Who is it that Consecrates the Eucharist at Liturgy?

Dear James, no worries! I have taken no offense; I think you have taken no liberties.

[As for appellations, the convention is to use "The Rev. Dr. (last name)" for written address; to use "Mother..." or "Father..." for spoken address OR, in the case of a PhD, "Dr...." I prefer simply to be called by my given name, Elaine, (having in mind Matthew 23:9).]

As for Eucharistic theology and ecclesiastical doctrine, your tradition and mine differ regarding the communion of the Eucharist. It's not so much a matter of a public/private dichotomy as a theological understanding of Who/how the Eucharist is celebrated. An early Anglican poet, John Donne wrote this way

He was the Word that spake it;
He took the bread and brake it;
and what that Word did make it;
I do believe and take it.

The Logos is the author of the 'holiness' of the Eucharist. The priests attending - for us that is the whole congregation assembled as the Body of Christ in the priesthood of all believers as well as the ordained celebrant - join in calling the Spirit (the epiclesis of the whole congregation). The celebrant who is the ordained priest consecrates the bread and wine in and as part of the Communion of people and Spirit. The Holy Communion IS the Eucharist - the joyful thanksgiving - of the people assembled as the worshiping community in the Real Presence of the Risen Christ Who also is present (really!) in the elements-as-sacrament of His Body and Blood; [sacrament is defined as: "an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible Grace."] In other words, we do not account for the transubstantiation as residing singularly in the words and actions of the priest-celebrant, but rather in the joyful thanksgiving of the assembled Body led in worship by the ordained clergy as well as in the change in the material elements.

Neither do we account for the reception of the sacrament as residing in a private individual alone. The Holy Communion is community-making and binding. For example, when we send the consecrated bread and wine to the hospitalized and homebound we do that with a formal blessing from the congregation and we typically hold those recipients in prayer as absent members of the community during the week at the Morning, Noonday, and Evening Prayers.

Having said this, it also is the case that only ordained clergy formally lead ('celebrate') the Eucharist in our tradition. Deacons may not consecrate the elements, nor are private 'house' communions without clergy recognized as a Eucharist.

As I said in my initial email response. We Episcopalians have a "via media" (between Rome and Vienna) regarding most of the fundamentals of our theology and doctrine. The chief sacramental theologian in our tradition is Richard Hooker, the sixteenth century Anglican priest who established in his LAWS, the foundations of our sacramental theology.

In a nutshell these are that Holy Communion is a developmental relationship that is both personal (NOT only 'private') and purposive. Three foundations support this theology:

* The Eucharist is the way in which continuing new life, established in Baptism, develops in the lives of the faithful, who are fed with the Body and Blood of Christ.

But this action is NOT exclusively corporeal. It includes PARTICIPATION. Hooker says: "The fruite of the Eucharist is the participation of the bodie and blood of Christ.... who thereby imparteth him selfe even his whole intire person as a mysticall head unto everie soule that receiveth him. . . ."[50] Christ commanded that this be done. This command is sufficient as is the continued presence of Christ in the Church and to the faithful by virtue of His command and promise. The miracle of compassion and love is the REAL participation of Christ in the life of His Body and Blood in the community of the faithful requires also our participation. This sacrament is efficacious by the grace of God and by virtue of the RELATIONSHIP of an ongoing Covenant - the New Covenant of Christ-with-us.

Hooker further says: " ... All thinges considered and compared with that successe, which truth hathe hitherto had, by so bitter conflictes with errours in this point, shall I wishe that men would more give them selves to meditate with silence what wee have by the sacrament, and lesse to dispute of the manner how?"

* The Body of Christ comprises, fundamentally, a relationship WITH Christ FOR A PURPOSE, which, as Jesus teaches, is the revelation of God in the world - it is a soteriological. Our ecclesiological orientation therefore focuses on sacrament as communal and participatory and, as part of a larger continuum: We are 'adopted' by Baptism and 'grow up' in community, and ACT as Christians. In short, being in/with/for Christ has a participatory direction: "that the sacrament becomes that which it is meant to be IN THE USE OF IT, as the faithful receive the body and blood of Christ, transforming them to participate ever more fully in Christ's life, death, and resurrection and continuing work in the world."

* Participation a mutual and PERSONAL (not 'private') encounter of God and human child. It is the fruit or grace: "that mutuall inward hold of which Christ hath us and wee of him". The Eucharist is reciprocal: on the one hand, there is the action of the Father in the Son through the Spirit, which is gratuitous, self-giving and, on the other hand, there is the faithful reception of the Father's gift. It is efficacious at both the personal and corporate levels for the children of God.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

As for your direct queries:

Is it "Presumption" on my part to assume that Christ should visit Himself, in His body and His blood, upon such as Me? Whatever the place? Whoever the attendants?"

I can't say what is right for you, dear James. What is considered 'presumption' is so varied from place to place - I think we all know in our hearts when and how we presume and so I leave this to you & God.

~~~~~~~~~

"'The words we say, the gestures we make; the manner and custom of our liturgical traditions, AND our essential theological foundations like Apostolic succession, the sacredness of the Trinity, the divine Lordship of Jesus - all of these comprise parts of an identity that together form the 'platform' upon which we stand that brings coherence to our religious 'personality'.' Here I conflict with the term "religious." To me, can't you just guess, that would imply a degree of duplicity, in that, one should posses or develop a "religious personality", as an adjunct to who he or she "really is," solely for those appointed,(self or otherwise), to monitor those things!"

No - I do not intend to use the phrase ' religious personality' as a cloak to put on and take off at a whim. That would seem also to me a kind of religious convenience if not duplicity. What I mean to say is that all traditions have a set of foundational beliefs. For us, this comprises centuries of Scripture, Reason, and Experience (sometimes called 'Tradition') that is promulgated in our Book of Common Prayer and our historical documents. These Foundations form the basis of our seeking the continuing revelation of God - the 'prism' of our sight. We recognize that others in our Anglican Communion have a variety of cultural and societal 'prisms' that condition their sight (e.g., the contending Muslim faith in most parts of Africa) but we have for five centuries insisted upon a corporate effort to hold differences in tension as we journey together under the Quadrilateral of our basic faith foundations that we warrant as the "inherent parts of (the) sacred deposit" of our faith that binds us in unity (NOT uniformity): "The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as the revealed Word of God"; "The Nicene Creed as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith"; " the TWO sacraments of Baptism and the Supper of the Lord ministered with Christ's words of institutions and using the elements He ordained; and the Historic Episcopate. Within this foundation we seek the purpose of our faith. We struggle to hold in tension the way others seek their own.

As for who does or should 'monitor' the soul's seeking ... well, I hope we help each other rather than monitor and judge. Just imagine a world in which all the seekers sought the goodness of each other. WOW! Just imagine ...

The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy

I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you... (Jn13:34)

Elaine, you quote: "Our ecclesiological orientation therefore focuses on sacrament as communal and participatory and, AS PART OF A LARGER CONTINUUM" (Emphasis added). How illuminating!

I think what contributes to a generally and persistently cultured "religious" disconnection is failure to understand ourselves and Eucharist as inextricably linked to and in the "larger continuum", what is nature, the "supposition" of faith, of grace.

Divine Instance in nature is Divine Presence in the Sacrament of Nature, what is essentially Universal Eucharist, i.e., the transformation and transcendence of Self/ self into Other/ other. Thus, I find so much significance, so much Eucharistic connection, Divine/ human, in transformational Reality — in Symbiotic Evolution.

The "larger continuum" isn't merely the community of humankind but the cosmos, nature. We have a grossly inadequate sense of Eucharist, it seems to me, unless we join our consciousness to the whole cosmic/ natural continuum which is in perpetual transformation/ transfiguration in and through wave/ particle (spiritual/ material) dynamics.

From moment to moment, we are not now what we were a moment ago; nor does a status-quo ever obtain permanently anywhere. We are Eucharist in process, personally, socially, cosmically; what we are called to is "intentional" Eucharistic participation, every moment of our personal lifetimes — what the Mass commemorates, what Jesus calls all to celebrate — the "Sacrament of God Present".

http://www.secondenlightenment.org/THE%20SACRAMENT%20OF%20GOD%20PRESENT.pdf

In my theological tradition, your question would be answered with a "both/and".

The words of institution said by the ordained priest together with the epiclesis AND the gathered community (for us, there can never be a 'private' Eucharist), as well as the use of appropriate species (bread and wine), are central parts of the Liturgy of the Table. [Likewise, The Liturgy of the Word follows prescribed scripture readings from the Revised Common Lectionary, that you, in the Roman church, also use as basis of your scripture readings and homiletic themes, I believe.]

The reason for the both/and of my answer to your question is that our sacramental theology, like all other parts of our theological tradition, emphasizes the incarnational aspect of life in/as the Body of Christ. The words we say, the gestures we make; the manner and custom of our liturgical traditions, AND our essential theological foundations like Apostolic succession, the sacredness of the Trinity, the divine Lordship of Jesus - all of these comprise parts of an identity that together form the 'platform' upon which we stand that brings coherence to our religious 'personality'. What we treasure for ourselves, we also extend to others. We take account of and revere others' manner of piety and so, for example, we invite all Baptized Christians to share the Table of the Lord, engage in pulpit exchanges, and common mission without demanding a great deal of conformity.

For the celebration of the Eucharist, the words are important but they DO NOT compete with the sacredness of the gathered community; NOR are the words inconsequential or standing in 'second place.' Rather the incarnate expression of the sacrament of the Holy Communion (the words, species, conduct, and custom) interacts with the particular, concrete community gathered in real time in a real place, together.

You see how the incarnation works both in establishing these boundaries as well as opening the revelation of God. God makes all things new in very real concrete ways for us as well as in the sacred mystery of the action given by God that 'surpasses human understanding". Like all of REAL LIFE, we understand our Eucharist to be the sacramental expression of the intersection of the immediate and the eternal; of the material and the sublime; of the particular and the universal: of the Emergent Kingdom of God.

in my own experience, I could no more vacate the 'place' of a Eucharistic blessings than I could slap an innocent child or an adored saint. I'm sorry that you witnessed what seemed like an attitude of indifference. I'm sorrier that one called to ordained ministry should have lost that which is of such shimmering beauty. But God is Good ALL the time and so we must believe that salvation is possible ALL the time, as is the choice to "turn around"...

The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy

I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you... (Jn13:34)

I think that is a time when the experience is of the community making up for the inattention of a priest and thereby carrying on Christ's desire for us. We carry the attention, we give meaning--even though the experience of the moment was weakened by the celebrant. It is always the priest WITHIN the community who celebrates Eucharist.

This is the Church doctrine we would have inherited if NOT FOR Athanasius.

Actually, this is the doctrine we'd have if the Holy Spirit wasn't truly guiding the Church. Athanasius would never presume to take credit for preserving Church doctrine.

Hi Larry. God Bless You brother.

You wrote:
"Actually, this is the doctrine we'd have if the Holy Spirit wasn't truly guiding the Church. Athanasius would never presume to take credit for preserving Church doctrine".

Are you suggesting that The Holy Spirit WASN'T truly guiding the Church when the Church adopted Arius' position and then the Holy Spirit WAS guiding the Church when the church adopted Athanasius' position.

Isn't the Holy Spirit always guiding the Church regardless of the position the Church takes? I mean that's my whole point Larry. Church Doctrine changes according to the Church's capacity to understanding the Holy Spirit's Guidance. And since numerous and frequent changes to church Doctrine and Dogma are constantly taking place in it’s “development� we much keep our minds open and discerning concerning new spiritual understandings of Church Doctrine and Dogma INCLUDING but not limited too previous opinions that were once determined NOT to be valid Doctrine or Dogma. Like that of Athanasius.

I’m sure you are right about Athanasius never presuming to take credit not for preserving Church Doctrine because that’s not what he did, he was behind the spiritual understanding that CHANGED Church Doctrine from Arius’ position to that which he was sure was the TRUTH, that Christ was divine and divinely present in the Eucharist. And thank s to the Holy Spirit for providing them Athanasius and His supporters for withstanding the persecution meted out to them by the CHURCH until the Church changed position.

The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will

To support your answer, b7m8, it also requires the proper form and matter. In this case, the words of institution (form) and bread and wine (matter).

I'm guessing that you haven't really dealt with the Addai and Mari decision?

I had never heard of the Addai and Mari decision - learn something new everyday. It's very interesting. If the Vatican says it's okay, then it's okay, regardless if I haven't really dealt with it before. Doesn't change the fact that it's still the celebrant who consecrates the Eucharist...

But it does challenge the heavy-handed reliance on "proper form and matter", which is why I responded where I did.

On the contrary, it is the Spirit who consecrates the Eucharist............

I had to look it up. Here's what I found:

Church of the East's Practice

The anaphora of Addai and Mari has been in continuous use in the Church of the East since ancient times without the words of institution. The rite seems to have derived from Edessa, and the outline of the current form can be traced as far back as the time of the Patriarch Mar Isho-yab III in the seventh century. In the course of the anaphora, prayers of praise known as "Ghanatha" (from the verb "ghan," bow) are said in a low voice by the celebrant. Hymns by Saint Ephrem and others are often sung during the communion. Traditional use has called for a section of dough from the eucharistic bread to be saved from week to week, not as reserve sacrament but as leaven for the next week's bread.

Current Roman Catholic Position

In its pure form, the anaphora does not include the Words of Institution.[1] This raised ecumenical concerns, since the Western tradition of the Roman Catholic Church considered the Words of Institution to be essential to the validity of the sacred mystery. Nevertheless, the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith concluded on January 17, 2001 that the Anaphora of Addai and Mari can be considered valid. Three reasons were given for this. First, the Anaphora of Addai and Mari dates back to the early Church. Secondly, the Church of the East has otherwise preserved the orthodox faith in regard to the Eucharist and Holy Orders. And finally, though the Words of Institution do not appear in a coherent way, they are present in a dispersed way through prayers of praise, thanksgiving and intercession. What this last point would seem to mean is that the Divine Liturgy of Addai and Mari is a reenactment of Christ's Mystical Supper, even without the Words of Institution.

Though this decision by the Roman Catholic Church is not irreformable, its ecumenical importance should not be underestimated. Because of this decision, it is thought by some that there are some circumstances in which the Church can accept an Epiclesis in place of the Words of Institution. Others maintain, however, that this decision affirms that the Words of Institution are present in an implicit way, still regarding the Words of Institution as the essential form of the Sacrament.

Chaldean Catholics, who use this rite, traditionally have inserted the Words of Institution into the Anaphora; they are now beginning to cease adding the interpolation.

from Wikipedia

joer - actually, I didn't ignore anything. Let's get back to the original question: "Who Is Is That Consecrates The Eucharist in the Liturgy?"

Yes, I cited one source, the Catechism, which is compiled from Scripture, past councils and teachings of the Church Fathers. I responded directly to her, stating that if she wants additional references, I'd be happy to provide some, but please give me some time to do so. Why there is such acrimony towards the CCC, I don't understand, since the majority of conciliar references are from the Second Vatican Council anyway. The CCC doesn't ignore Church History - it draws from Church History.

Here's the Catholic Encyclopedia exercpt from the same portion that you cited, but didn't highlight: "Scripturally considered, the necessity of a special priesthood with the power of validly consecrating is derived from the fact that Christ did not address the words, "Do this", to the whole mass of the laity, but exclusively to the Apostles and their successors in the priesthood; hence the latter alone can validly consecrate. It is evident that tradition has understood the mandate of Christ in this sense and in no other."

In addition, for the first 400 years of the Church, it was illegal to be a Christian. The Roman Empire arrested, tortured, and brutally murdered any Christian they could find. Of course they celebrated Mass in their homes, and in the catacombs, in order to survive! That's historical fact. And there are Catholics today in some places where worship has to be done in secret - Saudi Arabia is one place - where priests are transported in secret so that Mass can be celebrated.

I don't know what "life saving Truth" I'm supposedly ignoring here, but what I'm not ignoring is that I have no power to consecrate the Eucharist. Yes, we worship as community during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. yes, we gather as the Body of Christ to partake of his body, blood, soul and divinity. Yes, Jesus loves all of us, and nothing can separate us from His love (except our sin, like pride, lust, fornication, etc).But I do not, nor does any other non-ordained member of the Church, have the power to consecrate the Eucharist.

As to your other comments regarding the "the oppressive and restrictive pressures applied by the Church meant to manipulate and control the followers of Christ", I have no idea what that has to do with this conversation. Sounds like you have an axe to grind.

Peace and God's blessings to you as well.

Larry, lets get real here ... the only reason that priest consecrate the eucharist is that the magisterial authorities say that is the way it is has to be in THEIR church. The scriptures do not tell us that, only the magisterial authority.

I guarantee you, that ANYONE, ANYONE who acts faithfully and reverently in the person of Christ, can effectively consecrate the eucharist. That is what the early church taught us. That is what the magisterial authorities do NOT want us to know. This issue is nothing more than a way to control the laity, nothing more than a way to maintain power for the clergy.

The same Holy Spirit that the priest aligns with during the blessing, is the same one that each of us align with each time we pray in faith. There is nothing special about the priest as a priest, that is not equally special about each member of the laity.

In fact, after the performance I witnessed last week, most of the laity would have done a better job of it. No member of the laity would ever give such a pathetic performance as the one I witnessed. Wearing a white robe and reciting a magic incantation with the same attitude as one has when cleaning barnyard mud off of their shoes does not bless the eucharist.

Yes, I am angry. Communion is something I hold sacred and precious. When I see it perveted, regardless of reason, especially by one who of the clergy, YES, I GET ANGRY. Perversion of Holy Communion by anyone for any reason is unacceptable. When a priest is unable to be present in that moment, with the appropriate reverance, it is time for him to step down.

"We, of the new and eternal covenant..." Indeed! What a joy and amazing Grace is that!! How can so many be so blind to the abundance of compassion found in that reality. And yet, isn't it an additional grace to read, and hear, and know all of you who make it so.

The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy

I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you... (Jn13:34)

How can so many be so blind?"

It is a testament to the indoctrination that begins before children have the ability to discern the truth for themselves. That is the purpose of indoctrination, not to teach, but to prevent them from asking the questions than cant be answered when they reach maturity.

A similar phenomenon was witnessed with the Japanese during the early 20th century. During the invasions of the islands, entire populations killed their families and committed suicide because they were indoctrinated by their leaders early in childhood to obey without question.

I suspect that the large number of catholics who have left and continue to leave the church are the ones who managed somehow to break through the indoctrination and see the truth. What is interesting is how many of them say the same thing .... they left because they realized that the church had lied to them.

Hey Col, Good to here from you.

I believe the Truth is worth sharing and embracing among all regardless of denomination. So Far the Catholic Church in my time has allow me the latitude for progression. There's just those who prefer to maintain things the way they are or were. They are afraid of change. I found the indoctrination works to a certain point and then you need to find deeper truths and they are even found in our church History but you have to dig out the truths that have been forgotten that are coming back to life. Living again in our living faith. Our static faith of indoctrination now becomes our living Spirit-led Faith that guides our lives.

Bless You Col and all here.

The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will

LarryD~ This is a discussion cafe, hosted by NCR not a didactic journalistic exercise. If you or anyone else wishes to quote chapter and verse the hosts have given considerable latitude in that regard. (not Dennis Coday)

There's a one right answer? I'm guessing you've been cherry-picking your documents! We belong to a faith community rich in diverse language over two millenia to approach anything we might want to talk about. So, why don't you name what document you're consulting (I'm guessing maybe just one?)..

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states in paragraph 1411 "Only validly ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord." Despite our being a priestly people, unless we're ordained by a Bishop, the laity have no power to consecrate the Eucharist. So yes, there is only one right answer.

The Catechism draws from the teachings of the Church, spanning the two millenia. But if you want me to cite other Church documents and teachings from the Church Fathers, I'll do so. It may take me some time, so please be patient.

But why is it so important to make the consecration about "us" instead of focusing on the "Him" who instituted the Sacrament during the Last Supper? Can you give me any examples of saints who believed as you do?

There are a couple of things that I'm sure our leadership would prefer that we not recognize and understand.

In several scriptures Jesus said "When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, ..."

In John 14:12 Jesus said: "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do"

According to the words of Jesus, all the works He did, we are to do as well.
I dont see anything in the scripture that says "except consecrating the euchrist"

This is why this experience is so valuable to me. I must have read that hundreds of times and yet never SEEN it, never really understood it. God bless you for opening my eyes.

Actually, if you read far enough, I'm guessing you will start to understand that there is language there in those two millenia that suggest that the celebrant is acting within the community of believers, just as the pope can only speak infallibly WITHIN the community of the church, and most specifically (although not exclusively) within the voice of the bishops of the church. Ordination is only invested in individuals in the name of the community of believers, not as a sect of the empowered and privileged individual men.

AnnieO, you wrote: "Ordination is only invested in individuals in the name of the community of believers, not as a sect of the empowered and privileged individual men."

What does this mean exactly? I thought Holy Orders is a sacrament granted to men that have answered God's call, and have a true vocation to the priesthood. It's not a right that anyone can claim. As a married man, I accept that I can't be a priest. So please explain your statement. Thanks!

Peace and God's blessings!

but Larry as a married man you CAN be a priest.....look at all the MARRIED Anglican priests that change their denomination to Roman Catholicism and are accepted by the Vatican to function as Roman Catholic priests..........

The Apostles were married weren't they?

Well, I agree enough that orders is a sacrament of the church, granted to men. I make a presumption that they are answering God's call also. But I would not want to stake the meaning of ordination on whether a man has a "true" vocation to the priesthood. I'm not sure what that means, but I do make the presumption. Although once a person knows a fair number of priests, I think most people understand that there are many reasons men seek priesthood, which may or may not constitute a "true" vocation in a person's personal assessment; I'll leave that mostly to God. I guess it raises some issues with priests who are pedophiles, whether God really meant them to be in such a position in life. But I'll leave that be here also.

I don't have time right now to do a lot of searching of documents, but I think if you read church documents, you will certainly find that what I said is church teaching. The priesthood is part of the Christian community, not a sect that lives on its own, just as you will find that the pope's infallibility resides only within the context of the church community, most explictly, the bishops. I'm not sure how to explain it more without going to documents, but I'm not sure what you don't understand. In other words, do you see ordination as something that exists only in the persona of each bishop that sacramentalizes the ordination of the next priest, and could continue to endlessly pass that on without the church community? At some point that decision always comes back to the community. The church has always taught (i'm perhaps older than you) that orders takes place within the community and for the service of the community. Jesus never instituted a temple priesthood or whatever you might call such a sect. I'm not sure what you think, so I don't really understand what's complicated or strange about traditional church teaching. It was centuries before the concept current in the church was even formalized to approximate what it is now. At first there were presbyters, who were not like the present priesthood, but something between a priest and a bishop, I guess. I am not sure where we don't connect, but I'm thinking it's just buzzwords that get conflict going rather than something else.

AnnieO, thanks for your answer. It's difficult to have a real conversation in this type of venue because of the time lag between posts. I agree - the priesthood is not a sect, but was instituted by Christ to serve the Church's members - primarily through distribution of the sacraments and by living holy lives. So once again, thanks for the fuller answer. I didn't want to presume anything by your response.

LarryD, it seems to me you are missing a very important point in your rush to incriminate NCR.

According to the New Advent Home > Catholic Encyclopedia
The Blessed Eucharist as a Sacrament
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05584a.htm

You can see the valid Minister of Consecration has changed over time. At one time in the early Christian Church BOTH WOMAN with “priestly powers� as well as “every layman was qualified, as the appointed representative of the faithful, to consecrate the Sacrament of the Eucharist�.

The minister of the Eucharist
The Eucharist being a permanent sacrament, and the confection (confectio) and the reception (susceptio) thereof being separated from each other by an interval of time, the minister may be and in fact is twofold: (a) the minister of consecration and (b) the minister of administration.
(a) The minister of consecration
In the early Christian Era the Peputians, Collyridians, and Montanists attributed priestly powers even to women (cf. Epiphanius, De hær., xlix, 79); and in the Middle Ages the Albigenses and Waldenses ascribed the power to consecrate to every layman of upright disposition. Against these errors the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) confirmed the ancient Catholic teaching, that "no one but the priest [sacerdos], regularly ordained according to the keys of the Church, has the power of consecrating this sacrament". Rejecting the hierarchical distinction between the priesthood and the laity, Luther later on declared, in accord with his idea of a "universal priesthood" (cf. 1 Peter 2:5), that every layman was qualified, as the appointed representative of the faithful, to consecrate the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

BUT the real Consecration of the Eucharist, “is union with Christ by love (Decr. pro Armenis: adunatio ad Christum), which union as such does not consist in the sacramental reception of the Host, but in the spiritual and mystical union with Jesus by the theological virtue of love.� The REAL consecration in the Sacrament of Holy Communion doesn’t come with the de facto consecration of the host by a priest or anybody else, But in the Union of Love the we Establish Spiritually and mystically with Our Savior and Our God.

Christ consecrates the us and the Sacrament. That consecration (of us and the host) is the "grace of the sacrament" bestowed upon it and us by Christ. That is it’s and OUR saving Grace.

The doctrine of the Church regarding the effects or the fruits of Holy Communion centres around two ideas: (a) the union with Christ by love and (b) the spiritual repast of the soul. Both ideas are often verified in one and same effect of Holy Communion.
(a) The union with Christ by love
The first and principal effect of the Holy Eucharist is union with Christ by love (Decr. pro Armenis: adunatio ad Christum), which union as such does not consist in the sacramental reception of the Host, but in the spiritual and mystical union with Jesus by the theological virtue of love. Christ Himself designated the idea of Communion as a union love: "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh blood, abideth in me, a