A Contradiction in Church Teaching? Need Some Help With This One

[Antonius_Lupus]

Last night as I was in study preparing for my Confirmation and First (legitamate) Communion later this evening (praise be to the Lord Jesus!!), I came accross an interesting passage in the Catechism:

In the institution narrative, the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ’s body and blood, his sacrifice offered on the cross once for all. (CCC 1353)

Now, I found this to be particularly contrary to the Liturgies of the Eastern Catholic Churches (who claim to be equal members of the Church). In the Eastern Rites, more specifically the Greco-Byzantine, it is strongly implied that the Institution Narrative does NOT cause immediate Transubstantiation (Metaousiosis) as opposed to what the Catechism clearly states.

In fact, during the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, after the Institution Narrative the priest or bishop says the Epiklesis; during which, he asks the Father to “change this holy **bread **into the Body of Christ.”

Clearly in the Liturgy itself the Narrative does not bring a change.

When I posed this question to many Latin Catholics, they took the position of the Byzantine Catholics, namely that the whole anaphora is ONE single prayer causing transubstantiation. HOWEVER, this appears to be in direct defiance of the clear teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (as shown above).

I was very much puzzled when one Latin Catholic confidently said that the Church has never definitively defined the exact moment.

Well according to the Catechism of 1994 SHE HAS defined the moment, much to the dismay of every Eastern Christian I’m sure.

Yet things get even more contradictory in the Church’s teaching when She openly states that she accepts Liturgical traditions as being fully Catholic that don’t see the Institution as immediately consecratory (the Liturgies of the Chaldean Catholic Church, for example, do not even have an Institution Narrative).

So…I am stuck here. Any thoughts. (BTW, please pray for me that tonight I may worthily partake of the Sacred Mysteries of Christ! Thanks.)

 

[puzzleannie]

I think if you read more carefully the CCC says “institution narrative” the entire Eucharistic prayer, which ends with the epiclesis, which is indeed part of the “institution narrative”. there is no contradiction.

 

[japhy]

I think if you read more carefully the CCC says “institution narrative” the entire Eucharistic prayer, which ends with the epiclesis, which is indeed part of the “institution narrative”. there is no contradiction.

I don’t think that’s the case at all. CCC 1352-1354 are dealing with parts of the Eucharistic Prayer.

 

[japhy]

Yet things get even more contradictory in the Church’s teaching when She openly states that she accepts Liturgical traditions as being fully Catholic that don’t see the Institution as immediately consecratory (the Liturgies of the Chaldean Catholic Church, for example, do not even have an Institution Narrative).

The issue with the anaphora of Addai and Mari is one outside my realm of understanding. One explanation I have heard is that the the anaphoras that don’t have explicit words of institution lack them only for the purpose of protecting them: the “discipline of the secret”. What this means is that the prayer contains the institution narrative when recited, but not when written.

Part of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari mentions the tradition received from Jesus himself… perhaps right after that, the institution is (was supposed to be) said?

 

[japhy]

The Catholic Encyclopedia says that the Council of Florence stated quod illa verba divina Salvatoris omnem virtutem transsubstantiationis habent: “that those words of the Divine Savior hold all the power of transubstantiation”.

 

[Digitonomy]

The issue with the anaphora of Addai and Mari is one outside my realm of understanding. One explanation I have heard is that the the anaphoras that don’t have explicit words of institution lack them only for the purpose of protecting them: the “discipline of the secret”. What this means is that the prayer contains the institution narrative when recited, but not when written.

Part of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari mentions the tradition received from Jesus himself… perhaps right after that, the institution is (was supposed to be) said?

So are you suggesting the words were there but were then forgotten? Or that they are still recited, just not printed? If the latter were the case, the Church certainly would have mentioned it in the document on the matter, issued after years of study. The former is possible, but the document states that the words are still effectively present:

Finally, the words of Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in a coherent narrative way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession.

 

[Phemie]

Last night as I was in study preparing for my Confirmation and First (legitamate) Communion later this evening (praise be to the Lord Jesus!!), I came accross an interesting passage in the Catechism:

Now, I found this to be particularly contrary to the Liturgies of the Eastern Catholic Churches (who claim to be equal members of the Church). In the Eastern Rites, more specifically the Greco-Byzantine, it is strongly implied that the Institution Narrative does NOT cause immediate Transubstantiation (Metaousiosis) as opposed to what the Catechism clearly states.

In fact, during the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, after the Institution Narrative the priest or bishop says the Epiklesis; during which, he asks the Father to “change this holy **bread **into the Body of Christ.”

Clearly in the Liturgy itself the Narrative does not bring a change.

When I posed this question to many Latin Catholics, they took the position of the Byzantine Catholics, namely that the whole anaphora is ONE single prayer causing transubstantiation. HOWEVER, this appears to be in direct defiance of the clear teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (as shown above).

I was very much puzzled when one Latin Catholic confidently said that the Church has never definitively defined the exact moment.

Well according to the Catechism of 1994 SHE HAS defined the moment, much to the dismay of every Eastern Christian I’m sure.

Yet things get even more contradictory in the Church’s teaching when She openly states that she accepts Liturgical traditions as being fully Catholic that don’t see the Institution as immediately consecratory (the Liturgies of the Chaldean Catholic Church, for example, do not even have an Institution Narrative).

So…I am stuck here. Any thoughts. (BTW, please pray for me that tonight I may worthily partake of the Sacred Mysteries of Christ! Thanks.)

You raise a good point. When I was taking a class on “The Mass”, a credit towards my certificate in Pastoral Liturgy, the priest teaching the class said exactly the same thing “It is the entire Eucharistic Prayer that brings about transsubstantiation.”

One guy in the class asked, “That’s what YOU say, but what does the Church teach?” which brought the response, “You’re asking the wrong question.” He never did answer the question but his refusal to do so said it all AFAIC.

 

[japhy]

So are you suggesting the words were there but were then forgotten? Or that they are still recited, just not printed? If the latter were the case, the Church certainly would have mentioned it in the document on the matter, issued after years of study. The former is possible, but the document states that the words are still effectively present:

I don’t know how Rome was able to approve the anaphora without the words of institution explicitly as in other anaphoras, honestly, but I’m inclined in accept Rome’s ruling on the matter (which said the words appear throughout the anaphora, rather than as a strict narrative). But my personal opinion is that the words were omitted from the original written form for safety (“discipline of the secret”) and that eventually the error crept in by which the omitted written words were no longer spoken either. The fact that the anaphora mentions the “tradition” received from Jesus, without actually stating the words of that tradition, leads me to believe the words could have been known to be spoken at that point.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

You raise a good point. When I was taking a class on “The Mass”, a credit towards my certificate in Pastoral Liturgy, the priest teaching the class said exactly the same thing “It is the entire Eucharistic Prayer that brings about transsubstantiation.”

One guy in the class asked, “That’s what YOU say, but what does the Church teach?” which brought the response, “You’re asking the wrong question.” He never did answer the question but his refusal to do so said it all AFAIC.

In discussing this many years ago, my priest gave this example:

Suppose a validly ordained priest walked into the grocery store and stood in front of the flat bread (i.e. unleavened bread) shelf and pronounced the words of consecration with the intent of achieving transubstantiation. Would it become the Body of Jesus? NO, because the words of consecration and the intent must occur within the context of the Eucharistic liturgy in order for transubstantiation to occur. It occurs AT the words of consecration, but not outside the context of the liturgy.

 

[Digitonomy]

Would it become the Body of Jesus? NO, because the words of consecration and the intent must occur within the context of the Eucharistic liturgy in order for transubstantiation to occur. It occurs AT the words of consecration, but not outside the context of the liturgy.

Do you have a cite for that in official Church teaching, or is this just the priest’s opinion? I had thought that a priest could illicitly confect the Eucharist outside of mass.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Do you have a cite for that in official Church teaching, or is this just the priest’s opinion? I had thought that a priest could illicitly confect the Eucharist outside of mass.

I do not have a citation to provide you. Fr. Brant is a very conservative Jesuit, so I believe he knew what he was talking about, but I can’t give you a reference for it. Sorry.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Do you have a cite for that in official Church teaching, or is this just the priest’s opinion? I had thought that a priest could illicitly confect the Eucharist outside of mass.

Ditto. BUT it was a very cogent analogy.

 

[Layp3rs0n]

“And so Father we bring you these gifts. We ask you send forth your Holy Spirit to make them holy so that they may become for us the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The night before his death, a death he freely accepted, he took bread, gave You thanks and praise. He gave it to his disciples and said ‘Take this all of you and eat it. This is My Body, given up for you. Do this in rememberence of me.’ When supper was ended he took the cup. Again he gave You thanks and praise. He have it to his disciples and said ‘Take this all of you and drink it. This is the Cup of My Blood, the Blood of the new and everlasting covenent. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in rememberence of me.’” I have recently wondered if a priest that has become mute could confect the Eucharist because he would not be able to pronounce the words of consecration. Is his interior prayer to God enough? I mean after all it IS the Holy Spirit working through the priest not the priest himself, and the priest can certainly ask the Spirit to be present without his voice and can do so with the prayers of his heart. So in Liturgical terms the spoken words are important to Transubstanctiation, but are they so important that a valid priest would lose his ability to confect the Sacrament? Think of John exiled on Patmos. Had he lost his voice does that mean those who are exiled with him are denied the Adorable Body and Blood?

 

[agapewolf]

Catholic answers (radio program), a long time ago, talked about something similar.

The one point I remember is that the consecration of the bread and wine do happen seperately. We can tell this because the priest genuflects after the bread/body is raised, but not the cup yet. And then again after the cup.

They were talking about, I believe, a particular eastern church outside of Rome, where they believe the change happens at the epiclesis.

 

[fjacks]

The CCC does not purport to provide exhaustive treatment of each and every topic. The quote which mentions the “power of the Holy Spirit” and “the words of institution” as the effective agents of the change in the substance of the bread and wine is a good brief answer to someone who is wondering “when” the change occurs. This is what we teach the first communicants in our parish since its easy enough for them to understand–if only a little.

The church in the west has been preoccupied with the when and the what of the change that takes place in the eucharist. The east finds those questions a little odd. This change is a matter of faith. Do we or do we not believe that the gifts of bread and wine set upon the altar become what Christ said was his true flesh and true blood? If we do believe this, then why should “when” be so important. Is it not sufficient to believe that during the eucharistic prayer the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ? It’s not as if Christ is not really present yet. Is he not present through the ministry of the bishop or priest? Was he not present in the Word proclaimed? Has he not been present in our midst since we have been gathered in his name? Is it like I am going to withhold my reverence and adoration until I am absolutely sure he has become present in what was bread and wine? Didn’t we kneel after the Sanctus?

I urge that we all avoid legalism in this matter. We are, after all, talking about the Mysterium Fidei. Mysteries are supposed to be mysterious, aren’t they?

 

[japhy]

It’s not as if Christ is not really present yet. Is he not present through the ministry of the bishop or priest? Was he not present in the Word proclaimed? Has he not been present in our midst since we have been gathered in his name?

The manner of his presence in the Eucharist is of a different nature (it is a substantial presence) than his presence in the priest, in Sacred Scripture, and in the assembly. Pope Pius XII wrote about that, as did Pope Paul VI.

 

[ProVobis]

In discussing this many years ago, my priest gave this example:

Suppose a validly ordained priest walked into the grocery store and stood in front of the flat bread (i.e. unleavened bread) shelf and pronounced the words of consecration with the intent of achieving transubstantiation. Would it become the Body of Jesus? NO, because the words of consecration and the intent must occur within the context of the Eucharistic liturgy in order for transubstantiation to occur. It occurs AT the words of consecration, but not outside the context of the liturgy.

There are no words of Consecration in the Chaldean Rite (I think it’s the Chaldean Rite) but the Mass is valid.

 

[BSHoop96]

The CCC does not purport to provide exhaustive treatment of each and every topic…

The church in the west has been preoccupied with the when and the what of the change that takes place in the eucharist. The east finds those questions a little odd. This change is a matter of faith. Do we or do we not believe that the gifts of bread and wine set upon the altar become what Christ said was his true flesh and true blood? If we do believe this, then why should “when” be so important. Is it not sufficient to believe that during the eucharistic prayer the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ? It’s not as if Christ is not really present yet. Is he not present through the ministry of the bishop or priest? Was he not present in the Word proclaimed? Has he not been present in our midst since we have been gathered in his name? Is it like I am going to withhold my reverence and adoration until I am absolutely sure he has become present in what was bread and wine? Didn’t we kneel after the Sanctus?

I urge that we all avoid legalism in this matter. We are, after all, talking about the Mysterium Fidei. Mysteries are supposed to be mysterious, aren’t they?

:clapping:

japhy:

The manner of his presence in the Eucharist is of a different nature (it is a substantial presence) than his presence in the priest, in Sacred Scripture, and in the assembly. Pope Pius XII wrote about that, as did Pope Paul VI.

oh no…here we go again. I really think fjacks was trying to make a point.

 

[japhy]

oh no…here we go again. I really think fjacks was trying to make a point.

Well I don’t go around genuflecting to priests, bibles, and the faithful assembled in churches. I genuflect to the Real Presence of Jesus in the Most Blessed Sacrament. His presence there is of a different degree; I wanted to reiterate Church teaching that the ways Jesus is present are not all equal.

 

[japhy]

There are no words of Consecration in the Chaldean Rite (I think it’s the Chaldean Rite) but the Mass is valid.

That’s the anaphora of Addai and Mari that’s been mentioned here.

Interestingly enough, the Catholic Encyclopedia (from the beginning of last century) says that the use of the anaphora at that time had retained the speaking of the words of institution!