Why does the priest have to consume the host?

[fiat88]

Hi, I was told that a mass is not valid if the priest does not consume Our Lord in the host and drink from the chalice. Now i know you cannot reverse the consecration so is this correct?

This has been bugging me for a while now.

 

[sancte_joseph]

The validity of a mass does not depend on whether or not the bread and wine were consecrated. They are consecrated by a priest, with words of consecration with the intent to consecrate…

The things you talk about are just necessary things for the mass. I don’t know much about why the priest needs to consume it, but I hope that helps.

 

[MarkThompson]

Hi, I was told that a mass is not valid if the priest does not consume Our Lord in the host and drink from the chalice. Now i know you cannot reverse the consecration so is this correct?

This has been bugging me for a while now.

Despite common misconception, Mass ≠ Eucharist. Consecrating the Eucharist is one element of what makes up a Mass – the most important part, no doubt – but it is not the only element. Thus, “celebrating Mass” is not synonymous with “consecrating the Eucharist.” If a priest neglects to take Communion after consecrating the Eucharist, the Eucharist still remains valid and authentic, but the overall event at which it is taking place cannot accurately be called “a Mass,” since a necessary portion of the rite is the priest’s Communion.

This is, incidentally, why it is not strictly correct to speak of the Mass as being a sacrament. The Eucharist is the sacrament, and it is supposed to take place in the context of the Mass. (In the same way, “Confession” is not a sacrament, although the sacramental part – Absolution and Reconciliation – typically takes place in the context of a Confession.)

 

[fiat88]

but the overall event at which it is taking place cannot accurately be called “a Mass,” since a necessary portion of the rite is the priest’s Communion

Thankyou for the replies. I do know that the mass and the celebration of the eucharist are seperate. What you wrote here is more accurately what i was trying to ask about.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Because the Mass itself is not valid without a consecration and consumption of both Species by the priest(s) who did the consecrating.

 

[jpjd]

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is both the offering and the meal. When the priest partakes of the body and blood of Christ, he completes the sacrifice. It is how we are in communion with the Lord.

 

[Glacies]

As to the Tridentine Rite Msgr. George J. Moorman expounds in his book The Latin Mass Explained that the priest must consume the Sacrifice under both species as this was the command of Our Lord to the Apostles at the Last Supper.

The priest who celebrates Mass receives both species (that is, he receives Communion under the form of bread and under the form of wine) because he must consume the Sacrifice, which was offered up under two species. At the Last Supper, when Christ commissioned His Apostles to do this as He had done, He said to them: “Drink ye all of this.” No one, however, was present but the Apostles, all of whom had been ordained sacrificing priests. The priest or bishop or even the pope who receives Holy Communion without saying Mass, receives under one species only, like any layman.