Minimum requirement for consecrating Hosts?

[Pray4Life]

This is kind of a weird question (mine usually are ) but does a priest have to do the entire Liturgy of the Eucharist to consecrate Hosts? What would be the absolute bare minimum requirements for doing this? I know you need a validly ordained priest, and hosts that are, um, eligible (for lack of a matter term- made of the right ingredients and what have you), and I was taught that transubstantiation occurs at the words “This is My Body” and “This is the cup of My Blood.” Is that- along with the intent to actually confect the Eucharist (forgive me if that is not the proper term, I’m having trouble putting what I’m trying to say into words on this one for some reason)- really ALL that is necessary?

And all that said…if that is all that is actually needed, would such a thing ever be permissible to be done- only consecrating Hosts, not celebrating the rest of the Mass, or consecrating Hosts a second time in the same Mass? The only circumstance I can imagine for this would be if a priest did not consecrate enough Hosts in the first place for whatever reason, but I still can’t visualize anybody actually doing it. Even so, is there a rule or Church law or something against doing this outside of the Liturgy, or for a second time during the same Mass? (This is truly a hypothetical question here, not a “hypothetical” question, so if you need more examples of when or how such a thing could ever happen anyway, I’m afraid your imagination is probably as good as mine )

 

[ProVobis]

The priest must consume the consecrated host and wine as well as follow the liturgical text in order to validate the Mass.

 

[Digitonomy]

This is kind of a weird question (mine usually are ) but does a priest have to do the entire Liturgy of the Eucharist to consecrate Hosts? What would be the absolute bare minimum requirements for doing this? I know you need a validly ordained priest, and hosts that are, um, eligible (for lack of a matter term- made of the right ingredients and what have you), and I was taught that transubstantiation occurs at the words “This is My Body” and “This is the cup of My Blood.” Is that- along with the intent to actually confect the Eucharist (forgive me if that is not the proper term, I’m having trouble putting what I’m trying to say into words on this one for some reason)- really ALL that is necessary?

The three things required by a valid minister of a sacrament are form, matter, and intent. So yes, what you stated is all that is needed. And to answer a question you didn’t explicitly ask, I believe it is generally accepted that a priest can confect the Eucharist outside of a mass - doing so would be highly illicit, however.

Pray4Life:

And all that said…if that is all that is actually needed, would such a thing ever be permissible to be done- only consecrating Hosts, not celebrating the rest of the Mass…is there a rule or Church law or something against doing this outside of the Liturgy

Can. 927 It is absolutely forbidden, even in extreme urgent necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other or even both outside the eucharistic celebration.

Pray4Life:

…or consecrating Hosts a second time in the same Mass?

Funny you should mention this, as we discussed it just the other day.

 

[Pray4Life]

Thank you so much! That was exactly what I wanted to know.

 

[japhy]

The 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum says:
VIII. 1. Graviora delicta [serious & grave transgressions]

1. Graviora delicta against the sanctity of the Most August Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Eucharist are to be handled in accordance with the ‘Norms concerning graviora delicta reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’, namely:

a) taking away or retaining the consecrated species for sacrilegious ends, or the throwing them away;

b) the attempted celebration of the liturgical action of the Eucharistic Sacrifice or the simulation of the same;

c) the forbidden concelebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice with ministers of Ecclesial Communities that do not have the apostolic succession nor acknowledge the sacramental dignity of priestly Ordination;

d) the consecration for sacrilegious ends of one matter without the other in the celebration of the Eucharist or even of both outside the celebration of the Eucharist.
I don’t know if that’s talking about a sacrilegious consecration of both the bread and wine outside of the Mass, but the point remains that the Eucharist is meant to be consecrated at Mass.

 

[ProVobis]

and I was taught that transubstantiation occurs at the words “This is My Body” and “This is the cup of My Blood.” Is that- along with the intent to actually confect the Eucharist (forgive me if that is not the proper term, I’m having trouble putting what I’m trying to say into words on this one for some reason)- really ALL that is necessary?

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/

In the end, there are no magic words. It is the church’s whole eucharistic prayer that makes Christ really and truly present for us in holy Communion.

 

[numealinesimpet]

The 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum says:
VIII. 1. Graviora delicta [serious & grave transgressions]

1. Graviora delicta against the sanctity of the Most August Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Eucharist are to be handled in accordance with the ‘Norms concerning graviora delicta reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’, namely:

a) taking away or retaining the consecrated species for sacrilegious ends, or the throwing them away;

b) the attempted celebration of the liturgical action of the Eucharistic Sacrifice or the simulation of the same;

c) the forbidden concelebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice with ministers of Ecclesial Communities that do not have the apostolic succession nor acknowledge the sacramental dignity of priestly Ordination;

d) the consecration for sacrilegious ends of one matter without the other in the celebration of the Eucharist or even of both outside the celebration of the Eucharist.
I don’t know if that’s talking about a sacrilegious consecration of both the bread and wine outside of the Mass, but the point remains that the Eucharist is meant to be consecrated at Mass.

Those are the “normal” rules. But it is a very basic precept of Canon Law that: “Necessity is not subject to Positive Law” (Positive Law being the collection of printed laws). Priests in concentration camps have scrounged a thimbleful of wine from “?somewhere!”, and a morsel of bread, and then pronounced those minimum words you mentioned on the first posting, Pray4Life. That is a valid Mass, and licit ‘in the circumstances’. But it would be a grave sin for a priest to do this out of an ‘emergency’ situation.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\ This is kind of a weird question (mine usually are ) but does a priest have to do the entire Liturgy of the Eucharist to consecrate Hosts?\

**Yes. The ENTIRE MASS must be celebrated. Should the priest be taken ill or (worse yet) die during the celebration, another priest must finish it.

I know of several examples of the priest being taken ill, and another priest having to continue the Liturgy.

Regarding the Mass without “words of institution”**

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

[FindArticles.com | CBSi](FindArticles.com | CBSi)

**This is dealing with an entirely different case. The Assyrian recension of the Liturgy of Ss Addai and Mari does not contain the Words of Instutiton. But their counterpart, the Chaldean Catholics, DO say them.

If you read this liturgy, it is clear that Assyrian Priests intend to accomplish the Mystery (or in Latin terminology, confect) the Eucharist.**

 

[MatthewBerkeley]

I believe it is generally accepted that a priest can confect the Eucharist outside of a mass - doing so would be highly illicit, however.

.

Isn’t the Offering of the bread and wine subject to the acceptance of God, though, and so if attempted in an illicit scenario, even if all the other requirements are there, surely God must have a say in whether it’s a valid offering, and so Transubstantiation isn’t a given if attempted outside a Mass setting? What’s the official view on that? Otherwise the Consecration formula comes across as something of a magic formula instead of an offering to God.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Isn’t the Offering of the bread and wine subject to the acceptance of God, though, and so if attempted in an illicit scenario, even if all the other requirements are there, surely God must have a say in whether it’s a valid offering, and so Transubstantiation isn’t a given if attempted outside a Mass setting? What’s the official view on that? Otherwise the Consecration formula comes across as something of a magic formula instead of an offering to God.

I don’t think it’s a question of magic words. God grants powers, under certain conditions, and also free will. He lets us build nuclear bombs, but won’t necessarily stop us using one – to do so would require a special miracle. I have not heard any reputable theologian who states that God rescinds the power of the priest to consecrate. If such were so, it would possibly be a relief, but I don’t think we are given any grounds for expecting it.

 

[Digitonomy]

Isn’t the Offering of the bread and wine subject to the acceptance of God, though, and so if attempted in an illicit scenario, even if all the other requirements are there, surely God must have a say in whether it’s a valid offering, and so Transubstantiation isn’t a given if attempted outside a Mass setting? What’s the official view on that?

I have to agree with what numealinesimpet (!) said. I can’t quote chapter and verse, but when form, matter, and intent are satisfied, it is accepted by the Church that a valid minister has performed a sacrament. Certainly we can come up with highly inappropriate situations for sacraments - say, a prostitute baptizing with her bathwater. But if the conditions are met, I don’t know of any reason to doubt that a sacrament has taken place.

MatthewBerkeley:

Otherwise the Consecration formula comes across as something of a magic formula instead of an offering to God.

However poorly it is done, even if outside a mass, a consecration is always an offering, a Eucharistic sacrifice, otherwise the priest doesn’t intend what the Church intends.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

The priest must consume the consecrated host and wine as well as follow the liturgical text in order to validate the Mass.

Pro,

I’ve been trying to track down the source for this. Do you have anything that could shed some light? I’ve not found anything that quite says that the mass is invalid without the Priest’s communion (although it is highly, highly illicit).

Thanks,
Vc

 

[ProVobis]

Pro,

I’ve been trying to track down the source for this. Do you have anything that could shed some light? I’ve not found anything that quite says that the mass is invalid without the Priest’s communion (although it is highly, highly illicit).

Thanks,
Vc

How’s implied validity?

ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur133.htm

The sacrifice is completed only after the presiding celebrant has consumed both species.

I believe its roots are in the Old Testament where the priest would consume part of the victim to make his sacrifice complete. But I’m too exhausted to do another search right now.

 

[OraLabora]

I believe it is generally accepted that a priest can confect the Eucharist outside of a mass - doing so would be highly illicit, however.

He can do it in a private Mass though, by himself.

It was done all the time in monasteries before concelebration was allowed. There would be a conventual Mass for the community and many private Masses in side chapels.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

How’s implied validity?

ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur133.htm

Thanks PV.

I had already seen this answer from Fr.Mcnamara before. I wish we could find something more authoritative or explicit. For instance, he goes on to say that

While Christ’s action in the Mass would not be affected by the priest’s failure to receive Communion, it would impinge on the integrity of the celebration as an act of the Church.

It gives me pause, because something belonging to the integrity could be distinguished from something belonging to the essence. See, for instance the Catholic Encyclopedia on this point

the Communion of the priest is not the sacrifice, but only the completion of, and participation in, the sacrifice, it belongs therefore not to the essence, but to the integrity of the sacrifice.

That distinction seems similar to a distinction I’ve seen made regarding Satisfaction as a part of the Sacrament of Penance belonging to the integrity but not the essence of the sacrament, i.e. one’s sins are absolved prior to the completion of the satisfaction, or even absent it. Thus satisfaction is not essential to the sacrament, but is integral because it accomplishes a secondary effect.

Of course we don’t have a one-to-one correspondence with the Mass, since the Mass isn’t a sacrament. But it makes me wonder. We know that the sacrifice is accomplished by the dual consecration. . .my reading of “completing the sacrifice” is that the communion perfects the sacrifice (which has already been accomplished). I’m cautious about saying that without the priest’s communion the Mass isn’t efficacious. Do you see what I am getting at?

If you can help shed some light on it, or point me to some other sources please let me know.

Thanks,
VC

 

[ProVobis]

Thanks PV.
But it makes me wonder. We know that the sacrifice is accomplished by the dual consecration. . .my reading of “completing the sacrifice” is that the communion perfects the sacrifice (which has already been accomplished). I’m cautious about saying that without the priest’s communion the Mass isn’t efficacious. Do you see what I am getting at?

If you can help shed some light on it, or point me to some other sources please let me know.

I’m not quite sure if that’s worded properly but I think I see your point.

But is the sacrifice accomplished at the words of consecration or is it shortly after with the prayers of EP1 or the 1962 Canon instead of with the actual burning of the (now consecrated) Victim? Or is it commenced right after the consecration and completed with the consumption of bits of the sacrifice offered? I’m trying to see this in the light of Old Testament sacrifices but I don’t know if it’s correct. Perhaps some master theologian can set us straight here.

By the way, I’m not implying that the other EPs are invalid. It’s just that EP1 seems to convey the true nature of sacrifices done by the priestly order of Malchisedech better.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

But is the sacrifice accomplished at the words of consecration or is it shortly after with the prayers of EP1 or the 1962 Canon instead of with the actual burning of the (now consecrated) Victim? Or is it commenced right after the consecration and completed with the consumption of bits of the sacrifice offered? I’m trying to see this in the light of Old Testament sacrifices but I don’t know if it’s correct. Perhaps some master theologian can set us straight here.

See Mysterium Fidei:

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.

(emphasis mine).

So, you can see why I’m cautious about saying that without the priest’s communion there is no Mass.

VC

 

[ProVobis]

See Mysterium Fidei:

Wasn’t there a further clarification by Paul VI on this?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I wasn’t aware of one. Do you recall what it might have been?

VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

PV,

Some more food for thought, from the Synod of Bishops General Assembly in 2004, on the Eucharist, speaking about the consecration:

At this moment, indeed, the sacramental Sacrifice is accomplished.

and which footnotes GIRM 79,d:

Institution narrative and consecration: In which, by means of words and actions of Christ, the Sacrifice is carried out

VC