Why does the priest put a little bit of the Host in the Precious Blood during mass?

[Bouligny]

Isn’t the bread complete by itself (the body and blood)? Why do they have to mingle? Is it necessary or just symbolic?

 

[Aramis]

it is essential for the validity and licity of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; if it is not done, it is clearly illicit, and possibly invalid.

 

[kristie_m]

I recall reading (in the AAA forum, I think) that this is actually a symbol of the ressurection…Christ’s body and blood coming together again. The apologist answered much more eloquently, though. You might want to search that forum to see if you can find it.

 

[jpjd]

Let’s start with the consecration…the separate consecration of the bread and the wine is a sign for the separation of Christ’s body from his blood, or in other words, His death.

The co-mingling of the Host in the Blood is a visible expression of the of the actual restoration of Christ’s Blood with His Body, or in other words, of his Resurrection.

 

[bpbasilphx]

it is essential for the validity and licity of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; if it is not done, it is clearly illicit, and possibly invalid.

**While the Commixture is required in the Latin and Byzantine Liturgies (that I know for sure), it is not in all the classical rites to my knowledge.

Its omission (or even worse, refusal to do it) where directed would be illicit, it would not invalidate the consecration.

Only lack of minister, form, matter, or intention would make the Eucharist invalid.**

 

[benedictgal]

With the comingling of the Body and Blood, they are reunited, as many posters have indicated. This also means that we are eating and drinking the flesh and blood of the living God. Remember that Jesus said that he is the living bread come down from heaven. We are feeding on the living God.

 

[malphono]

it is essential for the validity and licity of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; if it is not done, it is clearly illicit, and possibly invalid.

**While the Commixture is required in the Latin and Byzantine Liturgies (that I know for sure), it is not in all the classical rites to my knowledge.

Its omission (or even worse, refusal to do it) where directed would be illicit, it would not invalidate the consecration.

Only lack of minister, form, matter, or intention would make the Eucharist invalid.**

The Commixture is also required in the Syriac and Maronite usages. As a matter of fact, in both it is a major thing. While I’m not certain, I believe the Chaldean usage is similar, but I’m not at all sure of what either the Alexandrians or Armenians do.

 

[Cristiano]

The theological explanation given from the other posters is what I heard first and it is a good symbolism for what the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is about. However, my understanding is also that it started in early Christianity when a host was brought by the acolytes from the Basilica to the different churches and it was used as a symbol to indicate the true sameness of all the Masses. I need to go back to the “Mass of the Roman Rite” by Jungmann and see if it is in there. I am not sure.