One question on eucharist

[apostolicfaith]

I was viewing a thread on the idea of EMHC needed or not.

Somehow, the issue arose of alcoholic priests not consuming the precious blood. I am not focusing on these statements but another one that was made.

There were a few individuals who said that without the priest consuming both species, there would be no Eucharist.
-If the words of consecration have already been said, would the mystery of Christ’s real presence not have already taken place? The priest consumes Christ in the Eucharist, he doesn’t consume the bread and wine and then it becomes the Blessed Sacrament.

Once again I am not talking about whether or not priests have to consume both species- forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=12513

my concern and focus is the statement that without it, there would be no Eucharist.

Is there something I missed in all my theological training? No one commented on it so I was deeply concerned.

 

[Spirithound]

Once again I am not talking about whether or not priests have to consume both species- my concern and focus is the statement that without it, there would be no Eucharist.

Is there something I missed in all my theological training? No one commented on it so I was deeply concerned.

You are correct in your idea that Christ is present under the species of bread and wine once the priest says the words of consecration. The priest not consuming of both species would constitute a liturgical abuse, but it does not negate Christ’s presence.

 

[apostolicfaith]

Thats what I thought. So many people posted against what we thought, and no one disputed it…so it made me think that I had missed something major in my classes.

Lesson leanred: I need to have more confidence

 

[stbruno]

Alcoholic priests in our diocese can get permission from their bishop to use in their chalice alone a non-alcoholic version of a grape vintage for mass. Of course in the common cups which the rest of the parish family would receive from would be the actual wine that is consecrated along with the non-alcoholic version. One of the priests of our parish received that permission.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I was viewing a thread on the idea of EMHC needed or not.

Somehow, the issue arose of alcoholic priests not consuming the precious blood. I am not focusing on these statements but another one that was made.

There were a few individuals who said that without the priest consuming both species, there would be no Eucharist.
-If the words of consecration have already been said, would the mystery of Christ’s real presence not have already taken place? The priest consumes Christ in the Eucharist, he doesn’t consume the bread and wine and then it becomes the Blessed Sacrament.

Once again I am not talking about whether or not priests have to consume both species- forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=12513

my concern and focus is the statement that without it, there would be no Eucharist.

Is there something I missed in all my theological training? No one commented on it so I was deeply concerned.

This does not effect the Consecration but the Mass. The Sacrifice of the Mass is incomplete until the celebrating (or another replacement) completes the Sacrifice by consuming under both forms.