J
- Status
J
Joy2day
Guest
It happens at the consecration!!!
S
sw85
Guest
In the Roman rite Mass, the form of the Sacrament is hoc est enim corpus meum and hic est enim calix sanguinus mei, or faithful translations thereof. There has been some confusion about this because, since the liturgical reform, a good deal of Orientalism has crept into the Mass, both formally (e.g., in the additional anaphoras) and practically. As a result there is now some widespread belief – even my own, very devout and orthodox associate pastor believes this – that consecration occurs at the epiclesis.
To be clear, consecration may occur at the epiclesis in Eastern liturgies. But the Roman rite, for the vast majority of its history, used the Roman Canon exclusively, which lacks an epiclesis (because it predates the historical crises which, in the East, merited the development/inclusion of an epiclesis). The inclusion of this particular Orientalism, I suspect, has less to do with good theology and more to do with the general contempt for Romanitas that prevailed in the 60s through the 80s.
P
Phemie
Guest
Considering that the matter had to be addressed in ***Redemtionis Sacramentum ***, it would not surprise me if Karen had in fact seen what she described at the Elevation.
Several years after RS was promulgated I saw a Bishop break the Host during Consecration. To make it worse it was at the Mass that concluded a regional Conference of Bishops’ Catechetical Conference thus sending everyone who hadn’t read RS home wondering why their pastor wasn’t doing this.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
There is a wealth of very authoritative documents that express the Church’s understanding on this. It is certainly not just my opinion.
I think that Joy2day put it most succinctly a few posts back.
I’ll re-phrase.
The consecration occurs at the consecration.
Think about that for a moment, and it becomes quite obvious that moment of consecration (again, without getting even more specific) is the very moment that the Church names “the consecration.”
If you need “proof” you can read
De defectibus
The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM)
The Roman Missal
The Catechism of the Catholic Church
All of these indicate, without any ambiguity, that before the words “this is My Body” the bread is bread. After the words “this is My Body” the Body of Christ is present on the altar.
One need to look no further than the GIRM and the Missal to see the obvious change in vocabulary from “bread” to “Body” (and similar) that these sources employ.
Immediately before those words, the priest “takes the bread.” Immediately after the words “this is My Body” the priest elevates the “consecrated host.”
What more proof is needed?
V
Vico
Guest
It depends upon the liturgy used. Accordingly from the Bull “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: The words of the Savior, by which He instituted this sacrament, are the form of this sacrament; for the priest speaking in the person of Christ effects this sacrament. For by the power of the very words the substance of the bread is changed into the body of Christ, and the substance of the wine into the blood; yet in such a way that Christ is contained entire under the species of bread, and entire under the species of wine. Under any part also of the consecrated host and consecrated wine, although a separation has taken place, Christ is entire.
DS 699
catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma7.php
In 2001, the Catholic Church (Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith) stated that even non coherent (dispersed) words of the Institution are valid form of consecration, as used by the Assyrian Church of the East in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari. From the The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity:The Catholic Church considers the words of the Institution as a constitutive part of the Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer. The Council of Florence stated “The form of this sacrament are the words of the Saviour with which he effected this sacrament. A priest speaking in the person of Christ effects this sacrament. For, in virtue of those words, the substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ and the substance of wine into his blood” (D.H. 1321). The same Council of Florence also characterised the words of the Institution as *“the form of words [forma verborum] which the holy Roman Church …] has always been wont to use [semper uti consuevit] in the consecration of the Lord’s body and blood” *(D.H. 1352), without prejudice to the possibility of some variation in their articulation by the Church. Although not having any authority as to the substance of the sacraments, the Church does have the power to determine their concrete shaping, regarding both their sacramental sign (materia) and their words of administration (forma) (cf. CCEO, can. 669). Hence the doctrinal question about the validity of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, when used in its short version without a coherent Institution Narrative. Do the words of administration (forma) correspond to the conditions for validity, as requested by the Catholic Church?
…
The words of the Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in a coherent way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological way, that is, integrated in prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession. All these elements constitute a “quasi-narrative” of the Eucharistic Institution.
…
A long and careful study was undertaken of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, from a theological, liturgical and historical perspective, at the end of which the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith on January 17th, 2001 concluded that this Anaphora can be considered valid. Pope John Paul II subsequently approved this decision.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html
P
praestat_fides
Guest
Transubstantiation is a clear violation of Levitical Law which prohibits God’s people from eating the flesh of human beings or the blood of any living being.
J
jochoa
Guest
You should consider the Law more fully.
"You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood. "
Jesus is not a creature. He is the Creator.
P
praestat_fides
Guest
True, Christianity does teach that Jesus was fully God but it also teaches that he was fully man. He had human flesh just like you and I. The Torah prohibits cannibalism.
V
Vico
Guest
Righteousness does not come from the law.
Galatians 3:21–2721 Is the law then opposed to the promises [of God]? Of course not! For if a law had been given that could bring life, then righteousness would in reality come from the law.t
22 But scripture confined all things under the power of sin, that through faith in Jesus Christ the promise might be given to those who believe.(“http://www.usccb.org/bible/galatians/3#57003022-u”)
23 Before faith came, we were held in custody under law, confined for the faith that was to be revealed.v
24 Consequently, the law was our disciplinarian* for Christ, that we might be justified by faith.w
25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a disciplinarian.x
26 For through faith you are all children of God* in Christ Jesus.y
27 * For all of you who were baptized into Christz have clothed yourselves with Christ.
M
malphono
Guest
It seems to me that this argument has become just a bit silly. What takes place at the altar is a Mystery, even according to Latin theology. There is no “cannibalism” involved. One must always bear in mind that (to use latin terminology) the “accidents” of bread and wine remain. Even though they are the Body & Blood of Jesus, one consumes the accidents; one does not gnaw at human flesh.
This is one reason why I always use the term “Real Presence” in lieu of anything else. It helps to avoid this sort of thinking. Plus it helps to avoid what I consider the oddity of trying to determine the exact moment when “transubstantiation” occurs. But then I’m a cradle Oriental, and the concept of an “exact moment” is alien to me.
This is one reason why I always use the term “Real Presence” in lieu of anything else. It helps to avoid this sort of thinking. Plus it helps to avoid what I consider the oddity of trying to determine the exact moment when “transubstantiation” occurs. But then I’m a cradle Oriental, and the concept of an “exact moment” is alien to me.
J
JimG
Guest
That is a discussion for the Apologetics forum rather than the Liturgy forum, but here is a short reference. There are many references to be found on Catholic.com
catholic.com/quickquestions/did-jesus-break-old-testament-law-by-telling-his-followers-to-drink-his-blood
J
jochoa
Guest
True, Jesus has human flesh, and the Law prohibits cannibalism, but Christianity teaches us to consume his body, blood, soul and divinity.
We are eating and drinking the body and blood of God. Sure, God became man, but the man, Jesus, is still God, even when we consume his body and blood.
As for the original post:
I find the practice of recognizing transubstantiation as perpetual throughout the entirety of the Mass is extremely beneficial. Here are some personal reflections:
When the unconsecrated host is located at the entrance of the Church, this is God in the person of the Son, as paralleled to Jesus preaching pre-resurrection.
Then when the unconsecrated host is offered during the offertory, this is God in the person of God made man (Son), as paralleled to Jesus being either taken to or not stood up for to the High Priests or to the Roman Authority.
When the church priest declares the host to be his body and blood, the priest is God in the person of the Son, and the host is God in the person of the Father, as paralleled to the Son is the medium through which the Father speaks or as paralleled to the Son is the Word of God.
When the unconsecrated host is consecrated through the breaking of the body, pouring of the blood, and Holy Communion, this is God in the person of the Holy Spirit, as paralleled to Jesus giving his life for the life of others or as paralleled to the only begotten Son of God becoming man so that we might become God.
After another person receives communion with the consecrated host and goes in peace to love and serve the Lord, this is God in the person of the Holy Spirit as paralleled to the person’s spirit has been made holy through communion with God’s Spirit.
Thanks for sharing the interesting points and questions! I look forward to further discussion!
F
FrDavid96
Guest
I looked back on this and I need to need to explain the last sentence, lest someone take it the wrong way.
The Missal does not prove that the Eucharist is consecrated. Instead, reading the Missal proves that it is the belief of the Church that the consecration happens at that time.
The same disclaimer: I’m not addressing the Eastern Liturgies but leaving those for the proper forum.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I suppose the issue becomes important if something were to happen (priest collapses or there is a fire alarm) before the canon were completed. Actually before the priests consumes the Body and Blood, which validates the Mass.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
That’s very true.
However, it also matters for much more mundane issues.
If the priest drops a host on the floor during the offertory, he can simply dispose of it because it hasn’t been consecrated. On the other hand if it happens after “this is My Body” then it must be treated as what it truly is—the Body.
Likewise, if the priest forgets or otherwise misses the words over the chalice (and this does actually happen, not just with a priest who’s losing his memory), he must do them, even if that happens out of sequence.
If the chalice spills (again, it could happen to anyone), the proper reaction to that depends entirely on whether it happened before the words “this is…” or after them.
The norms for what to do if something goes wrong are a good indicator of how the Church answers the OP’s original question.
R
Reclaim
Guest
A lovely story about belief in The Real Presence:
One of the holiest priests I ever knew, who would be probably around 95 if alive today, told me about when in OFM minor seminary he was serving the Mass of a very elderly priest, who suddenly stopped, and said in thickly German-accented English (remember Mass was in Latin), “Where are you???”
He thought the priest was calling for him, and stood up and went to him. The priest kept saying…“Where are you??? Where have you gone???” My own priest, and then altar boy, thought the man was losing his mind until he looked down and finally realized the Host was missing! And realized that with this elderly man’s great faith…he never asked “Where is it? Where did it go?” He addressed the Host as Jesus himself. Finally, in despair, the priest threw down his hands upon the altar, and out rolled the Host. It had somehow lodged in the sleeve of his alb. The priest’s response? “There You Are! Thank You for coming back!”
My priest told me he was struck by the man’s great faith, and truthfully, the great faith of all the friars who taught him.
One of the holiest priests I ever knew, who would be probably around 95 if alive today, told me about when in OFM minor seminary he was serving the Mass of a very elderly priest, who suddenly stopped, and said in thickly German-accented English (remember Mass was in Latin), “Where are you???”
He thought the priest was calling for him, and stood up and went to him. The priest kept saying…“Where are you??? Where have you gone???” My own priest, and then altar boy, thought the man was losing his mind until he looked down and finally realized the Host was missing! And realized that with this elderly man’s great faith…he never asked “Where is it? Where did it go?” He addressed the Host as Jesus himself. Finally, in despair, the priest threw down his hands upon the altar, and out rolled the Host. It had somehow lodged in the sleeve of his alb. The priest’s response? “There You Are! Thank You for coming back!”
My priest told me he was struck by the man’s great faith, and truthfully, the great faith of all the friars who taught him.
R
Reclaim
Guest
This question is serious and I do not mean it to be disrespectful. I am a Latin Rite Catholic, but my brother is a Byzantine Catholic priest (Ruthenian) – we both converted to the Latin Rite from Protestantism, and he later transritualized.
Is only discussion of the Latin Rite and its beliefs/practices allowed here?
Is only discussion of the Latin Rite and its beliefs/practices allowed here?
C
ccmcmg
Guest
Most questions asked/ answered in this forum are for the Latin Rite, although others come into play occasionally. Would the Byzantine Catholic be considered under the Eastern Catholicism forum?
All respectful questions and discussion are welcome, no matter the Faith practices or lack thereof (atheism, etc), but specific questions for certain religions would fall under other forums, and get better response, in quantity and quality.
Welcome!
R
Reclaim
Guest
I understand that most here are Latin Rite. Are all discussions of the beliefs/practices other churches in communion with Rome not welcome here? For instance, in the Eastern Churches the couple does not administer the sacrament of matrimony to each other. It seems to relegate to a specific forum is making Eastern Churches less Catholic than the Roman Church.Most questions asked/ answered in this forum are for the Latin Rite, although others come into play occasionally. Would the Byzantine Catholic be considered under the Eastern Catholicism forum?
All respectful questions and discussion are welcome, no matter the Faith practices or lack thereof (atheism, etc), but specific questions for certain religions would fall under other forums, and get better response, in quantity and quality.
Welcome!
- Status