Minimum requirement for consecrating Hosts?

[ProVobis]

The Lord is immolated in an unbloody way in the Sacrifice of the Mass and He re-presents the sacrifice of the Cross and applies its salvific power at the moment when he becomes sacramentally present— through the words of consecration—as the spiritual food of the faithful, under the appearances of bread and wine.

Does this still hold true in the light of the fact that the Vatican has approved a rite, specifically the Assyrian Rite, which has no words of consecration, unless you consider the entire canon as words of the consecration?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

PV,

I’d let others more knowledgeable than I speak to that issue. Although, I note that it seems that only the Roman Rite was under consideration. . . and perhaps it is only speaking to that rite.

In any event. . . what do you think? Can you see what I mean when I wonder about the priest’s communion completing the sacrifice by way of perfecting, and perhaps not necessarily as a sine qua non of the sacrifice itself?

VC

 

[bpbasilphx]

Does this still hold true in the light of the fact that the Vatican has approved a rite, specifically the Assyrian Rite, which has no words of consecration, unless you consider the entire canon as words of the consecration?

I am looking for a direct link to the opinion by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, signed by the then Joseph Cardinarl Ratzinger, and approved by Venerable John Paul on this matter, but in the mean time, there’s this:

---

However, in 2001, after a study of this issue, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Cardinal Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, then being prefect) declared that this was a valid liturgy and that Roman Catholics in Iraq could receive the Eucharist in an Assyrian Church if unable to attend their own churches. This declaration was approved by Pope John Paul II.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Here is a link to a statement by the Holy See on the Assyrian LIturgy of Ss Addai and Mari:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html

Here is a pertinent passage:

**In the first place, the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is one of the most ancient Anaphoras, dating back to the time of the very early Church; it was composed and used with the clear intention of celebrating the Eucharist in full continuity with the Last Supper and according to the intention of the Church; its validity was never officially contested, neither in the Christian East nor in the Christian West.

Secondly, the Catholic Church recognises the Assyrian Church of the East as a true particular Church, built upon orthodox faith and apostolic succession. The Assyrian Church of the East has also preserved full Eucharistic faith in the presence of our Lord under the species of bread and wine and in the sacrificial character of the Eucharist. In the Assyrian Church of the East, though not in full communion with the Catholic Church, are thus to be found “true sacraments, and above all, by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist” (U.R., n. 15). Secondly, the Catholic Church recognises the Assyrian Church of the East as a true particular Church, built upon orthodox faith and apostolic succession. The Assyrian Church of the East has also preserved full Eucharistic faith in the presence of our Lord under the species of bread and wine and in the sacrificial character of the Eucharist. In the Assyrian Church of the East, though not in full communion with the Catholic Church, are thus to be found “true sacraments, and above all, by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist” (U.R., n. 15).

Finally, the words of Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in a coherent narrative way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession.**<<

Here is an excellent translation by the Assyrian Church:

web.archive.org/web/20061206003428/http://www.cired.org/liturgy/apostles.html

Here is the version used by their counterpart, the Chaldean Catholics, which contain the Words of Instution:

kaldu.org/14_Reformed_ChaldeanMass/ReformedMissal_Eng.html

Even without the Words of Instution, it is obvious that that this ancient Liturgy intends to accomplish the Mystery of the Eucharist? Consider these words from the Assyrian recension:

**We too, my Lord, your feeble, unworthy, and miserable servants who are gathered in your name and stand before you at this hour, and have received by tradition the example which is from you, while rejoicing, glorifying, exalting, and commemorating, perform this great, fearful, holy, life-giving, and divine Mystery of the passion, death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

And may there come, O my Lord, your Holy Spirit, and may he rest upon this oblation of your servants. May he bless it and hallow it, and may it be for us, O my Lord, for the pardon of debts, the forgiveness of sins, the great hope of resurrection from the dead, and for new life in the kingdom of heaven with all who have been well-pleasing before you.**<<

How else can can we possibly “perform the mystery of the passion, death, burial and resurrection” of Christ except by the Eucharistic Sacrifice? How can bread and wine be “for the pardon of debts, the forgiveness of sins, etc”, unless they have become the Body and Blood of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ?

 

[ProVobis]

In any event. . . what do you think? Can you see what I mean when I wonder about the priest’s communion completing the sacrifice by way of perfecting, and perhaps not necessarily as a sine qua non of the sacrifice itself?

VC

If you accept the Mass as a memorial and not a sacrifice, then, yes, the priest needs not to consume anything for validity.

But this isn’t quite stated here:

catholicism.about.com/od/worship/p/The_Mass.htm

The Mass: An Ancient Practice:
As far back as the Acts of the Apostles and Saint Paul’s epistles, we find descriptions of the Christian community gathering to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, the Eucharist. In the catacombs in Rome, the tombs of martyrs were used as altars for the celebration of the earliest forms of the Mass, making the tie between the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, its re-presentation in the Mass, and the strengthening of the faith of Christians explicit.

The Mass as “Unbloody Sacrifice”:
Very early on, the Church saw the Mass as a mystical reality in which the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross is renewed. Responding to Protestant sects who denied that the Eucharist is anything more than a memorial, the Council of Trent (1545-63) declared that “The same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross, is present and offered in an unbloody manner” in the Mass.

This does not mean, as some critics of Catholicism claim, that the Church teaches that, in the Mass, we sacrifice Christ again. Rather, the original sacrifice of Christ on the Cross is presented to us once more.

The Mass as a Re-presentation of the Crucifixion:
This re-presentation, as Fr. John Hardon notes in his Pocket Catholic Dictionary, “means that because Christ is really present in his humanity, in heaven and on the altar, he is capable now as he was on Good Friday of freely offering himself to the Father.” This understanding of the Mass hinges on the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. When the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, Christ is truly present on the altar. If the bread and wine remained merely symbols, the Mass could still be a memorial of the Last Supper, but not a re-presentation of the Crucifixion.

The Mass as Memorial and Sacred Banquet:
While the Mass is more than a memorial, it is still a memorial as well as a sacrifice. The Mass is the Church’s way of fulfilling Christ’s command, at the Last Supper, to “Do this in remembrance of Me.” As a memorial of the Last Supper, the Mass is also a sacred banquet, in which the faithful participate both through their presence and their role in the liturgy and through the reception of Holy Communion, the Body and Blood of Christ.

While it is not necessary to receive Communion in order to fulfill our Sunday obligation, the Church recommends frequent reception (along with sacramental Confession).

The Mass as an Application of the Merits of Christ:
“Christ,” Father Hardon writes, “won for the world all the graces it needs for salvation and sanctification.” In other words, in His Sacrifice on the Cross, Christ reversed Adam’s sin. In order for us to see the effects of that reversal, however, we must accept Christ’s offer of salvation and grow in sanctification. Our participation in the Mass, and our frequent reception of Holy Communion, brings us the grace that Christ merited for the world through His unselfish Sacrifice on the Cross.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

If you take the Mass as a memorial and not a sacrifice, then, yes, the priest needs not to consume anything for validity.

But this isn’t quite stated here:

Hi PV,

I’m not sure I follow. I certainly don’t take the Mass as merely a memorial. I’m speaking of the Mass as sacrifice. I’m not sure about the quote you provided. . . do you find an indication there that the priest’s communion is essential for the Sacrifice to have occurred?

VC

 

[ProVobis]

I’m not sure I follow. I certainly don’t take the Mass as merely a memorial. I’m speaking of the Mass as sacrifice. I’m not sure about the quote you provided. . . do you find an indication there that the priest’s communion is essential for the Sacrifice to have occurred?

VC

I’m having trouble with posting anything this morning so bear with me. I went back to include the source for the article. I tried to stay away from questionable sources (and there are many of them) which would only add to the confusion.

I’m not a theologian and I don’t want to spread any untruths or even risk it so I’ll step aside and let someone like the bishop or JR do the explanations. I’ll just accept that the Mass as a sacrifice and in order for the sacrifice to be completed, the priest needs to read the complete texts and consume both species. If anyone knows better than this, then please feel free to post and explain your reasonings.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Ok, thanks PV, fair enough!

VC

 

[newyorkcatholic]

Interestingly enough there is one approved rite of Mass which does not have these words of consecration.

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_16_38/ai_83667077/

I’d be careful with that article if I were you!

As I started reading, I felt something was wrong. This author seems to mock Catholic belief of decades ago. Is this guy Catholic? I didn’t like something about his flippant attitude.

Then I saw his name, and all was explained.

Now I need to find a reliable source to help me understand that Chaldean rite prayer.

 

[ProVobis]

I’d be careful with that article if I were you!

So noted. I had to go back and reread it and, oops, it was written by Fr. McBrien.

So much for throwing darts at all the returns from a search engine.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\There was so much focus on the words of consecration in those days that Catholic students were sometimes asked to consider what one must do if, let us say, a drunken priest stumbled into a bakery shop and pronounced the words over cases full of bread and pastry products. Some proposed that the local parish should purchase everything in the store and send it to a Catholic orphanage for reverent consumption. Others may have had different solutions, but few doubted that the bread and pastries were now the eucharistic body of Christ.\

**Examining this quote from the article mentioned above, I would find it hard to believe that this would be a valid consecration for at least two reasons:

1. Most of the bread and all the pastries would be invalid matter, hence no consecration.
2. A drunken priest clearly doesn’t have the mental capacity to have the requisite general intention of “doing what the Church does” by merely reciting the Words of Institution, especially if he were not vested for Mass and performing the usual manual acts and other ritually prescribed gestures.

And then–as the author suggests–the Words of Institution cannot be separated from the context of the Anaphora (Canon), much less the Mass as a whole.

Has anyone read the links to the Assyrian recension of their Liturgies?

I’ll give them here once again. Notice that the Liturgies of Theodore and Nestorius (called Second and Third Hallowings by Chaldean Catholics) DO contain the Words of Instutition.

web.archive.org/web/20061009222851/www.cired.org/liturgy/apostles.html

web.archive.org/web/20061009222854/www.cired.org/liturgy/theodore.html

web.archive.org/web/20061009222901/www.cired.org/liturgy/nestorius.html**

 

[Lujack]

So noted. I had to go back and reread it and, oops, it was written by Fr. McBrien.

So much for throwing darts at all the returns from a search engine.

That’s the very definition of an ad hominem attack. You have to be able to show why he was wrong in order to dismiss an article like that, not just say “Father McBrien! BAD! BADD! BADDD!”

 

[ProVobis]

That’s the very definition of an ad hominem attack. You have to be able to show why he was wrong in order to dismiss an article like that, not just say “Father McBrien! BAD! BADD! BADDD!”

You’re right. My bad.