themselves “this is my body” make the consecration true. It’s something He declared verbally to be true, so it became true in a real sense.

Hope that makes sense.
 
It comes down to intention.

In my “baby Catholic” days, I asked the priest what prevented the hosts, let’s say, on a credence table at the side of the sanctuary — just kept there, perhaps for later use, without being expressly put out for that Mass — from becoming the Body of Christ. He told me that intention was the pivotal factor. If he didn’t intend to consecrate them, then they weren’t consecrated. That’s not a difficult concept to understand.

Transubstantiation doesn’t act like a low-powered radio transmitter, “zapping” everything within a certain radius that happens to be bread and wine.
 
Last edited:
  1. touch the bread and wine? No
  2. focus his attention on them? No
  3. how close? In his immediate proximity and the bread and wine he intents to be changed.
 
tafan2 said:
how close? In his immediate proximity and the bread and wine he intents to be changed.
Click to expand...
If the pope can bless his listeners/viewers at a distance via live radio or television, then, though perhaps not yet licit, logically it would seem possible for a priest at Mass in one place to transubstantiate bread and wine at a distant place via a live two-way television link/video conferencing/video chat.
 
Last edited:
Fauken said:
He does. If you were, for example, to put a host under the altar cloth and Father were to celebrate Mass on that altar, that hidden host would not become Christ because the priest didn’t intend to consecrate that host.
Click to expand...
🤦‍♂️

“Intent” does not require “touch”, though, which is the question that was asked. (I’m assuming that the OP is wondering whether a Mass in which everyone touched only their own host and held onto it, would result in valid Eucharist, as a means of allowing public Mass in the current environment.)

So… the standard is “intent”. It would be odd to think that “intent” might be construed to mean that a priest could think to himself “whatever the folks are holding… that’s what I intend to consecrate”… 🤔
tafan2 said:
how close? In his immediate proximity and the bread and wine he intents to be changed.
Click to expand...
Nope. Not “proximity”. Just “intent.” (I remember hearing a priest advise seminarians that they might consider placing all the hosts and chalices they intended to consecrate on the corporal on the altar, so that his “intent” (even implied and ongoing) might be “whatever I’ve placed on the corporal”.
Todd_Easton said:
If the pope can bless his listeners/viewers at a distance via live radio or television, then, though perhaps not yet licit, logically it would seem possible for a priest at Mass in one place to transubstantiate bread and wine at a distant place via a live two-way television link/video conferencing/video chat.
Click to expand...
A blessing isn’t a sacrament. 😉
 
Donald.n.riggs said:
Does transubstantiation require that the priest physically touch the host
Click to expand...
The priest will have one host in hands during the words of consecration but there may be others that are also consecrated which he will not physically touch.
Donald.n.riggs said:
and the wine
Click to expand...
He holds the chalice when he says the words of consecration over the wine but he does not physically touch the wine.

For the Eucharist to be confected he must be a validly ordained priest. We should generally assume that the priest on the altar is.

He must use valid matter and again without contrary evidence we should have trust that our priests are using the proper matter.

The priest must use the correct form, which is the words he says, and he should according to the old saying, do the red and say the black, i.e. he should use the exact words found in the Missal.

It is also important that the priest has the correct intent and I think this is what your question is really about. The priest has to intend that bread and wine are to be consecrated. Normally, this would be what is on the altar but if it were some major event with huge numbers of communicants ciboria with hosts could be on a table. The elements are consecrated that the priests intends should be consecrated.

Whilst, of course, only a priest can do this and in doing so he acts in persona Christi, it is the Holy Spirit that brings about transubstantiation and not the priest.
 
Intent should be of primary concern here, as I see it.

Christ did not see nor touch Lazarus while he was in the tomb but spoke to him through the rock and cloth. His intent was what gave Lazarus life. If Christ had spoken before departure he also could have raised him up like He did in the account with the Centurion in Matthew 8; v13 “And Jesus said to the centurion, “You may go; as you have believed, let it be done for you.” And at that very hour [his] servant was healed.”

Also, we know that if a priest is a sinner that it does not negate the sacrifice for it is Christ who is acting in the vessel, albeit in that case a vessel not worthy. So it would be more the intent of the Christ who he is acting in the person of.
 
It sounds like the consensus here would support communion over the internet, provided there is host, wine, and consecrated vessels available and set up properly with each Catholic participant…
 
Donald.n.riggs said:
It sounds like the consensus here would support communion over the internet, provided there is host, wine, and consecrated vessels available and set up properly with each Catholic participant…
Click to expand...
No. That isn’t the consensus. A priest’s intent can’t be “anyone, anywhere, who happens to be watching this Mass on the 'net”.

(Edited to add: notice, at the very least, that the faithful receive the Eucharist from the minister(s) of the Eucharist, and do not self-communicate. That, in itself, defeats the claim you’re attempting to make. I kinda figured that this was where you were trying to go, here.)
 
Last edited:
Once I heard two priests explaining this to some teens.

Basically, they said there is no need to doubt transubstantiation happens when bread and wine are uncovered over the altar and the priest wills to turn them into the body and blood of Our Lord during the Consecration.
 
No, that’s not correct. For the administration of a sacrament there must be proximity. A priest offering Mass could if he were being perverse intend to consecrate all the bread in the bakery across the road. It will not happen. When the clergy administer the sacraments they must be in close physical proximity to the matter and the recipient of the sacrament.
 
Consecration is not completely dependent upon the actions of the priest. God must accept the gifts and through the action of His Spirit make them holy. God will not accept a perverse intent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top