"The consecration is the complete Eucharist"

[benedictgal]

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.

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

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.

Two priests friends of mine were having a disagreement on this very same issue. One priest said that the Mass is not complete unless the person has gone to receive Our Lord. The second priest challenged him on it. He noted that the idea is to attend Mass (completely, of course). One needn’t communicate in order to fulfill the Sunday obligation. If that were the case, those who are involved in invalid marriages would never have the chance to satisfy their Sunday obligation because they cannot receive Holy Communion (nor can those who are in mortal sin, for that matter, and have not yet gone to confession).

Now, in the liturgy of Ancient Israel, the sacrifice was not complete until the priest ate his alloted portion of the Sacrifice. The priest’s communion completes the sacrifice, as I understand it from a prelate friend of mine.

 

[Digitonomy]

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…”

I think you’re reading too much into this. I would suggest that in the broad sense that entire sentence is true, but that it’s not necessary for any congregants to actually partake of communion for it to be a mass. Mainly that’s because the priest is one of the “people of God” in the broad sense - I disagree with you that we must distinguish priest from congregant in this sentence.

It’s also hard to imagine the authors of that passage were saying that so many masses throughout history (where there was no communion by the properly disposed faithful) were not masses after all.

 

[Alethiaphile]

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

What about Christ’s words, “Take, eat”?