Is a Host Consecrated if not on the altar during consecration?

[distracted]

If a host is, for instance, somewhere else in the Church, does it get consecrated during Mass?

Just wondering. thanks.

 

[ProVobis]

I believe only the unexposed hosts on the altar would be consecrated.

 

[twf]

It is the priest’s intention to consecrate only the hosts on the altar. Otherwise all the hosts stored in the sacristry would be consecrated too!

 

[Joannm]

It is the priest’s intention to consecrate only the hosts on the altar. Otherwise all the hosts stored in the sacristry would be consecrated too!

If you happened to see the Midnight Mass at St. Peter’s in ROme, during the consecrations there were priests on either side of the altar holding ciboria. All those hosts were consecrated and distributed during communion. I know because my friend was one of those priests. It was the pope’s intention to consecrate them all. At a huge diocesan mass in a local stadium several years ago, five tables of cibora were on the floor level not on the raised platform where the altar was placed. All those hosts were consecrated and distributed. At large gatherings like the these you cannot fit all the hosts on the altar.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

This is actually a point of some … er … not necessarily dispute but perhaps murkiness. Fr. Z posted on it on his blog within the last few weeks. Basically, Joanm is right that the intention of the priest is tantamount, so it doesn’t seem that he necessarily needs to see the hosts. But on the other hand, it seems that the category of intention needs some sort of reasonable limit that may, indeed, be tied to physical proximity or apprehension - otherwise what logical barrier would stop a priest from saying he “intended” to also consecrate a host in the residence of a home-bound parishioner, etc? So there is no clear cut definition of exactly what can get consecrated as far as those spatial limits go, but if we’re talking about reasonable Mass set-ups, so long as the priest intends to consecrate all the hosts in the various ciboria that have been brought to the altar (or altar area in the event of a very large Mass), they all get consecrated.

 

[AJV]

It is the priest’s intention to consecrate only the hosts on the altar. Otherwise all the hosts stored in the sacristry would be consecrated too!

I don’t think that is correct. There must be a “moral union”, such it is more or less clear that the word “This” refers to. That is why a priest may even consecrate hosts placed on another table in front of the altar, or something like that, if he has the intention, but cannot “remote consecrate” species in the sacristy cupboard.

 

[distracted]

Thanks for the answers, even though I am still a little confused.

I never thought about the intent issue… I thought all that was necessary to consecrate was the words of consecration (I wasn’t catechized very well when growing up, so i have some learning to do…).

So - If there is an exposed, un-consecrated host in the Church (say, 4 instance, one fell from the table @ the back of the Church before Mass), it would be consecrated? Or would God keep it from being consecrated?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

The priest is presumably intending to consecrate all the hosts he perceives to be before him on/around the altar - I think we can reasonably exclude his intention covering “…and any hosts that happen to be lying about the nave and vestibule.” So no, the host lying around at the back of church would not be consecrated.

 

[distracted]

So no, the host lying around at the back of church would not be consecrated.

What if someone picked it up, held onto it during Mass and had desire for it to be consecrated - so (for instance), he wouldn’t have to go up to Communion (say he was an invalid)…?

Main reason i ask is because it seems to me that if a host is in Church + the words of consecration are said, that should = consecration (in my way of looking at things).

 

[Sure]

What if someone picked it up, held onto it during Mass and had desire for it to be consecrated - so (for instance), he wouldn’t have to go up to Communion (say he was an invalid)…?

Main reason i ask is because it seems to me that if a host is in Church + the words of consecration are said, that should = consecration (in my way of looking at things).

The intention of the potential communicant is irrelevant. The priest must intend to consecrate the host(s). If someone has bread (valid matter) in his pocket, it does not become consecrated just because it is in the vicinity of a priest saying the words of consecration. Intent of the priest must always be there.

 

[FrRJBoyd]

I don’t think that is correct. There must be a “moral union”, such it is more or less clear that the word “This” refers to. That is why a priest may even consecrate hosts placed on another table in front of the altar, or something like that, if he has the intention, but cannot “remote consecrate” species in the sacristy cupboard.

You are correct; there must be a moral union between the priest and the host. This is a standard requisite in sacramental theology, and is why the virtual presence of a priest over the phone does not suffice for the sacrament of confession. As a general rule, I think if the priest needs to change hoc to *illud *in the words of consecration, something is wrong.

God bless,

Fr. Boyd

 

[kleary]

If you happened to see the Midnight Mass at St. Peter’s in ROme, during the consecrations there were priests on either side of the altar holding ciboria. All those hosts were consecrated and distributed during communion. I know because my friend was one of those priests. It was the pope’s intention to consecrate them all. At a huge diocesan mass in a local stadium several years ago, five tables of cibora were on the floor level not on the raised platform where the altar was placed. All those hosts were consecrated and distributed. At large gatherings like the these you cannot fit all the hosts on the altar.

Actually, it was the priests holding the ciboria who consesrated them- they were concelebrating and said the words of consecration themselves with the Holy Father.

Ken

 

[kleary]

If a host is, for instance, somewhere else in the Church, does it get consecrated during Mass?

Just wondering. thanks.

I always was taught that the ciboria must be uncovered and on the corporal in order for the consecration to take place and the priest must intend to do what the Church does. Items that are not on the corporal are not consecrated by the priest.

If anyone else has a church document to dispute this please let him step forward. I am glad I attend the EF where there is no confusion and concelebration is forbidden that could lead to confusion as we see here.

Ken

 

[FrRJBoyd]

Actually, it was the priests holding the ciboria who consesrated them- they were concelebrating and said the words of consecration themselves with the Holy Father.

Ken

This really has not been defined. In fact, we really do need to develop the theology of concelebration a bit more than we have. We know it has great symbolic value, and is particularly recommended for ordinations and the Chrism Mass and the like. However, are the general and special Mass fruits equivalent if two priests concelebrate Mass vs. if two priests offer their own separate Masses? Since a priest can accept a stipend for a concelebrated Mass, perhaps the Church is implying that the special Mass fruit is the same, but what of the general Mass fruit, by which the entire world is benefited? I really prefer to say a Mass myself rather than concelebrate (which, according to the GIRM, it is within a priest’s right to choose to offer a separate Mass rather than concelebrate).

 

[AJV]

I always was taught that the ciboria must be uncovered and on the corporal in order for the consecration to take place and the priest must intend to do what the Church does.

You can look in a pre-conciliar book of Moral Theology which will tell you this is not the case.

Non tamen esse necessarium, ut materia videatur vel tangatur, aut sonoverborum quasi feriatur, sed sufficere quod per pronomen hoc et hic sit demonstrabilis, sive in se, sive in alio tanquam continente ordinario: **et sic valide consecrantur Hostias in cumulo sub aliis latentes, aut in ciborio vel pixide clausae **: juxta Rubricas tamen debet pixis Hostias consecrandas continens aperiri in ipsa consecratione, sicut in prima oblatione.

 

[AJV]

I always was taught that the ciboria must be uncovered and on the corporal in order for the consecration to take place and the priest must intend to do what the Church does.

You can look in a pre-conciliar book of Moral Theology which will tell you this is not the case.

Non tamen esse necessarium, ut materia videatur vel tangatur, aut sonoverborum quasi feriatur, sed sufficere quod per pronomen hoc et hic sit demonstrabilis, sive in se, sive in alio tanquam continente ordinario: **et sic valide consecrantur Hostias in cumulo sub aliis latentes, aut in ciborio vel pixide clausae **: juxta Rubricas tamen debet pixis Hostias consecrandas continens aperiri in ipsa consecratione, sicut in prima oblatione.

You can also see St. Aphonsus’ Moral Theology, Vol. VI, Dub. V which covers it in some detail.

While it does not have to be on the corporal and uncovered, that does mean that every instance where it is covered and outside the corporal it is consecrated. For example, if it is locked up in the tabernacle it is not…but it is is on the other side of the missal it may be depending on the intention.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I had the great honor of being an "extraordinary minister of the Holy Eucharist years ago when Pope John Paul II came to the United States. This was before I became a deacon in 1991. There were about 500,000 to 700,000 + people at this mass. We (the Eucharistic ministers) were all given a ceramic ciborium (I acknowledge that now, them must be of a precious metal) and I was about 175 feet from the altar where the Pope was saying mass. We were instructed to then proceed to different stations where we distributed Holy Communion. So, no, the hosts do not have to be on the altar to be consecrated. All that is necessary is for the intention of the celebrant to consecrate, in this case the Pope. We were allowed to keep these ciborium as a memento of the mass. Mine is kept in a special place in my home.
Deacon Ed B

 

[distracted]

So, no, the hosts do not have to be on the altar to be consecrated. All that is necessary is for the intention of the celebrant to consecrate, in this case the Pope.

Thank you so much for this testimony…

It is odd that there are conflicting ideas & theories about whether the host is consecrated when not on the corporal (& i guess the corporal is the altar?? I am a cradle Catholic but was virtually uncatechized until about 10 yrs ago when i began to delve into Chruch history, etc…)…

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

the corporal is the altar??

The corporal is a square white cloth, placed on top of the altar cloth. It is on this that the sacred vessels are placed during the mass.
Deacon Ed B

 

[Joannm]

Actually, it was the priests holding the ciboria who consesrated them- they were concelebrating and said the words of consecration themselves with the Holy Father.

Ken

Well what about the second scenario I posted? No priests were holding the ciboria.