i always wonder why during the consecration, the priest only uses one host or wafer, and during epiclesis the priest bless only one host with the cup wine, however during communion, the other wafers are distributed, i always wonder were they part of the consecration? how did these other wafers blessed and consecrated?
What do you mean by “uses only one host”? Do you mean, he elevates only one for the parish to see (our priest does this, he uses the real big one for it and the smaler hosts are later distributed to the parishioners), or is there only one host present on the altar?
If the priest elevates only one, this is no problem. The consecration does not happen by elevation, but earlier (this is my body… this is my blood). The elevation shows the consecrated host to the community.
If there is only one host present on the altar, then only this host would be validly consecrated - but maybe the other hosts are already consecrated and taken from the tabernacle.
The priest says the Words of Institution over the (typically) larger host that he then elevates, but he does so with the intention of consecrating all of the hosts on the corporal, which is why where there are multiple ciboria on the altar, they are all on or at least touch the corporal, I believe.
Interestingly enough, when the Holy Father celebrates Mass at St. Peter’s Basilica/Square, he elevates the one Host in his paten. However, if you pay close attention during the Sanctus, there are priests processing around the sanctuary holding open ciborria. As the Holy Father prays the words of Institution, not only is he consecrating the Host before him, he is also consecrating the hosts in the ciborria that the priests are holding.
thank you all for the answer, let me clarify further
when the priest do the consecration, although the other wafers are on the altar, during this, he only performs consecration on the Big wafer only, when the priest say, this is my body, he is only referencing to the Big Wafer, and during the rest of the mass, the priest only uses the Big wafer, while the other wafers are on the Altar side.
further more, for a valid consecration, the priest will need to perform the Epiclesis or the invocation of the Holy Spirit before the word of consecration, but during the Epiclesis, the priest only place his hands on the Big Water and cross it (+), while the other wafers are on the side of the Altar.
How does the other wafers being consecrated while its not touched, thanks, or offered by the priest until communion.
Presuming that there is valid matter and form for the Sacrament, all hosts and wine that the Priest intends to consecrate are consecrated.
This is the wonderful part of our God being omnipotent. God knows the Priest’s intentions, and there is no need for the Priest to physically point out each and every host and chalice of wine to God that he intends to consecrate. God already knows, and any pointing out would be for our benefit, not His.
The hosts/wine are not consecrated through the touching of the Priest. They are consecrated because they are valid matter, and the Priest is using the proper form (this is my body…this is my blood) and intends to do what the Church intends to do.
I personally think it’s good that the Priest DOES NOT have to touch each and every host and chalice of wine. Then we might tend to focus a little too much on the process of touching each one iteself, and lose sight of the bigger picture.
The celebrant could in theory consecrate 800,000 hosts on the altar and spilling out from sacks on the floor, with the exception of a few right in front of him - he could even elevate two hosts, but only consecrate one - it all comes down to which he intends to consecrate. Note that such actions might be illicit, but that would not change the validity. As one of my theology profs said, he could even consecrate a whole bakery full of bread.
A priest, who is validly ordained may confect the Eucharist. He must also be in accord with the Church’s intention when celebrating mass. A priest, angry with his Bishop cannot validly go down to the bakery and consecrate the bread… Valid context and formula is necessary for consecration of the host(s) (Mass and words of Christ). Matter, wheat bread and water hosts and only wine made from the grape. If the priest intends to do what the Church does not, then he has committed an invalid action, a non-effective action.
On the Altar, next to the patent should be the ciborium containing all the rest of the hosts for mass. The Epiclesis happens over all that is before him. As in a papal mass, if there would be insufficient room or confusion or chaos to distribute Holy Communion, then the Holy Father has priests hold the ciboria with the intention to consecrate them. Because the mass is considerably ordered, this intention or way of consecration saves time and preserves the inherent order of mass during the "rite of communion." www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/GIRM.pdf
Of course Matthew, without it being open, how would God get in there? Uncovering a ciborium does not directly relate to intention to consecrate hosts. If you are the priest and the ciborium is in front of you, the priest most likely knows where the hosts came from in the sacristy.
Uncovering the ciborium is good common practice, but you won’t find that in the General Instruction to the Roman Missal. It is generally a good idea to uncover the ciborium so that the celebrant isn’t surprised by any mistake a sacristan could make by not placing hosts in there. At the preparation of the gifts, when the gifts are placed on the altar, the top is usually removed to place the ciborium on the altar. If there was a need to increase or decrease the number of hosts, this is the time to do it.
“Our righteousness must surpass that of the scribes and pharisees”
I wasn’t able to tell whether fodda23 was serious or joking with “without it being open, how would God get in there?” so pardon me if I’m only repeating what he/she has said.
Although uncovering the ciborium is proper, it is not necessary for a valid Consecration. If you pick up an old moral theology manual, which examined this and 101 other theoretical cases you will see this mentioned.
I disagree. The priest must have the intention to “do what the Church does”, but this only means to transubstantiate the host into the Body and Blood of Jesus, not necessarily in Mass. I totally agree that this would be an immense sacrilege, but I think it would be valid.
You are incorrect. Put your feelings and opinion aside. We are talking about liturgy and sacraments here. I do know that what I said is absolutely correct. In addition to being correct, you must concede that typical bread at the bakery is not simply wheat and water. That there is other ingredients present is fact, and invalid matter means, no Eucharist! The priest is to be in accord with “at least what the Church intends”. (Mother Church assumes that this formula occurs… Mass=Valid Eucharist). How could there be valid consecration of the Holy Eucharist outside of Mass? To be apart from that is to also be apart from the Bishop of the Diocese. St. Ignatius of Antioch says, “to be apart from the Bishop is to be apart from the Church”.
The Council of Trent requires only that the minister or subject intend to do at least what the Church does.
This is a fairly minimum intention and means that a sacrament would be valid even if a minister lacked faith in the sacrament, or were in a state of mortal sin. It is enough for him to intend to do what the Church does when administrating this sacrament.
And of course I was joking about opening the ciborium so God can get in there.
In addition, it is not true to say a priest transubstantiates… He consecrates. The action of the Holy Spirit is transubstantiation, a change in the essence occurs that only God can change, while at the same time, the accidental properties of bread and wine remain.
Back to Sunday School for you!
Not necessarily, he can still choose not to consecrate some on the altar if he so wishes. The intent is key here. Only those hosts he intends to consecrate are consecrated. He could specifically intend not to consecrate some hosts on the altar.
I can’t think of a good reason for it, except for perhaps a situation where very few people show up for Mass and many hosts were brought up for the presentation of the gifts. Then the priest could choose to put some aside on the altar and not consecrate them.
**Not necessarily, he can still choose not to consecrate some on the altar if he so wishes. The intent is key here. Only those hosts he intends to consecrate are consecrated. He could specifically intend not to consecrate some hosts on the altar.
I can’t think of a good reason for it, except for perhaps a situation where very few people show up for Mass and many hosts were brought up for the presentation of the gifts. Then the priest could choose to put some aside on the altar and not consecrate them.**
**I see your point, but perhaps I should have expressed myself more clearly.
If the hosts are before him on the paten, corporal, or in the ciborium it seems to me that his intention is to consecrate them. **