Transubstantiation performed if already more than enough Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter Episcopalian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Episcopalian

Guest
What do Catholic churches do if there’s already an overabundance of consecrated Eucharists in the tabernacle?

Is there still something freshly consecrated during the Mass or are the Eucharists consecrated a second time?
 
Yes, the celebrant would still consecrate a few hosts, including the one that he himself consumes.
 
Episcopalian said:
What do Catholic churches do if there’s already an overabundance of consecrated Eucharists in the tabernacle?

Is there still something freshly consecrated during the Mass or are the Eucharists consecrated a second time?
Click to expand...
Confection of the Eucharist occurs at every Mass. Only a limited number of Eucharistic Species are to be reserved.

GIRM
PURIFICATION
274.When Communion is completed, the remaining Eucharistic Species are brought to the altar. At this time, the Body of the Lord is given to ministers who will bring it to the sick. Then the remaining Consecrated Species are consumed by the Priest and Deacon. Some of the Consecrated Bread may be placed in a ciborium and brought to the tabernacle where it is customary to reserve the Body of the Lord for Communion to the sick.
Click to expand...
 
The priest always must consecrate an unconsecrated host during Mass, even if it’s just one host (that he would then consume).

Consecrating the already-consecrated Eucharist makes no sense; they are already Jesus’ body and blood, they do not transubstantiate again. I actually wonder if doing such a thing would result in an invalid Mass.
 
There is always the celebrant’s host and the precious blood that is consecrated at every mass. If there are host reserved in the tabernacle they generally remain in the tabernacle during the consecration and are only brought to the altar afterwards (during the agnus dei).

Host are not reconsecrated and great care is to be taken to not mix consecrated and unconsecrated hosts. One time after mass, the celebrating priest and another deacon had to consume close to 150+ hosts because a “helpful” sacristan added some hosts to those in the tabernacle. This had to be done because there was no way to separate them and we could not just treat them as unconsecrated to be consecrated at a later mass. One of the reasons that clergy are the only ones with access to the tabernacle in the parish now.
 
It really surprises me this happens with people who are supposed to be trained to work with the Eucharist.

It just strikes me as a totally boneheaded thing to do, to mix the consecrated and unconsecrated hosts, and I’ve never been a sacristan or a server or an EMHC or anything and I still realize it’s boneheaded.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Consecrating the already-consecrated Eucharist makes no sense; they are already Jesus’ body and blood, they do not transubstantiate again. I actually wonder if doing such a thing would result in an invalid Mass.
Click to expand...
Never in a million years would this have occurred to me, but I have to think that while it certainly would not “take”, as long as the unconsecrated host in the priest’s hands were consecrated in the Mass, it wouldn’t invalidate the Mass. Indeed, if there were uncertainty as to which hosts were consecrated, and which one’s weren’t, they would all have to be consecrated sub conditione. Just off the top of my head, I don’t know if canon law or traditional Catholic sacramental theology allow for such a scenario. I’d be surprised if they didn’t.

If even that host were already consecrated — hard to imagine such a scenario, but just “if” — then I have to think that, yes, the Mass would be invalid.
 
It is preferable that the Eucharist reserved in the tabernacle be an appropriate quantity to be depleted and replaced often so there shouldn’t be a large amount at any particular time under normal circumstances. There are unusual circumstances, and that appropriate quantity varies by parish needs. The GIRM states that it’s more ideal that the Eucharist received at Mass by anyone receiving be consecrated at that same Mass, such that the reserved Eucharist is for sick calls and emergencies, etc. However, to keep them “cycled” through depletion and replenishment, there will almost always be reserved Eucharist and newly consecrated Eucharist at almost any Mass - and there’s really no need to differentiate.
 
Cor_ad_Cor said:
there will almost always be reserved Eucharist and newly consecrated Eucharist at almost any Mass - and there’s really no need to differentiate.
Click to expand...
No one is saying there is.

The issue being discussed involved unconsecrated hosts somehow getting mixed up with the consecrated Eucharist in the tabernacle.
 
Last edited:
I’m the sacristan at my parish and Father doesn’t allow any layperson to open the tabernacle. If he needs to consecrate more hosts he lets me know so I can place the unconsecrated hosts in a ciborium before Mass.
 
Same in my parish except that I ask the priest to look if there is a need to consecrate more hosts if there have been other priests celebrating Mass since his last or if I haven’t been on sacristy duty for some days.
 
The Eucharist is both a sacrifice and a sacrament. The double consecration (both species of bread and wine) is needed to offer the sacrifice, even if there is already sufficient consecrated hosts for everyone to receive the sacrament.
 
Last edited:
Episcopalian said:
Is there still something freshly consecrated during the Mass or are the Eucharists consecrated a second time?
Click to expand...
The priest (and any concelebrating priests) have to consume a host consecrated at that mass for their participation in the sacrifice to be complete and for the mass which they’re celebrating to be valid.
Vico said:
Only a limited number of Eucharistic Species are to be reserved.
Click to expand...
Well that’s the theory at least and certainly reception by the faithful of hosts consecrated at that mass is preferable (one author once likened distribution of reserved hosts to “inviting people to a banquet and serving them leftovers”). In practice however, it can be a little more difficult to accurately estimate how many hosts are required at each mass with the result that sometimes distribution of reserved hosts in unavoidable. Nonetheless, it should never be the norm.
 
TBH, when I was a EMHC in my senior year in college I was petrified every time I gave out Holy Communion. (I won’t publish my story of how I stopped being a EMHC lest I get flagged.)

However, since this crisis started I’ve had to go back somewhat to being a sacristan. Father uses individual spoons for each person and takes them with him but I have to put the water in which contains the Precious Blood in the ground.

And quite frankly it still petrifies me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top