Consecration

← Encyclopedia

Consecration is the rite by which a person, place, or object is set apart from common use and dedicated to the sacred. The Latin consecrare — to make wholly holy, from con- (an intensive) and sacer, the word for what belongs to the gods and is withdrawn from ordinary handling — names the act and its claimed result at once: something that was ordinary is declared no longer so, and is thereafter handled, guarded, or approached by different rules. What changes is not the thing’s appearance but its status, and the change is held to be effected by the rite itself rather than merely announced by it. A consecrated vessel looks exactly as it did before; it is the same metal, the same weight. What has altered is what may be done with it, who may touch it, and what is now believed to be present in or behind it. The Roman legal vocabulary kept this edge sharp: sacer named a thing made over to a deity and so removed from human commerce, while its near-twin sanctus named what was hedged about and defended by sanction. Consecration is the operation that carries a thing from the first category into the second — out of the profanum, the ground “before the shrine,” and across the threshold into the precinct.

The pattern of setting-apart

The pattern is older than any one religion and recurs almost everywhere people mark off a zone of the holy. Ancient temples were dedicated to their gods with prescribed formulae, the words spoken once and held to bind permanently; the Roman dedicatio and consecratio of a temple or altar transferred the ground and its structure into divine ownership, and a magistrate or pontiff who departed from the wording was thought to have voided the act. Altars, images, priests, kings, and ground were all brought across the same threshold by ritual. The means are remarkably consistent across traditions, and they recur in combinations rather than singly: a setting-apart in words — the declarative formula that names the new status; the laying on of hands, the gesture by which a charge or power is conveyed from one body to another; washing, which removes the common and readies the surface to receive the holy; and above all anointing — the pouring of oil that gives the Hebrew mashiach and Greek christos, the anointed one, their names, and that carries the strongest claim of the four, since the oil is held not merely to mark but to confer. To consecrate was characteristically to draw a boundary and to commit what lay inside it to a power. The oil-rite, the imposition of hands, and the rites that change a person’s standing each open onto their own deep traditions, treated under anointing, the office of the priest, and initiation.

Three features hold across these very different settings. First, irreversibility: what has been set apart cannot simply drift back into common use. A thing genuinely given to a power is given; reclaiming it requires a second deliberate act, never mere neglect — the rite has a one-way grain. Second, the distinction between change of status and change of substance: most traditions agree that consecration alters how a thing stands within a community and before the divine, and divide sharply over whether it alters what the thing is. The argument over that difference is the doctrinal heart of the subject and turns on the contested notion of substance — the underlying what-it-is that may or may not be touched when the visible properties stay fixed. Third, a new regime of access and danger: the consecrated is fenced, and the fence cuts both ways, conferring privilege of approach on some and exposure to harm on others. The holy that has been concentrated in one place by the rite is treated as potent, and contact with it outside the prescribed channel is hazardous.

What the rite is taken to accomplish

Traditions divide over what the rite accomplishes — whether it describes a transformation or causes one. The divergence is not a quarrel over wording but a disagreement about what kind of event a consecration is, and the major positions can be laid out as a spectrum running from the strongest real-change claim to the plainest reading of solemn dedication.

At the strong end stands much of Christianity, where consecration effects a real change. The bishop’s or priest’s words at the Eucharist — the central act of Christian liturgy — are held to make the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ, the elements remaining bread and wine to every sense while being, in their inmost reality, something else. The medieval West fixed this in the language of substance and accidents inherited from Aristotle: the substance of the bread is changed while its accidents — color, taste, weight, the look of bread — persist without it, a doctrine the Fourth Lateran Council named in 1215 and the Council of Trent reaffirmed in 1551. From the same conviction follows the rule of irreversibility in its sharpest form: a consecrated church or vessel cannot afterward be returned to profane use without a further rite of deconsecration, an explicit reversal that does what mere disuse cannot. A desecrated altar is not simply a dirty altar; it has been wrenched out of its state, and must be reconsecrated before the holy may be celebrated on it again. The Eastern churches frame the same real-change conviction less through the philosophy of substance and more through the invocation of the Spirit — the epiclesis by which the change is asked for and believed granted — but agree that what is set apart is genuinely altered, not merely re-labeled. This whole family of claims belongs to the theology of the sacrament, the rite held to be an outward sign of an inward grace that it also conveys.

The treatises ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite supply the most influential theory of what such rites mean. Written in Greek around the year 500 by an anonymous author who signed with the name of the Athenian convert in the Book of Acts, and carrying for a thousand years very nearly the authority of Scripture, the corpus reads the church’s consecrations — of the altar, of the chrism, of the ordained — as visible signs of an invisible hierarchy descending from God. In The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy each rite is a theourgia, a “divine work,” in which a sensible action becomes the vehicle of a more-than- sensible gift: the consecration of the myron, the perfumed oil, is read as the visible image of the descent of the divine through the ranks of being; the ordination of the cleric, as the conferral of a place in the chain that carries illumination down from the angelic orders to the human. The rite does not manufacture the holy; it manifests and transmits a holiness that flows from above through ordered degrees, and the sensible sign is the means by which beings bound to the body are lifted toward what cannot be seen. This sacramental theurgia — the divinely instituted hierarchy operating to communicate deification — drew its metaphysical scaffolding from the Neoplatonism of Proclus, a debt that the philological work of Hugo Koch and Josef Stiglmayr, independently in 1895, made unmistakable; both showed the corpus drawing on Proclus’s treatise on the existence of evils and so postdating the mid-fifth century, which is why the author is now called Pseudo-Dionysius.

A different account of the same kind of act comes from the late-antique theurgists, and the parallel is instructive precisely because the content diverges. Where the Areopagite’s consecrations transmit a grace instituted by the Christian God, the theurgy of Iamblichus and his successors describes the consecration of statues as drawing divine power into matter prepared to receive it. On this reading the cosmos is woven through with symbola and synthēmata — tokens, signatures, correspondences sown by the gods into stones, plants, scents, and figures — and a statue rightly composed of the right materials becomes a fit receptacle, a place where the divine consents to be present. Iamblichus is emphatic, against the rationalist objections of his teacher’s circle, that the rite does not coerce: the gods are not compelled by the operator’s will, and the work succeeds because the divine has made the world responsive to itself, not because a human technique has forced its hand. The consecrated image, the agalma into which presence has been called, is the clearest pagan analogue to the consecrated vessel — a thing whose substance is unchanged to the eye and whose status, and indwelling power, is held to be wholly transformed. The two streams share the very word theourgia and the conviction that a sensible rite can be the channel of an unseen power; they differ over whose power, instituted how, and within which cosmos.

Other traditions weight the act differently again, as dedication or as the invocation of a presence into an image without the metaphysics of changed substance. The consecration of a Hindu temple image in the prāṇa-pratiṣṭhā, the “establishing of the breath,” asks the deity to take up residence in the sculpted form, after which the image is no longer stone to be handled freely but a god to be served, bathed, fed, and put to rest; here the language is of in-dwelling and invitation rather than of a substance transformed. And at the far end of the spectrum, in Reformed Christianity the same word often means something nearer solemn setting-apart than any change wrought in the thing. For the heirs of the Swiss Reformation a building is consecrated when it is dedicated to worship and reverently used for it, and the Lord’s Supper is a sign and seal of grace rather than a vessel newly filled; the elements remain bread and wine, and the holiness is in the use and the covenant, not infused into the matter. The disagreement with the real-change tradition is not over whether something serious has happened but over where the seriousness lies — in the thing, or in the community’s commitment and God’s faithfulness to it.

Setting-apart and the experience of crossing over

Consecration sets apart objects and places; it also sets apart people, and where it does, it shades into initiation, the rites that carry a person across a threshold into a new condition. The two are not the same — a chalice is not initiated and a novice is not a vessel — but they share the grammar of the irreversible crossing, and the language of one borrows constantly from the other. The ancient mystery cults, whose initiates were brought through fasting, vigil, darkness, and sudden light to a state described as no longer ordinary, gave the wider Mediterranean world its vocabulary for the experiential side of being set apart: not learning a doctrine but undergoing a change, in Aristotle’s formula not to learn something but to undergo and be put into a state. That sense — that the one who has crossed over is genuinely altered, marked, no longer to be approached as before — is the same conviction that underwrites the consecration of a priest or a king, and it is why the consecrating rites of office so often reuse the imagery of death and rebirth, of washing away the old and putting on the new.

Scholarship and the study of the rite

The modern study of consecration treats it as a clear instance of ritual’s capacity to alter social and sacred status by performance — a thing made holy by being treated as holy, within a community that agrees to the change. This is the reading developed in the anthropology and philosophy of ritual since the late nineteenth century: that certain utterances and acts do not report a state of affairs but bring one about, the way a promise creates an obligation or a verdict creates a convict, so that the consecrating formula is a performative whose force depends on the right speaker, the right setting, and a community prepared to hold the result. Those who practice the rite have meant a great deal more: that the rite does not describe a transformation but causes one, and that what has been consecrated is genuinely no longer ordinary, no longer available for common use as before.

The textual apparatus for the subject is largely public-domain and richly documented. The Dionysian corpus, the single most influential theory of consecration as a visible sign of an invisible descent, is available in English in John Parker’s two-volume translation, The Works of Dionysius the Areopagite (London, 1897–99), which includes The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy with its readings of the consecrations of altar and myron; the full text is also hosted at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library. The standard modern commentary is Paul Rorem’s Pseudo-Dionysius: A Commentary on the Texts and an Introduction to Their Influence (Oxford, 1993), which distinguishes the Dionysian sacramental theourgia from the pagan ritual it adapts, and the introductory survey at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy sets the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy in its Neoplatonic frame. For the theurgic account of consecrating matter to receive divine presence, the primary text is Iamblichus’s On the Mysteries, available in Thomas Taylor’s 1821 English version, Iamblichus on the Mysteries of the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Assyrians — Taylor reads the dialogue through the developed system of Proclus, a commitment to keep in view — with the full text on Wikisource and a fresh idiomatic alternative in Alexander Wilder’s 1911 Theurgia. The decisive reframing of theurgy as a coherent philosophy of embodied rite rather than a decadent lapse into magic is Gregory Shaw’s Theurgy and the Soul: The Neoplatonism of Iamblichus (1995; rev. 2014), against the older dismissal in E. R. Dodds’s The Greeks and the Irrational (1951). On the Christian side the philological hinge remains Josef Stiglmayr’s Aufkommen der pseudo-dionysischen Schriften and Hugo Koch’s parallel study, both 1895, which together fixed the corpus as a post-Proclan composition.

A boundary, drawn by a rite, does not merely sort the holy from the common; it hands something over. To consecrate is to set the line and then to step back from what now lies across it — to renounce the ordinary claim on a thing or a person in the very act of declaring it no longer ordinary. A line is drawn; what falls inside it is given away.

→ In the library: Dionysius the Areopagite (Parker) — incl. the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy · Iamblichus on the Mysteries (Taylor, 1821)

→ Related: Anointing · Sacramental · Substance · Sacrament · Priest · Pseudo Dionysius The Areopagite · Theurgy · Iamblichus · Neoplatonism · Ritual · Liturgy · Baptism · Initiation · Christianity · Reformed Christianity