The Minister of Consecration

The Minister of Consecration.—(a) Qualifications.—Every priest and only a priest can consecrate validly, for only to the Apostles and their successors in the priesthood were spoken the words of Christ: “Do this in commemoration of Me.” But only those priests can consecrate lawfully who have the faculty of celebrating Mass (see 2709).

(b) Duties as regards Valid Consecration.—Internally, there must be the intention (actual or virtual) of acting in the name of Christ, and of effecting what the words of consecration signify; and hence a merely narrative recitation of the form is insufficient. This actual or virtual intention must also determine the individual matter to be consecrated, and hence a host placed on the corporal is not consecrated if the priest neither saw it nor took it up for consecration. Small crumbs in the ciborium and small drops of wine on the inner side of the chalice are consecrated, unless excluded by the priest’s intention; but drops of wine on the outside of the chalice should be considered unconsecrated, since it is unlawful to consecrate what is not contained in the chalice.

Externally, bread and wine must be physically present to the priest, that is, so within his reach or range that according to human usage they can be correctly designated by the demonstrative pronoun “this” used in the form. Accordingly, they must be near the minister; how near cannot be mathematically defined, and authors variously assign about ten, twenty, thirty, forty and fifty paces as the extreme limit. Again, the bread and wine must not be separated from the minister by any dividing partition, such as a wall, or the altar, or perhaps even the closed door of the tabernacle, though a closed container (such as a covered ciborium or chalice) would not put the matter away from the minister’s presence. Finally, they must not be behind the minister’s back, and, even if they are before him but hidden (e.g., hosts under the corporal or chalice), the consecration is doubtful.

(c) Duties as regards Lawful Consecration.—Internally, there must be the state of grace, which the divine law prescribes, Further, one who is conscious of grave sin certainly committed and certainly unconfessed (unless inculpably omitted in confession) must go to confession beforehand, unless there be need to celebrate at once (e.g., because otherwise there will be no parochial Mass on a day of precept, or because grave scandal or defamation will result, or a dying person will be deprived of the Viaticum) and confession is impossible (i.e., there is no confessor present who has jurisdiction, or who can be resorted to without a serious inconvenience extrinsic to confession, and moreover it is very difficult on account of distance, health, weather, or other like reasons to go elsewhere to confession). Under these circumstances, he may make an act of perfect contrition and then proceed to celebrate. But one who has consecrated without confession because of such necessity must go to confession as soon as possible—i.e., within three days, or, if circumstances so require, earlier than that (e.g., if a confessor can be had the same day, but not again for a week) or later (e.g., if a confessor cannot be had for a week). These rules about confession are of grave obligation, from Church law at least (Canon 807). On account of disrespect, it seems that grave sin is committed when the celebrant is voluntarily and advertently distracted during consecration, but he should not repeat the form unless it is certain or very probable that something essential has been omitted. Externally, consecration must be made only during Mass, both species must be consecrated, a larger quantity must not be consecrated than can be conveniently used, the matter at the moment of consecration must rest on the corporal and above the stone of the altar, and a ciborium must be uncovered while its bread is being consecrated.

Inadvertent Neglect of Grave Liturgical Precept.—Is the consecration valid when the minister inadvertently neglects some grave liturgical precept as to the matter or manner of consecration?

(a) Some authors reply in the negative, because they feel that no priest has the will to consecrate in a way forbidden by the Church under pain of grave sin. According to this opinion, then, if accidentally no water were placed in the chalice, or if the chalice were unconsecrated, or if the ciborium were left off the corporal, the consecration would be invalid.

(b) Other authors distinguish as follows: if the celebrant intended not to consecrate with a material breach of grave liturgical prescription, the consecration would be null; if the celebrant had only the intention to consecrate all valid matter before him, the consecration would be valid. This latter intention, it seems, should be formed by all priests once for all, since it ensures the validity of their consecrations and is not sinful, as it does not aim to violate the rubrics, but only to provide for exceptional cases when a rubric is unintentionally violated.

325. Matter to be treated. - The minister is one principal, namely Christ Himself, in whose name the sacrifice is offered; another secondary, who acts in the name and in the person of Christ the principal minister, and who can be considered both in the act of the celebration of the sacrifice, and in the act of dispensation, by which the host is distributed in communion to be participated in by the faithful.

S. Th. III, q. 78, a. 1 and 4; q. 82, a. 1, 5 and 7, ad 3; q. 83, a. 1, ad 3.

326. Christ is the priest of the New Testament, highest and supreme, constituted by God forever with an oath, pontiff of heavenly things, anointed in the incarnation itself by the grace of hypostatic union, when, entering the world made man, He was destined to offer Himself in the sacrifice of redemption and by His human will accepted this office.

Thus in the Epistle to the Hebrews V-XI. Whence Augustine, on Ps. 26: "In the assumption of flesh that Christ was anointed as king and priest."

But He is priest according to His human nature: for as God, just like the Father and the Holy Spirit, He has no superior to whom He may sacrifice, but He Himself is the one to whom sacrifice is offered; but as man, according to the nature proper to Himself, He is the servant of God, to whom He can and ought to submit Himself, and according to this nature He sacrifices to the divine nature, i.e., to the Father, the Holy Spirit, and Himself as God. This He perfectly fulfilled by one act of infinite dignity and value, in the sacrifice of the cross, as we suppose proved in the treatise on Redemption.

But it is asked whether, as on the cross, so also on the altar Christ is priest or minister.

327. Thesis. Christ is the principal minister of the sacrifice of the altar. - It is certain from Lateran Council IV, c. 1 and Trent, sess. 22, c. 2.

It is proved: 1. From the Scriptures: Christ, in Ps. CIX, 4, is called priest according to the order of Melchisedech, which according to tradition was interpreted because He sacrificed in bread and wine; and priest forever, which would not be true unless He were priest of the sacrifice which is always repeated. Likewise in Heb. VII, 24, He is called priest of the New Testament, to whom no one else succeeds, having an everlasting priesthood; therefore He Himself sacrifices in the Mass, otherwise someone would succeed Him, since the same victim is present as on the cross.

2. From Tradition, namely from the Fathers, such as Irenaeus, adv. haer. IV, 17-18; Cyprian, ep. 63; Chrysostom, hom. 50 in Matt. 3; 17 in Heb. 3; and I de prod. Iud.; L. de Sacr. IV, 4, 14; Theodoret, in Ps. 109; Eusebius of Caesarea, dem. ev. V, 3; Augustine, de Civ. D. XVII, 20; the Liturgies; and the Councils, Lateran IV, c. 1, Florence, decree for the Armenians, and Trent, sess. 22, c. 1 and 2.

3. From the words of consecration: priests do not consecrate except by acting in the person of Christ and using His words; therefore they offer sacrifice in the name of Christ, and therefore they are only secondary ministers, while Christ is the principal minister.

4. By reason of fittingness, both a) on account of the excellence of the sacrifice, which, according to Mal. I, is a clean oblation, which always presents great honor to God; but dignity especially depends upon the dignity of the one offering; therefore it is required that the offerer always be most holy, which most of all befits Christ; - and b) on account of the dignity of the thing offered, which is a thing of infinite dignity and most pure, and therefore ought to be offered by a similar offerer, Christ.

328. In what way Christ is the principal minister. - Sacrifice is not perfected by a merely material immolation of the victim; otherwise every change or destruction made by a priest would be a sacrifice; but by a moral religious action, by which from the intention of honoring God the immolation is offered to Him. Whence it is required: 1. that the immolation of the victim depend in some way upon the will of the priest; 2. that it be directed by him in honor of God.

These two things are verified concerning Christ in the Mass:

1. Christ not only instituted the sacrifice, which would not suffice for Him to be priest in it, but by His human will He willed that it be perpetually offered in His name by priests as by His legates, to whom He granted this power, so that priests execute nothing except the will of Christ, and the action of priests is morally the action of Christ and is attributed rather to Him than to the priests, just as the action of a legate is attributed more to the king than to himself.

2. At the last supper Christ, foreseeing all and each of the future sacrifices, even then willed all and each to be done in honor of God, and offered them to Him; which will habitually perseveres, not revoked.

In this way Christ is a true priest. With many theologians it can be added: since Christ Himself is present in the sacrifice with His will, it is impossible that He direct it in honor of God not only habitually but also by an actual will.

329. It is objected: The sacrificial action ought to be from a priest as from a principal cause. But consecration is a supernatural action, which has no principal cause except God, and of which Christ as man is merely the instrument. Therefore Christ as man is not priest.

It is answered by distinguishing: the sacrificial action, formally as it is a moral and religious action, i.e., as a testimony of interior reverence and honor toward God, ought to be from a priest as from a principal cause, I concede; as it is a physical action, I deny; for a priest, for example, can command the killing of a victim, which is carried out by others. But consecration as a physical action has no principal physical cause except God, I concede; as a moral and religious action, or as a testimony, it has no principal moral cause except God, to the exclusion of Christ as man, I deny. Namely Christ as man, by the human will proper to Himself, willed to use His power of performing miracles, for causing transubstantiation in honor of God; and He did this not as an instrument of the divinity, but as a principal cause, although the execution of the work does not pertain to Him except as to an instrumental cause. Therefore Christ as man is the principal moral cause in the sacrifice, and the instrumental efficient cause.

S. Th. III, q. 82, a. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8; q. 78, a. 1 and 4; q. 83, a. 1, ad 3.

330. Thesis. All priests, and priests alone, are secondary ministers properly so called in the sacrifice of the altar (can. 802), as being the only ones designated by Christ in the Apostles through the words: Do this in commemoration of Me. - It is of faith from Lateran Council IV, c. 1 and Trent, sess. 22, c. 1 and can. 2, and from the doctrine of faith concerning the sacrament of Order.

Thus against certain Gnostics, even admitting women, and against the Waldenses, who judged all pious men apt, and against Lutherans and Calvinists saying that all baptized Christians are priests.

It is proved: 1. From the universal and perpetual practice of the Church, which is found testified by the Fathers, such as Ignatius, to the Smyrnaeans, VIII, 1; Justin, 1 apol., 65; Origen, in Num. hom. IV, 3; Cyprian, ep. 5 and 63; Eusebius, dem. ev. IV, 3; Chrysostom, de Sac. III, 4; Jerome, ep. 146; Ambrose, in Ps. XXXVIII, 7; L. de Sacr. IV, 4; Augustine, C. D. XVI, 22; XVII, 17; and it was confirmed by the Councils of Nicaea I, can. 18; Lateran IV, c. 1; Florence, decree for the Greeks; Trent, sess. 22, c. 1, can. 2; sess. 23, c. 1 and 4, can. 1.

2. By the reason which St. Thomas brings, q. 82, a. 1: "This sacrament is of such great dignity that it is not confected except in the person of Christ. But whoever does something in the person of another, this must be done by a power conceded by that one. Therefore, just as to the baptized there is conceded by Christ the power of receiving this sacrament, so to a priest, when he is ordained, there is conferred the power of consecrating this sacrament in the person of Christ. For by this he is placed in the rank of those to whom it was said by the Lord (Luke XXII, 19): Do this in commemoration of Me. And therefore it must be said that it is proper to priests to confect this sacrament."

The power of a priest consists in the indelible character of order, whence he validly consecrates even if he is evil, heretical, schismatic, suspended, excommunicated, degraded: for a priest does not consecrate in his own name and by his own power, but in the name of Christ, in whose person he acts as minister, and by the power of God Himself. Nor does someone cease by this very fact to be a minister of Christ, because he is evil. Cf. Council of Trent, sess. 7, can. 12; sess. 23, c. 4, can. 4; Council of Constance, sess. 8, prop. 4 and art. 22.

331. Several priests can consecrate and sacrifice together. - Not indeed as partial causes, whether on the part of the form, of which each would pronounce a part, or on the part of power, as if no one had sufficient power for consecrating alone but only all together; but as total causes, each of which effects the consecration, provided that they pronounce all the words of the form, and their intention is borne to the same instant at which all have completed the form, so that together they posit one sign. Therefore it does not suffice that "several priests validly concelebrate the sacrifice of the Mass, if only one of them utters the words This is My body and This is My blood over the bread and wine, while the rest do not utter the words of the Lord, but with the celebrant knowing and consenting, have and manifest the intention of making his words and actions their own." But "from the institution of Christ, he alone validly celebrates who pronounces the consecratory words." Response of the Congregation of the Holy Office, May 23, 1957.

In the Latin Church concelebration is licit only in the ordination of priests and in the Mass of the consecration of bishops (can. 803), and otherwise gravely prohibited; but in the Eastern Church it is still in use. Let concelebrants take care that they finish the words together (at least morally) with the principal celebrant, and that they have at least the implicit intention of consecrating not before him but together with him; for this the intention of doing in the better way, or of doing what the Church intends, suffices.

332. In what way the priest is a true minister of the sacrifice. - The minister of the sacrifice is he upon whose will the oblation and immolation of the victim depends, and who wills it in honor of God. But

1. at the will of the priest, placing the matter and form with due intention, Christ becomes present and is unbloodily immolated;

2. the priest wills this immolation in honor of God at least implicitly: for he who wills to do what Christ does or what the Church intends, implicitly wills to offer sacrifice in honor of God, because Christ and the Church intend this.

But if a wicked priest did not will to sacrifice, yet with a predominating will nevertheless wished to consecrate, he would not offer in his own name, but only in the name of Christ and the Church.

333. What is required in a priest so that as minister of Christ he may licitly sacrifice. - That a priest may licitly consecrate and sacrifice, it is further required that he be in the state of grace, regularly to be recovered from a preceding confession in the case of sin, that he be bound by no censure, irregularity, or canonical impediment, and that he exist fasting from midnight (can. 807 and 808), as was already explained in n. 271 and 281.

A priest celebrating in mortal sin does not seem to commit several distinct sins, namely an unworthy confection, ministration by an unworthy person, ministration made to an unworthy person, and unworthy reception, but one sin, because all those things are ordered to one sacrifice; although the sin is so much graver because it contains several malices.

334. In what sense the Church and the faithful are said to offer the sacrifice. - The Church and the faithful are called offerers, not indeed in the proper or ministerial sense, insofar as the oblation and immolation of the victim and its ordering in honor of God would depend upon their will, but improperly, insofar as they concur in the sacrificial oblation and immolation or participate in the intention of honoring God, and thus are morally united to the priest.

1. They can participate in the intention of honoring God, joining their will to the will of Christ and of the priest:

a) by implicit and habitual will, as the Church does: for Christ offers Himself for the society of the Church, of which He is head, and the priest, by designation of the Church, offers the sacrifice in the name of the whole Church, i.e., of all the faithful (even infants);

b) more perfectly by explicit and actual will, by uniting one's intention to the intention of Christ and of the priest;

c) better, by assisting at the sacrifice and externally manifesting the internal intention;

d) best finally, by assisting and at the same time communicating: for thus they most fully become participants in the sacrifice and manifest their assent to it, confessing that the sacrifice is offered for them and that the victim, Christ, has been immolated for them (I Cor. X, 18).

2. They can concur externally in the sacrifice:

a) by asking or procuring that the sacrifice be celebrated, for example by furnishing a stipend, making a foundation, etc.;

Caius, a priest doubtful whether he had given consent to an evil thought, anxiously began to celebrate Mass. While celebrating Mass he judged now that he had consented and now otherwise; occupied with his doubts, he did not notice that the server, since the Most Holy Sacrament was not reserved on the altar, had placed on the corporal a small host for Communion. After receiving Communion and hearing the Confiteor recited by the server, he looked and saw the small host on the corporal. At first he did not know what was to be done, but soon, remembering that some years before he had formed the intention of consecrating at Mass whatever capable of being properly consecrated was placed on the altar, although afterwards, having forgotten the intention, he had never renewed it, he gave the host to the server for Communion. Afterwards, however, tormented by doubts, he asked a confessor whether he had sinned by celebrating without previous confession or contrition, and whether he ought to have given the host to the server. Hence it is asked:

1. What is required for a valid consecration of the Eucharist?

2. How does a priest sin by celebrating in mortal sin?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. What is required for the valid consecration of the Eucharist?

The proper matter must be physically present and must be determined by the intention of the priest when he utters the words of consecration.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 84.

2. How does a priest sin who celebrates in mortal sin?

He commits several mortal sins: by consecrating the

Holy Eucharist in sin, by communicating in sin, and by administering Holy Communion to himself though he knows that he is unworthy to receive it.²

2 Ibid., p. 33.

3. The case. Caius should have made up his conscience finally before saying Mass as to whether he had sinned or not. Frequently this can be done in such cases by means of presumptions. If more frequently than not he consents to such bad thoughts when attacked by them, he should presume that he consented in this doubtful case, and should go to confession. If he does not usually consent, the presumption is in his favor, and he may conclude that he did not consent in this doubtful case. If he can not make up his mind but remains in doubt he should at least elicit an act of contrition before saying Mass. He should not have given the host for Communion to his server, for it could hardly have been consecrated under the circumstances. An actual or at least virtual intention is required for the validity of the consecration. He had not an actual intention, for he had not noticed the small host until the communion. Nor had he a virtual intention, for the purpose which he had formed many years before of consecrating whatever was capable of being consecrated with decency had not been renewed, and had been forgotten. It could not then continue to have an influence on the act of consecration, and some influence is required for a virtual intention. We must, then, conclude that the small host was not consecrated and it should not have been given for communion.

A certain Bishop had ordained twelve new priests, but after his Communion it was noticed that a ciborium containing hosts for communicating the new priests had inadvertently been left on the credence table at the side of the altar. As the master of ceremonies doubted what was to be done, one person advised that it should be suggested to the Bishop that here and now he consecrate the ciborium conditionally and distribute the consecrated particles; another insinuated that they had without doubt already been consecrated by virtue of the virtual intention certainly possessed by the Bishop; a third suggested that one of the new priests ought to pronounce the words of consecration over the ciborium so that it would certainly be consecrated; finally, a fourth suggested that as many hosts should be taken from the tabernacle so that the new priests might complete the Mass celebrated by each of them simultaneously with the Bishop. Hence it is asked:

1. What is required for a valid consecration in Mass?

2. What is required for a lawful consecration?

3. What is to be done by the Bishop in the case, and what is to be said of the various means suggested to the master of ceremonies?

The first question was answered above, p. 129.

2. What is required for the lawful consecration of the Eucharist?

For the lawful consecration of the matter of the Eucharist the hosts must be whole, clean, and of the usual size and shape, the chalice and ciborium must be on the corporal and uncovered, and the consecration must be in Mass as it is prescribed to be said, and under both kinds.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 85.

3. The case. The first suggestion is altogether inadmissible, if followed it would mean that the bishop was to say Mass again without following the order prescribed by the Church, and was to consecrate under one species alone. I

The bishop could hardly have had an intention to consecrate the ciborium according to the second suggestion, for if he had thought of it at all he would have noticed that it was not on the altar. It is true that it might have been validly consecrated on the credence table, but unless the bishop actually intended to do it this should not be assumed.

The third suggestion has all the inconveniences of the first, for the newly ordained priests celebrate Mass with the bishop.

The reason given for the fourth suggestion is incorrect, for the hosts in the tabernacle were consecrated in another Mass and can not be used to integrate this Mass. However, this suggestion seems to be the best, for thus the new priests can at any rate receive Holy Communion, though the hosts were not consecrated in this Mass as they should have been.