Odd consecration question

My question is basically this - if a priest say sat down at dinner and had wine could he pronounce the words of consecration and transform the wine into the body and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ? :confused:

I’m not asking if consecration outside of the Mass is licit - just if it would be possible for a priest to do it. If so if feel a little scared.


Without looking up the citations in the canon, it seems to me that the proper form for the sacrament of the Eucharist is the Mass. In absence of the proper form, any attempt at consecration would not valid and therefore not sacramental.

Agreed, it can only be done through the correct Rubrics of the Mass. An explantion - I have not read it throughly but it seems a decent enough explanation. newadvent.org/cathen/13216a.htm

Last Christmas, our priest ended up in the hospital, so the two deacons had to take care of everything. BUT, there was no Eucharist, so the ‘loaves of bread and the wine’ had to be taken to the neighboring Marionite priest for consecration during their Mass.

What? I don’t get that at all - you had Masses w/o the priest? Why not just tell the parishioners to attend the local Maronite Church?


Just a guess here but most Eastern Catholic parishes tend to be quite a bit smaller than most Roman Catholic parishes - at least in my experience. And as this was Christmas (large crowds) it probably wasn’t feasible for everyone to go to the other parish. Having the Maronite priest consecrate the hosts to be used at another parish was probably the best thing that could be done in that situation.

Again, just a guess.



As I said the priest at the other Church consecrated the Eucharist for us, so we were able to celebrate in our Church.

My point to the intitial post was that, if Fr. could have just set down and said grace and it was consecrated, there would have been no need for the loaf of bread and the wine to be taken to another church for the priest to consecrate.

Also, we are Eastern Rite and we use levened bread. The placement of the bread for consecration is very different from what is done in the West. So it needed to be done in an Eastern Liturgy if at all possible. And since we are the only Byzantine/Greek Catholic Church in our state, it was an emergency, and Fr. did what he felt was best.

Thank You James!!! :thumbsup:

Yes; it would be valid but gravely illicit.

It would be valid because the essential matter (wine) is present and the essential form (“this is the cup of my blood”) is present. Therefore, if the priest intended to consecrate the wine with those words, it would be the Eucharist.

It is, however, never permitted to do this according to Canon Law:

Can. 927 It is absolutely forbidden, even in extreme urgent necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other or even both outside the eucharistic celebration.

1 Like

Yes, if he had the intention of doing so.

What scares you? The awesome power of the priesthood?


That it makes it even more easy for the Our Lord to be profained.


Ok, which is it, can it be done or not? 2 people have said it can, and 2 have said it can’t. That didn’t answer the question for me :confused: . Aren’t there a couple of priests who post here, I’m sure they would know for sure.

And I agree, the thought that a priest could consecrate the bread and wine anywhere, is both awesome and scary :bowdown2:, just like the pps stated.

In Christ,


Canon law says that it can be done anywhere, but requires a valid liturgy to do so.

Canon law says that the bread and wine must both be present and consecrated for a valid consecration.

Given that it was consecrated for a typica, that’s fine. Knowing that the Maronite Quorbono does consecrate both species, there’s no abuse there. However, the maronites do not normally use the loaf, but flat hosts, from what I’ve read. But that’s not an abuse…

Now, looking at the CCEO (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. Using Gray’s translation

Canon 707 - §1. The preparation of the Eucharistic bread, the prayers performed by the priests before the Divine Liturgy, the observance of the Eucharistic fast, liturgical vestments, the time and place of the celebration and other like matters must be precisely established by the norms of each Church sui iuris.
§2. For a just cause and having removed any astonishment on the part of the Christian faithful, it is permissible to use the liturgical vestments and bread of another Church sui iuris.

Since the Typica falls under the provisions of canon 709…

Canon 709 - §1. The priest distributes the Divine Eucharist or if the particular law of his own Church sui iuris establishes it, also the deacon.
§2. The synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church or the council of hierarchs is free to establish appropriate norms, according to which other Christian faithful can distribute the Divine Eucharist.

Now, I would expect the typica to be using the presanctified gifts in the dry state, for there is no obligation to distribute under both species, and the typica bread is normally intincted, then dried, in my experience, but each church Sui Iuris sets that in their liturgicon…

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.