"The consecration is the complete Eucharist"

[Alethiaphile]

I have been reading Abbot Vonier, A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist, which was written in 1925. It comes lavishly praised and recommended by such as Peter Kreeft, Cardinal Avery Dulles, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, and Fr. Aidan Nichols, who writes that it is “A classic example of the best twentieth-century Eucharistic theology”.
In it, Ab. Vonier quotes St. Thomas Aquinas at length as follows:

A sacrament is so called because it contains something sacred. Now a thing may be sacred in two ways: either absolutely, or in reference to something else. The difference between the Eucharist and the other sacraments which have a matter known to the senses is this, that the Eucharist contains something sacred absolutely, namely Christ Himself… Consequently, the sacrament of the Eucharist is fully accomplished (perficitur) in the very consecration of the matter, while the other sacraments are fully accomplished in the application of the matter to the man to be sanctified. (S.T., III, q. 73, a. 1, ad. 3) (My emphasis).

Abbot Vonier comments further:

The fundamental principle, that the Eucharist is complete, is perfectly accomplished in the consecration of the matter, is the basis of all we have to say on the sacramental aspect of the Mass; the Consecration, is, of course, the complete Eucharist, because it is the perfect memorial of Christ’s passion. (pp. 47-48)

I respectfully, but strongly, disagree with the principle being taught both by St. Thomas and Ab. Vonier. I believe it is untrue to the obvious meaning of Christ’s words of institution: “Take, eat…” I believe that communion in the Body and Blood of Christ by at least some of the faithful is of the essence of the sacrament, and that the sacrament is not “complete” without such reception. For one thing, it is my understanding (although I could be wrong) that the liturgical canons require that at least the celebrant partake of the Eucharistic elements. That seems to me inconsistent with the principle being taught.
I have been unable to find any enunciation of this principle in the CCC. On the contrary, 1382 says the following:

The Mass is at the same time, and inseparably, the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated and the sacred banquet of communion of the Lord’s body and blood. (Empahses mine).

It seems to me this conflicts with St. Thomas’s and Ab. Vonier’s teaching, in that if the aspects are inseparable, the sacrifical aspect cannot be the complete Eucharist without the meal aspect.
Therefore, it seems to me that at least one of the following is true:

1. St. Thomas’s and Ab. Vonier’s teaching is contrary to current Church teaching, or
2. There is currently an unresolved conflict in Church teaching on this issue. Joe

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Very interesting posting. On first reading, I tend to agree with you that reception (at least by the priest) is integral to the sacrament. If, by the old definition, a sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace, then there should be a person to whom the sacrament is applied and who receives the grace. However, in this sacrament the person of Christ is uniquely present and is a source of grace even for those who don’t receive so I would be interested in what other people say.

 

[edward_george]

I agree with Clarie’s thinking that since the Eucharist is Christ Really Present, then this fits in with the teaching of both Aquinas and Vonner. I don’t think there is a conflict between what they say and the Catechism, as the CCC is specifically referring to the Mass and not just the Eucharist, which takes place within the context of the Mass–in other words, Abbot Vonner and St. Thomas are talking about the sacrament itself, while the CCC is talking about the context in which it is celebrated and applied. There is no contradiction here.

-ACEGC

 

[Digitonomy]

You raise an interesting issue. A while back I asked what was technically the absolute minimum required for there to be a valid mass. My theory was scripture and consecration. Others suggested that communion by the priest was essential, and I now tend to agree. However that’s a slightly different issue from what you are discussing.

If a priest consecrates a little bread and wine on his kitchen counter, and then disposes of it, we still had the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This is certainly more than a sacramental, so I would tend to agree with St Thomas and Vonner.

In the references you cite, I think you’re comparing apples and oranges. The definitive statements by Vonner and Aquinas are about the Eucharist, while the CCC statement addresses the mass. The CCC also seems to back up the idea that communion is required for there to be a mass, but remember that a mass is not required for the Eucharist to be validly confected (although that would be very illicit).

For one thing, it is my understanding (although I could be wrong) that the liturgical canons require that at least the celebrant partake of the Eucharistic elements. That seems to me inconsistent with the principle being taught.

Along with what I mentioned above, it’s important to distinguish between Church teaching and discipline. Liturgical canons, whether you speak of canon law or the GIRM, are discipline enacted to be in conformity with doctrine (teaching). But these disciplines can and do change.

 

[japhy]

I have been reading Abbot Vonier, A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist, which was written in 1925. … In it, Ab. Vonier quotes St. Thomas Aquinas at length as follows:… Consequently, the sacrament of the Eucharist is fully accomplished (perficitur) in the very consecration of the matter, while the other sacraments are fully accomplished in the application of the matter to the man to be sanctified. (S.T., III, q. 73, a. 1, ad. 3).

…

The fundamental principle, that the Eucharist is complete, is perfectly accomplished in the consecration of the matter, is the basis of all we have to say on the sacramental aspect of the Mass; the Consecration, is, of course, the complete Eucharist, because it is the perfect memorial of Christ’s passion. (pp. 47-48)

I understand this to mean that baptism isn’t baptism without a person being baptized; likewise, confirmation, penance, holy orders, matrimony, and anointing of the sick. But the Eucharist (which is to be distinguished from Holy Communion) is itself the sacrament. In the Eucharistic Prayer, it is confected and offered to God the Father. It is necessary, ritually, that the priest partake of the sacrifice (as was the case under the Mosaic covenant as well).

Holy Communion is our partaking of the completed Eucharistic sacrifice, but it does not have an impact on the “completion” of the sacrament. Otherwise, we would have “incomplete” Masses when not everyone received; furthermore, you could probably then argue that people who don’t receive under both species are receiving an “incomplete” sacrament, and that is demonstrably false.

I respectfully, but strongly, disagree with the principle being taught both by St. Thomas and Ab. Vonier. I believe it is untrue to the obvious meaning of Christ’s words of institution: “Take, eat…” I believe that communion in the Body and Blood of Christ by at least some of the faithful is of the essence of the sacrament, and that the sacrament is not “complete” without such reception. For one thing, it is my understanding (although I could be wrong) that the liturgical canons require that at least the celebrant partake of the Eucharistic elements.

The priest must, yes, but Trent reaffirmed that Masses wherein only the priest communicates are not invalid in any way.

[CCC] 1382 says the following:The Mass is at the same time, and inseparably, the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated and the sacred banquet of communion of the Lord’s body and blood.
It seems to me this conflicts with St. Thomas’s and Ab. Vonier’s teaching, in that if the aspects are inseparable, the sacrificial aspect cannot be the complete Eucharist without the meal aspect. Therefore, it seems to me that at least one of the following is true:

1. St. Thomas’s and Ab. Vonier’s teaching is contrary to current Church teaching, or
2. There is currently an unresolved conflict in Church teaching on this issue.

The sacrifice of the Eucharist is first for God the Father, and second for us (in Communion). It only does us any good because it is offered to the Father, because it is the same Body and Blood of His Son. It is not permitted to confect the Eucharist outside the context of Mass.

And the sacred banquet aspect is carried out no matter if only the priest receives or if a whole church – filled with Catholics with no mortal sin on their souls and who have fasted for an hour – receives.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

In the references you cite, I think you’re comparing apples and oranges. The definitive statements by Vonner and Aquinas are about the Eucharist, while the CCC statement addresses the mass.

Precisely. The quote from the abbot seems to be solely directed at the idea that the Eucharist is the only sacrament that does not need to be applied to a person in order for the sacrament to have fully taken place. While all the others need minister, matter, form, intent, and recipient, the Eucharist can take place without a recipient.

Think of baptism. You get some water, bless it, and then pour it three times while saying “I baptize you…” Whaddaya got? Definitely not a sacrament of baptism that has taken place.

Where my description breaks down is that sometimes the recipient supplies some of the matter (as in Orders and Penance), but I think the main distinction holds true.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I have been reading Abbot Vonier, A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist, which was written in 1925. It comes lavishly praised and recommended by such as Peter Kreeft, Cardinal Avery Dulles, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, and Fr. Aidan Nichols, who writes that it is “A classic example of the best twentieth-century Eucharistic theology”.
In it, Ab. Vonier quotes St. Thomas Aquinas at length as follows:

A sacrament is so called because it contains something sacred. Now a thing may be sacred in two ways: either absolutely, or in reference to something else. The difference between the Eucharist and the other sacraments which have a matter known to the senses is this, that the Eucharist contains something sacred absolutely, namely Christ Himself… Consequently, the sacrament of the Eucharist is fully accomplished (perficitur) in the very consecration of the matter, while the other sacraments are fully accomplished in the application of the matter to the man to be sanctified. (S.T., III, q. 73, a. 1, ad. 3) (My emphasis).

Abbot Vonier comments further:

The fundamental principle, that the Eucharist is complete, is perfectly accomplished in the consecration of the matter, is the basis of all we have to say on the sacramental aspect of the Mass; the Consecration, is, of course, the complete Eucharist, because it is the perfect memorial of Christ’s passion. (pp. 47-48)

I respectfully, but strongly, disagree with the principle being taught both by St. Thomas and Ab. Vonier. I believe it is untrue to the obvious meaning of Christ’s words of institution: “Take, eat…” I believe that communion in the Body and Blood of Christ by at least some of the faithful is of the essence of the sacrament, and that the sacrament is not “complete” without such reception. For one thing, it is my understanding (although I could be wrong) that the liturgical canons require that at least the celebrant partake of the Eucharistic elements. That seems to me inconsistent with the principle being taught.
I have been unable to find any enunciation of this principle in the CCC. On the contrary, 1382 says the following:

The Mass is at the same time, and inseparably, the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated and the sacred banquet of communion of the Lord’s body and blood. (Empahses mine).

It seems to me this conflicts with St. Thomas’s and Ab. Vonier’s teaching, in that if the aspects are inseparable, the sacrifical aspect cannot be the complete Eucharist without the meal aspect.
Therefore, it seems to me that at least one of the following is true:

1. St. Thomas’s and Ab. Vonier’s teaching is contrary to current Church teaching, or
2. There is currently an unresolved conflict in Church teaching on this issue. Joe

My opinion here, is that The Eucharist unlike the other Sacraments is complete in itself at the Consecration. With the consecration the Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, NOT when we receive them. The Sacraments of Baptism, Anointing of the Sick, Confirmation, are not completed until they are received by a person. The Eucharist IS the Body and Blood of Christ at the moment the Consecration is complete. We receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion individually when we receive the Eucharist, but the Eucharist is not dependent upon our receiving it. The only person required by Discipline to receive Holy Communion under both forms, at a celebration of the Mass is the celebrating priest. But even if he dosen’t the Consecration is still valid.

 

[japhy]

It turns out it is a grave mortal sin to consecrate the Eucharist outside the context of Mass, or to consecrate one species without the other (except in a very particular circumstance described in GIRM n. 324). See Canon 927; Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela Art. 2, n. 2.

 

[Alethiaphile]

Thank you for the replies, and I apologize for being away from the thread so long.
As to the point several made that the CCC passage is addressing the Mass, whhereas Vonner merely the Eucharistic sacrifice, I see your point. I should have quoted the very next sentence in CCC 1382, which reads as follows:

But the celebration of the Eucharsitic sacrifice is wholly directed toward the intimate union of the faithful with Christ through communion. (My emphases)

This pretty clearly, for me, conflicts with Ab. Vonner’s idea that the Eucharistic sacrifice is complete in itself, upon consecration. If the Eucharistic sacrifice is wholly directed at communion by “the fiathful”, then I don’t see how it can be complete in itself. Something which is wholly directed at something else is ipso facto not complete in itself, or so it seems to me. Feel free to disagree, but please give reasons.
Similarly, I disagree with the idea that the Eucharist is unique among the sacraments in being complete in itself without regard to its effect on the recipient, and, again, it seems to me the CCC passage bears that out.
More food for thought. Joe

 

[Digitonomy]

This pretty clearly, for me, conflicts with Ab. Vonner’s idea that the Eucharistic sacrifice is complete in itself, upon consecration. If the Eucharistic sacrifice is wholly directed at communion by “the fiathful”, then I don’t see how it can be complete in itself. Something which is wholly directed at something else is ipso facto not complete in itself, or so it seems to me. Feel free to disagree, but please give reasons.

I think it depends on what you mean by complete. I think you are correct in a sense to say the Eucharistic sacrifice during mass is incomplete without communion, but it would be wrong to claim at that point that the sacrifice has not taken place, or to claim that the sacrament is invalid.

Kind of like saying that a car tire is wholly directed at allowing for the movement of a vehicle. In a sense, it’s incomplete if it’s not serving that purpose. Still, it’s a car tire just as much as the 4 on the Toyota, so in that sense it certainly is complete.

 

[Alethiaphile]

I think it depends on what you mean by complete. I think you are correct in a sense to say the Eucharistic sacrifice during mass is incomplete without communion, but it would be wrong to claim at that point that the sacrifice has not taken place, or to claim that the sacrament is invalid.
Kind of like saying that a car tire is wholly directed at allowing for the movement of a vehicle. In a sense, it’s incomplete if it’s not serving that purpose. Still, it’s a car tire just as much as the 4 on the Toyota, so in that sense it certainly is complete.

Good point, except that both St. Thomas and Ab. Vonner explicitly say that “the sacrament”, not just the sacrifice, is complete upon consecration. That is what I (and the CCC) have a problem with. Joe

 

[japhy]

I know this thread’s a few months old, but I wanted to offer some new (old) information.

From Mediator Dei nn. 114, 121-122 (Pope Pius XII, 1947):They, therefore, err from the path of truth who do not want to have Masses celebrated unless the faithful communicate; and those are still more in error who, in holding that it is altogether necessary for the faithful to receive holy communion as well as the priest, put forward the captious argument that here there is question not of a sacrifice merely, but of a sacrifice and a supper of brotherly union, and consider the general communion of all present as the culminating point of the whole celebration.

…

Now it is very fitting, as the liturgy otherwise lays down, that the people receive holy communion after the priest has partaken of the divine repast upon the altar; and, as we have written above, they should be commended who, when present at Mass, receive hosts consecrated at the same Mass, so that it is actually verified, “that as many of us, as, at this altar, shall partake of and receive the most holy body and blood of thy Son, may be filled with every heavenly blessing and grace.”

Still sometimes there may be a reason, and that not infrequently, why holy communion should be distributed before or after Mass and even immediately after the priest receives the sacred species - and even though hosts consecrated at a previous Mass should be used. In these circumstances - as we have stated above - the people duly take part in the eucharistic sacrifice and not seldom they can in this way more conveniently receive holy communion. Still, though the Church with the kind heart of a mother strives to meet the spiritual needs of her children, they, for their part, should not readily neglect the directions of the liturgy and, as often as there is no reasonable difficulty, should aim that all their actions at the altar manifest more clearly the living unity of the Mystical Body.
From De Musica Sacra n. 22c (Sacred Congregation of Rites, 1958):Active participation is perfect when “sacramental” participation is included. In this way “the people receive the Holy Eucharist not only by spiritual desire, but also sacramentally, and thus obtain greater benefit from this most holy Sacrifice”. (Council of Trent, Sess. 22, ch. 6; cf. also Mediator Dei n. 121)
From Eucharisticum Mysterium n. 3a (Sacred Congregation of Rites, 1967):Among the doctrinal principles formulated in the Church’s recent documents concerning the Eucharist, it is useful to cite those that follow: they address the attitude of Christians toward this mystery and, therefore, have direct bearing on the purpose of this Instruction.

“In the human nature united to himself the Son of God, by overcoming death through his own death and resurrection, redeemed us and refashioned us into a new creation (see Gal 6:15; 2 Cor 5:17). By communicating his Spirit, Christ made us his brothers and sisters, called together from all nations, to be mystically his own Body. In that Body the life of Christ is bestowed on believers, who suffered and was glorified.” LG 7]

Therefore, “at the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Saviour instituted the eucharistic sacrifice of his body and blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the centuries until he should come again and so to entrust to his beloved Bride, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is eaten, the heart filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory given to us.” SC 47]

Hence the Mass, the Lord’s Supper, is at once and inseparably:

• the sacrifice in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated;
• the memorial of the death and resurrection of the Lord who said: “Do this in memory of me” (Lk 22:19);
• the sacred banquet in which, through the communion of the body and blood of the Lord, the people of God share the benefits of the paschal sacrifice, renew the New Covenant with us made once and for all by God in Christ’s blood, and in faith and hope foreshadow and anticipate the eschatological banquet in the Father’s kingdom as they proclaim the death of the Lord “until he comes.” SC 6, 10, 47]

So the difference between 1947 and 1967 is this:

• Pope Pius XII wrote that the reception of Communion by the faithful does not ‘make or break’ the Mass, although it it is fitting for them to receive during Mass
• The participation of the faithful is perfected when they receive the sacrament
• The Mass is inseparably the sacrifice and the banquet (strongly implying the necessity of the faithful receiving Communion for it to be Mass)

 

[DebChris]

My opinion here, is that The Eucharist unlike the other Sacraments is complete in itself at the Consecration. With the consecration the Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, NOT when we receive them. The Sacraments of Baptism, Anointing of the Sick, Confirmation, are not completed until they are received by a person. The Eucharist IS the Body and Blood of Christ at the moment the Consecration is complete. We receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion individually when we receive the Eucharist, but the Eucharist is not dependent upon our receiving it. The only person required by Discipline to receive Holy Communion under both forms, at a celebration of the Mass is the celebrating priest. But even if he dosen’t the Consecration is still valid.

Do we not bathe in this full divinity when we come to Eucharistic Adoration?

Isn’t there something in the Flowers of St. Francis about one of the friars being slain in the Spirit while consecrating the host? I think I returned the book so I can’t fact check. There was something in the footnotes about the consecration being complete and valid although the friar, the celebrant did not have a chance to consume the host.

Thank you for the replies, and I apologize for being away from the thread so long.
As to the point several made that the CCC passage is addressing the Mass, whhereas Vonner merely the Eucharistic sacrifice, I see your point. I should have quoted the very next sentence in CCC 1382, which reads as follows:

But the celebration of the Eucharsitic sacrifice is wholly directed toward the intimate union of the faithful with Christ through communion. (My emphases)

This pretty clearly, for me, conflicts with Ab. Vonner’s idea that the Eucharistic sacrifice is complete in itself, upon consecration. If the Eucharistic sacrifice is wholly directed at communion by “the faithful”, then I don’t see how it can be complete in itself. Something which is wholly directed at something else is ipso facto not complete in itself, or so it seems to me. Feel free to disagree, but please give reasons.
Similarly, I disagree with the idea that the Eucharist is unique among the sacraments in being complete in itself without regard to its effect on the recipient, and, again, it seems to me the CCC passage bears that out.
More food for thought. Joe

I agree that the Sacraments are directed toward the union of God and man, and none more so than the Eucharist.
Indeed when we say “Amen” to “the Body of Christ” upon receiving Communion we state our agreement that not only is the Host the Body of Christ, but that we as His followers are the Body of Christ.

I am not taking a position regarding the OP; just trying to follow along.

 

[Digitonomy]

*The Mass is inseparably the sacrifice and the banquet (strongly implying the necessity of the faithful receiving Communion for it to be Mass)

Are you distinguishing between the priest and the faithful here, or simply saying someone must receive?

 

[japhy]

Are you distinguishing between the priest and the faithful here, or simply saying someone must receive?

I am distinguishing between priest and laity here. The priest MUST receive because his consumption of the sacrifice consummates it. Our receipt is a personal ratification (according to the degree in which we share the priesthood of all believers) and the fulfillment of a divine command (to eat his Body and drink his Blood).

It seems, though, that after Vatican II, the Communion of the faithful present (at least those who are properly disposed) was seen as a necessity in the Mass: “the sacred banquet in which, through the communion of the body and blood of the Lord, the people of God share the benefits of the paschal sacrifice, renew the New Covenant with us made once and for all by God in Christ’s blood, and in faith and hope foreshadow and anticipate the eschatological banquet in the Father’s kingdom…”

 

[DebChris]

If I am following this discussion, does the question become, “Can there be a Sacrament without a recepient?”

 

[JimG]

Christ becomes present at the consecration. The sacrifice of Calvary is at that moment made present.

If the priest were to drop dead of a heart attack at that instant and never receive, the Eucharist would still have been confected.

If no one else received, the consecrated host would have to be placed in the tabernacle.

For the sacrament to be fully consummated, the priest must consume the consecrated elements, but it is not required that any of the congregation do so.

(I might add that this is why Catholics are required to be present for Mass every Sunday, but not required to receive holy communion every Sunday. They must be present for the making present (the re-presentation) of the sacrifice of calvary.)

 

[DebChris]

Christ becomes present at the consecration. The sacrifice of Calvary is at that moment made present.

If the priest were to drop dead of a heart attack at that instant and never receive, the Eucharist would still have been confected.

If no one else received, the consecrated host would have to be placed in the tabernacle.

For the sacrament to be fully consummated, the priest must consume the consecrated elements, but it is not required that any of the congregation do so.

(I might add that this is why Catholics are required to be present for Mass every Sunday, but not required to receive holy communion every Sunday. They must be present for the making present (the re-presentation) of the sacrifice of calvary.)

That’s why I mentioned the story from The Little Flowers of St. Francis and the footnote at the bottom of the page. I think the friar was unconscious for three days. Again, I don’t have the book with me.
Your post verifies what I see, The sacrifice occurs. The bread and wine are turned into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. The Transubstantiation occurs at the consecration.
The Sacrament becomes complete with a recipient.

 

[japhy]

The sacrifice occurs. The bread and wine are turned into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. The Transubstantiation occurs at the consecration. The Sacrament becomes complete with a recipient.

Right, the priest.

 

[SenorSalsa]

I think there is grace enough that Christ would manifest himself under the species of bread and wine.

And I think that Adoration is important to this question, because the host is often referred to as the"Blessed Sacrament", even though nobody is receiving