Consecration - I was taught wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Elzee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Elzee

Guest
I just learned, after being Catholic my whole life and going to parochial school, that the bread and wine become Jesus’ body and blood when the priest says the words ‘This is my Body’’, ‘This is the cup of my Blood…’. All my life I was taught that the bread and wine were consecrated and become the body and blood of Jesus when the priest says ‘…we ask your Holy Spirit to come upon these gifts and make them holy so that they may become for us the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ’’, and then he blesses them. I was taught that it was with that blessing, that the bread and wine become Jesus. Was anyone else taught this?
What is actually happening during this part of Mass, since it’s not the consecration?
 
In the first prayer, the priest is calling upon the Holy Spirit, beckoning Him to come and make the gifts holy…(so that they may become…) The priest doesn’t say, “Please change these substances into…” He calls the Holy Spirit down to purify and make holy the gifts which are about to be consecrated.

Then, as the priest (acting in the person of Christ - In Persona Christi) recites the same words Christ said at the Last Supper, the same miracle happens that happened back then. The bread and wine actually become Christ’s Body and Blood.

When I was learning the Faith (and still am, actually) our priests, even by their body language, gave every indication that this part of the Mass was very, very sacred. They spoke the words right into the bread, and right into the chalice, (even changing the tone of their voices, which was then called for in the rubrics) then elevated for us all to adore.

Moreso than any lesson I was taught, I think it was by observation that I understood how very powerful those words were…
 
Panis Angelicas:
In the first prayer, the priest is calling upon the Holy Spirit, beckoning Him to come and make the gifts holy…(so that they may become…) The priest doesn’t say, “Please change these substances into…” He calls the Holy Spirit down to purify and make holy the gifts which are about to be consecrated.

Then, as the priest (acting in the person of Christ - In Persona Christi) recites the same words Christ said at the Last Supper, the same miracle happens that happened back then. The bread and wine actually become Christ’s Body and Blood.

When I was learning the Faith (and still am, actually) our priests, even by their body language, gave every indication that this part of the Mass was very, very sacred. They spoke the words right into the bread, and right into the chalice, (even changing the tone of their voices, which was then called for in the rubrics) then elevated for us all to adore.

Moreso than any lesson I was taught, I think it was by observation that I understood how very powerful those words were…
Click to expand...
This makes such perfect sense, I can’t believe I’m just now learning this, and wonder how many people I grew up with still don’t know this based on what we were taught. I remember the same thing you mention - about the priest changing the tone of his voice, talking more slowly, etc. (Is this not required anymore?) But, even with all this, we were still told differently and I never questioned it. I just thought the priest was being extremely reverent because the consecration had already occurred- not because it was occurring. Thank you!
 
The way I understand it, the Western Church holds to the tradition that transubstantiation occurs at the words of Institution. By contrast, the Eastern Churches teach that it occurs during the *Epiclesis. *There is a lot of history behind when, how, and why the discrepancy arose. Both sides make valid arguments, and some of our greatest names (Augustine, John Chrysostom, Cyril, etc.) can be found on either side of the controversy.

For a brief summary, take a look at this:

newadvent.org/cathen/05502a.htm
 
40.png
msproule:
The way I understand it, the Western Church holds to the tradition that transubstantiation occurs at the words of Institution. By contrast, the Eastern Churches teach that it occurs during the *Epiclesis. *There is a lot of history behind when, how, and why the discrepancy arose. Both sides make valid arguments, and some of our greatest names (Augustine, John Chrysostom, Cyril, etc.) can be found on either side of the controversy.

For a brief summary, take a look at this:

newadvent.org/cathen/05502a.htm
Click to expand...
I think this is something that actually has not been defined by the Church as of yet. Both the words of institution and the epiklesis are necessary for transubstantiation, but I have never heard of the exact moment being defined dogmatically.
 
The Church holds that the only words necessary for the confection of the Eucharist is “this is my body” and “this is my blood” – but that doesn’t specifically mean that the change of substance (transubstantiation) takes place at that moment. In fact, we don’t *know *precisely when the change happens. So, both East and West teach that the change happens during the *anaphora *or Eucharistic Prayer, and do not define precise moments.

Now, having said that, popular tradition has been virtually codified that the West teaches a change happening at the words I cited above. There’s nothing wrong in believing that it happens then, or in believing that it happens during the *epiclesis *(calling down of the Holy Spirit). The truth is, we don’t know the precise moment – it’s simply a matter of faith that it does happen.

Deacon Ed
 
Dr. Colossus:
Both the words of institution and the epiklesis are necessary for transubstantiation
Click to expand...
Not quite 🙂 The Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer I) in the Western Church has no explicit epiclesis, and the Anaphora of Mar Addai and Mar Mari has no explicit words of institution. Both prayers are recognized as fully valid.
 
40.png
porthos11:
Not quite 🙂 The Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer I) in the Western Church has no explicit epiclesis, and the Anaphora of Mar Addai and Mar Mari has no explicit words of institution. Both prayers are recognized as fully valid.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification. I guess I was taught wrong too 😉
 
40.png
msproule:
The way I understand it, the Western Church holds to the tradition that transubstantiation occurs at the words of Institution.
Click to expand...
Sort of.

The Church holds that a valid Eucharistic prayer will have both an invocation and the Words of Instittion.

In the West, the Episclesis is first, followed by that Words of Institution.

In the East, the Words of Institution come first and the Epiclesis follows.

It is after both are said that the Eucharistic Prayer is complete in it’s Effect.

In either case, there has been no defintive judgement by the Holy See on this issue, only speculative theology and pious belief.
 
40.png
porthos11:
Not quite 🙂 The Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer I) in the Western Church has no explicit epiclesis, and the Anaphora of Mar Addai and Mar Mari has no explicit words of institution. Both prayers are recognized as fully valid.
Click to expand...
No it is still true.

An EXPLICIT verbal declaration is not required, but at the very least and IMPLICIT declaration must be there.

In both the Roman Canon and the Anaphora of Mar Addai and Mar Mari, there are implicit epiclesis and words of instituion respectively; the Vatican has rule so.

So both prayers do have the necessary elements
 
Another note, in the sacramentary, the words **This is my body ** and This is my blood . . . are in a larger font and bold, which would be consistent with the belief that the transubstantiation had taken place at that point.

Some forces in the church seem to want to blur the line with this, (just like not defining what portion of mass missed would not constitute fulfilling our Sunday obligation) but in a discussion with my priest, I finally asked, okay, if the Church started on fire in the middle of mass, at what point do we protect the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ, and until what point can we just drop it an run. His answer was to open the sacramentary to the above.
 
40.png
Brendan:
No it is still true.

An EXPLICIT verbal declaration is not required, but at the very least and IMPLICIT declaration must be there.

In both the Roman Canon and the Anaphora of Mar Addai and Mar Mari, there are implicit epiclesis and words of instituion respectively; the Vatican has rule so.

So both prayers do have the necessary elements
Click to expand...
Indeed…

It’s also important to point out that when the consecration does indeed take place, the change from the elements of bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ is instantaneous – there is no middle state.
 
Deacon Ed:
The Church holds that the only words necessary for the confection of the Eucharist is “this is my body” and “this is my blood” – but that doesn’t specifically mean that the change of substance (transubstantiation) takes place at that moment. In fact, we don’t *know *precisely when the change happens. So, both East and West teach that the change happens during the *anaphora *or Eucharistic Prayer, and do not define precise moments.

Now, having said that, popular tradition has been virtually codified that the West teaches a change happening at the words I cited above. There’s nothing wrong in believing that it happens then, or in believing that it happens during the *epiclesis *(calling down of the Holy Spirit). The truth is, we don’t know the precise moment – it’s simply a matter of faith that it does happen.

Deacon Ed
Click to expand...
I found the following in the GIRM. This seems to imply the transubstantiation takes place during the epiclesis? Now I’m really confused! This seems to contradict Jimmy Akin’s ‘Mass Appeal’ book that says it occurs during the words you say above. Has the church ever clarified this?

  1. *]Epiclesis: In which, by means of particular invocations, the Church implores the power of the Holy Spirit that the gifts offered by human hands be consecrated, that is, become Christ’s Body and Blood, and that the spotless Victim to be received in Communion be for the salvation of those who will partake of it.
    *]Institution narrative and consecration: In which, by means of words and actions of Christ, the Sacrifice is carried out which Christ himself instituted at the Last Supper, when he offered his Body and Blood under the species of bread and wine, gave them to his Apostles to eat and drink, and left them the command to perpetuate this same mystery.
 
40.png
Brendan:
No it is still true.

An EXPLICIT verbal declaration is not required, but at the very least and IMPLICIT declaration must be there.

In both the Roman Canon and the Anaphora of Mar Addai and Mar Mari, there are implicit epiclesis and words of instituion respectively; the Vatican has rule so.

So both prayers do have the necessary elements
Click to expand...
Yep. That’s basically what I said 🙂 The verbal elements are implicit, not explicit, in both Anaphoras.
 
40.png
Elzee:
I found the following in the GIRM. This seems to imply the transubstantiation takes place during the epiclesis? Now I’m really confused! This seems to contradict Jimmy Akin’s ‘Mass Appeal’ book that says it occurs during the words you say above. Has the church ever clarified this?

  1. *]Epiclesis: In which, by means of particular invocations, the Church implores the power of the Holy Spirit that the gifts offered by human hands be consecrated, that is, become Christ’s Body and Blood, and that the spotless Victim to be received in Communion be for the salvation of those who will partake of it.
    *]Institution narrative and consecration: In which, by means of words and actions of Christ, the Sacrifice is carried out which Christ himself instituted at the Last Supper, when he offered his Body and Blood under the species of bread and wine, gave them to his Apostles to eat and drink, and left them the command to perpetuate this same mystery.
Click to expand...

  1. The Eastern Church, both Catholic and Orthodox,have always taught that the change takes place during the epiclesis rather than during the institution narrative. The major problem here is that we are trying to define what cannot be defined. The reality is that we do not know when the change takes place. That it takes place is a matter of faith, the precise moment is undefined – and the Church has never issued an offical teaching on the moment.

    The best assumption is that it takes place during the *anaphora *(Eucharistic Prayer) and leave it go at that. Before the Eucharistic Prayer – bread and wine; after the Eucharistic Prayer the Body and Blood of Jesus.

    Deacon Ed
 
Based on what’s in this thread, I wish Jimmy Akin would explain this better in his book Mass Appeal. I think it’s going to give people the wrong impression that a precise moment has been defined as to when transubstantiation occurs.
 
Dr. Colossus:
I think this is something that actually has not been defined by the Church as of yet. Both the words of institution and the epiklesis are necessary for transubstantiation, but I have never heard of the exact moment being defined dogmatically.
Click to expand...
Actually the words of institution would be sufficient to effect transubstantiation as Deacon Ed noted above.
 
Deacon Ed:
The Church holds that the only words necessary for the confection of the Eucharist is “this is my body” and “this is my blood” – but that doesn’t specifically mean that the change of substance (transubstantiation) takes place at that moment.
Click to expand...
Actually it would mean that because if as you rightly say only those words are necessary to effect transubstantiation, then if those words and only those words are said (say illicitly outside of a eucharistic celebration) then transubstantiation would take place obviously at the moment those words are said since those are the only words said. And, if, as we have shown, that at least in some cases transubstantiation takes place with those words, it would seem that it would take place in all cases with those words as when transubstantiation takes place should not differ from consecration to consecration.
 
I think the Angelic Doctor taught that, theoretically, the recitation of the Words of Institution alone with the right intention by the priest would validly consecrate, but that such a severely cut-down Canon would be illicit and gravely sacrilegious. This opinion is, or at least was common, but not universal or authoritatively settled even in the West.

However, what everybody seems to have missed so far are the clear implications of the long-standing liturgical tradition in the Western rite of mandating adoration of the Sacrament immediately after the Institution narrative. If the consecration has not occured by then, but has to wait for the rest of the Canon and the final Amen, then Western Christians have been practising idolatry at the Elevation for centuries. While this is precisely what some Eastern Orthodox claim to be the case, very few Western Christians will consider this at all reasonable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top