WORN OUT ACADEMIC DISCUSSION AT ANOTHER 1970'S TYPE BLOG (praytell) ABOUT EXACTLY WHEN DOES THE CONSECRATION OF THE BREAD AND WINE OCCUR

The 1970's pseudo-theology about the consecration of the Bread and Wine developed in the context of downplaying the sacrificial aspect of the Mass and focusing primarily on the "meal" aspect of the Eucharist. The Eucharistic Prayer came to be seen as the means by which this "happy Meal" would be provided for the congregation horizontally holding hands in prayer in anticipation of the morsel of real looking Bread they would receive and the drop of real looking blood red Wine they would drink and in community signifying their great mission to be Bread and Wine for the world. (Are you barfing yet?) So called real looking bread (compared to the traditional disc) was important because so many couldn't believe the disc was bread thus believing in the bread that looked like bread was of higher urgency than believing the bread and wine become the Body, Blood,Soul and Divinity of Christ!

Well then is the entire Eucharistic Prayer consecratory or is the entire Eucharistic Prayer the unbloody offering of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Risen Christ to God the Father just as Jesus on the actual cross prior to His glorious resurrection offered His actual Body and Blood to the Father who graciously accepted this eternal love offering for the salvation of souls?

It seems to me that not only is the Eucharistic Prayer in its entirety  the sacrificial offering of Christ but the entire Mass is, with the ordain male Catholic priest as the sacramental image of this exchange between God the Risen Son and God the Father. However, a portion of this Eucharistic Sacrificial offering necessitates the "Real Presence" of the Risen Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, to be on the altar for the sacramental, unbloody offering of Himself to His Father.

Thus the first part of the Eucharistic Prayer beginning with the Epiclesis (calling down of the Holy Spirit on the unconsecrated Bread and Wine) and then the actual words of consecration over the bread and wine enact the consecration part of the unbloody Holy Sacrifice. After the consecration the Eucharistic prayer, especially the immediate words after "The Mystery of Faith" enact the actual offering of the Risen Christ's Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity to God the Father by the power of the Holy Spirit.

The Eucharistic Banquet occurs at the "Rite of Holy Communion" with the Pater Noster and the priest-celebrant completing the Sacrifice by His consumption of the Holocaust. So even the Eucharistic Banquet, the Sacrificial Meal of the Mass, is a sharing in the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Altar. It isn't a fellowship meal of hand holding Christians hell-bent on being do-gooders in the institutional Church or in the world. It is about salvation of souls and the antidote to what leads to Hell and damnation, sin.

Do the "nones" who have abandoned the Church and the Holy Sacrifice have any clue about this? Do progressive Catholics have any clue about this? Do good, practicing Catholics have any clue about this? I ask; you answer!

Here is a good apologetic on exactly when transubstantiation takes place during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:

Exactly when during the Mass does transubstantiation occur?

It occurs when a priest, in persona Christi (in the person of Christ), says the Words of Institution. Even though the complete words of institution are necessary, the common view of theologians is that the eight words, "this is my body" and "this is my blood", are on their own the necessary and sufficient "sacramental form" of the Eucharist. Saint John Chrysostom (D.O.C.) says:

Saying, 'This is my body', once uttered, from that time to the present day, and even until Christ's coming, makes the sacrifice complete at every table in the churches."

So, the Catholic Church believes that transubstantiation occurs by the Words of Institution, exactly when the priest, in the person of Christ, utters the words "this is my body/blood". (It is also to be noted that the Catholic Church has explicitly recognized the validity of the Mass Liturgy of Addai and Mari in its original form, without explicit mention of the Words of Institution, saying that the words of Eucharistic Institution are implicitly present.)

Would this change if a priest were to consecrate outside of the Eucharistic Prayer?
According to Canon Law 927, it is explicitly forbidden for a priest to consecrate outside of the Eucharistic celebration. This means that it is possible that transubstantiation would occur, but it would be a grave sin.
Why does the Church teach that it occurs at that moment?
Simply because it is known through tradition. That's what the apostles taught and that's what the Catholic Church believes.
Points to note:

1. The change of transubstantiation is instantaneous. It is not gradual. That is, the presence of Christ do not come to being from 0% and slowly through 100% during the words of institution. more on this here in The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas.
2. In transubstantiation, each alone is changed into body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. That is, the bread alone is changed fully into both body and blood. Similarly the wine alone is changed into the body and blood of Christ. The bread is not changed into body alone and wine into blood alone. (See: Trent, Sess. 13 c. 3, Summa Theologica Q76.2, and the articles The Real Presence and Communion under Both Kinds)
3. What happens if the priest faints after consecration of bread? Summa Theologica Q.78.6 answers the question saying, at that point the species of bread alone is Christ and wine remains wine. Moreover, this opinion is assured in the rite of the Church, which adores the body of Christ after the words are uttered and before the wine is consecrated.

Transubstantiation occurs during the consecratory thanksgiving during the single act of worship (worship = sacrifice) called the liturgy of the Eucharist.

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM

During Mass the liturgy of the Eucharist begins a particular time and follows this structure:

1346 The liturgy of the Eucharist unfolds according to a fundamental structure which has been preserved throughout the centuries down to our own day. It displays two great parts that form a fundamental unity: - the gathering, the liturgy of the Word, with readings, homily and general intercessions; - the liturgy of the Eucharist, with the presentation of the bread and wine, the consecratory thanksgiving, and communion.

The liturgy of the Word and liturgy of the Eucharist together form "one single act of worship" (worship = sacrifice);170 The Eucharistic table set for us is the table both of the Word of God and of the Body of the Lord.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P40.HTM

The consecratory thanksgiving is the moment when the priest holds up the bread and repeats the words of Christ: "This is my body ..." and so on. Likewise, he says the same for the wine "This is the cup ... " and so on.

1412 The essential signs of the Eucharistic sacrament are wheat bread and grape wine, on which the blessing of the Holy Spirit is invoked and the priest pronounces the words of consecration spoken by Jesus during the Last Supper: "This is my body which will be given up for you.... This is the cup of my blood...."
1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P44.HTM

Now one might ask what if the priest does not finish the consecration for some reason? Say he faints. The wording of the Catechism does not address this directly except it does simply say this in the canon law:

Can. 927 It is absolutely wrong, even in urgent and extreme necessity, to consecrate one element without the other, or even to consecrate both outside the eucharistic celebration.
P39.HTM">http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P39.HTM

Seemingly, then, the consecration must be finished despite any circumstances. This bit of cannon law also implies that it is possible to consecrate the bread but not the wine, however serious a sin it might be.

This further leads to another question: suppose communion, the last part of the liturgy, is not achieved. Is the bread and wine still Body and Blood? It seems yes because of what is stated in 1376. The "presence of Christ ... endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist." Once transubstantiated the Body and Blood are Body and Blood so long as they exist. I assume then their destruction by eating or rot or other leaves them as not Body and Blood. However, not finishing the eucharistic celebration may be 'absolutely wrong' as well in light of the Canon Law quote above (I really cannot speak authoritatively on that).

Why does it occur at that moment and not some other? 1376 (below) states that it is "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread" at the last supper. So this statement argues both why transubstantiation occurs and when, and, subsequently, why it occurs at that time.
The definition of transubstantiation:

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM