From bread and wine to the Body and Blood

[dusk]

At which point does the bread and wine change to the Body and Blood?

 

[ConstantineTG]

At which point does the bread and wine change to the Body and Blood?

In the Latin Rite, it is when the words “This is my Body” and “This is the cup of my Blood” are uttered by the priest.

 

[jmj1984]

In the Latin Rite, it is when the words “This is my Body” and “This is the cup of my Blood” are uttered by the priest.

Yeah there isn’t really a better answer than that. But then I guess its a fairly clear cut question.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yeah there isn’t really a better answer than that. But then I guess its a fairly clear cut question.

That is what has been defined. I’ve read some theological opinions that do not want to put a certain specific moment, but rather say that at the end of the Anaphora, there is no longer bread and wine but the Body and Blood of Christ. When it did exactly happen is a mystery.

But since the Latin Rite has declared that speaking those words during the Anaphora is what makes the Eucharist, therefore the Eucharist is there after those words are uttered.

And one might ask, why specify the Latin Rite? What about other Rites? Its apparent in history that the Church has used and declared consecration to happen at different parts of the Anaphora, it varies from Church to Church, Rite to Rite. As long as the Anaphora is faithful to Apostolic Tradition, then the exact form or specific prayers can and indeed have changed.

 

[jmj1984]

That is what has been defined. I’ve read some theological opinions that do not want to put a certain specific moment, but rather say that at the end of the Anaphora, there is no longer bread and wine but the Body and Blood of Christ. When it did exactly happen is a mystery.

But since the Latin Rite has declared that speaking those words during the Anaphora is what makes the Eucharist, therefore the Eucharist is there after those words are uttered.

And one might ask, why specify the Latin Rite? What about other Rites? Its apparent in history that the Church has used and declared consecration to happen at different parts of the Anaphora, it varies from Church to Church, Rite to Rite. As long as the Anaphora is faithful to Apostolic Tradition, then the exact form or specific prayers can and indeed have changed.

I think we can assume that they are talking about the Roman rite but as far as I know its the same for all latin based rites. As for other rites, that’s really muddying the waters.

As for what can change, the church can in theory change both the matter AND the form of a sacrament but it cannot change the substance of a sacrament, what the substance is depends on whether the sacrament was instituted specifically or generally. A sacrament that is instituted specifically is one where Our Lord told the church what matter and form were to be used and one which was instituted generally is one where our lord left it to the church to decided the matter and form of a sacrament. An example of the former is The Eucharist, we have both the matter (Bread) and the form (the words of institution), an example of the latter is Holy Orders, the Council of Florence told the Armenians that its matter was the handing over of the instruments of the office of priests e.g the Paten and chalice, Pope Pius XII later revised this saying the laying on of hands was the matter.

Applying this to the Eucharist, the substance is the use of bread and the words of institution, both have to be present in order to have a valid sacrament. And the church can never change this

If that’s just basically the same thing as you were saying apologies

catholictradition.org/Eucharist/melchisedech-appx1.htm

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think we can assume that they are talking about the Roman rite but as far as I know its the same for all latin based rites. As for other rites, that’s really muddying the waters.

As for what can change, the church can in theory change both the matter AND the form of a sacrament but it cannot change the substance of a sacrament, what the substance is depends on whether the sacrament was instituted specifically or generally. A sacrament that is instituted specifically is one where Our Lord told the church what matter and form were to be used and one which was instituted generally is one where our lord left it to the church to decided the matter and form of a sacrament. An example of the former is The Eucharist, we have both the matter (Bread) and the form (the words of institution), an example of the latter is Holy Orders, the Council of Florence told the Armenians that its matter was the handing over of the instruments of the office of priests e.g the Paten and chalice, Pope Pius XII later revised this saying the laying on of hands was the matter.

Applying this to the Eucharist, the substance is the use of bread and the words of institution, both have to be present in order to have a valid sacrament. **And the church can never **change this

If that’s just basically the same thing as you were saying apologies

catholictradition.org/Eucharist/melchisedech-appx1.htm

I don’t believe the matter can be changed, as Christ instituted the matter. Remember, the matter is bread and wine (or water for Baptism, etc.). I think the Church can set when the “intention” happens, which usually is tied by the specific words. Of course the Anaphora of Addai and Mari changed how we look at “consecratory words”. The form now boils down not to exact word, but into an organized prayer which is the Anaphora.

As for me, I subscribe to the thought that we do not know the exact point. For me its not important when it happens. What is important is it did happen. At the end of the Anaphora, there is no longer bread and wine but the Body and Blood of Our Lord. P(name removed by moderator)ointing the exact moment, for me, doesn’t have any value in our salvation. So its not a good use of time and effort to know it. My 2 cents.

 

[jmj1984]

I don’t believe the matter can be changed, as Christ instituted the matter. Remember, the matter is bread and wine (or water for Baptism, etc.). I think the Church can set when the “intention” happens, which usually is tied by the specific words. Of course the Anaphora of Addai and Mari changed how we look at “consecratory words”. The form now boils down not to exact word, but into an organized prayer which is the Anaphora.

The Church clearly can change the matter as Pope Pius XII did in Sacramentum Ordinis where he states '**If it was at one time necessary even for validity by the will and command of the Church, every one knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established.

1. Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide: that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands; and that the form, and the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects - namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit - and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense. It follows as a consequence that We should declare, and in order to remove all controversy and to preclude doubts of conscience, We do by Our Apostolic Authority declare, and if there was ever a lawful disposition to the contrary We now decree that at least in the future the traditio instrumentorum is not necessary for the validity of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy.**’

As I said it depends on the sacrament, in some sacraments the Church cannot change the matter or/and form in others it can.

As for the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, the words of institution are still present, they are merely not entirely coherent, but scattered throughout. arcaneknowledge.org/catholic/addai.htm

The words of institution are therefore necessary, as the Council of Florence declared ‘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.’

As for me, I subscribe to the thought that we do not know the exact point. For me its not important when it happens. What is important is it did happen. At the end of the Anaphora, there is no longer bread and wine but the Body and Blood of Our Lord. P(name removed by moderator)ointing the exact moment, for me, doesn’t have any value in our salvation. So its not a good use of time and effort to know it. My 2 cents.

It has value, what if the mass is interrupted or the priest dies during the mass? Whats to be done with the host and the wine? You may say that its unlikely but its happened many times. The order of the liturgy is also effected, when do people kneel, particular indulgences e.g theres an indulgence for saying ‘My lord, my God when the host is elevated’ etc… So it is of some important value.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Church clearly can change the matter as Pope Pius XII did in Sacramentum Ordinis where he states ‘**If it was at one time necessary even for validity by the will and command of the Church, every one knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established.
**
4. Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide: that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands; and that the form, and the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects - namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit - and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense. It follows as a consequence that We should declare, and in order to remove all controversy and to preclude doubts of conscience, We do by Our Apostolic Authority declare, and if there was ever a lawful disposition to the contrary We now decree that at least in the future the traditio instrumentorum is not necessary for the validity of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy.’

As I said it depends on the sacrament, in some sacraments the Church cannot change the matter or/and form in others it can.

I don’t see where it states that the matter of Sacraments can be changed. First of all it is Christ that established the matter of the Sacraments. Therefore the Church has no power to change what was divinely instituted (as opposed to instituted by the Church).

As for the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, the words of institution are still present, they are merely not entirely coherent, but scattered throughout. arcaneknowledge.org/catholic/addai.htm

That is what I am saying as taking the Anaphora as a whole rather than down to a few specific choice words.

The words of institution are therefore necessary, as the Council of Florence declared ‘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.’

True, but as the Anaphora of Addai and Mari has shown, it does not follow a specific formula of words.

It has value, what if the mass is interrupted or the priest dies during the mass? Whats to be done with the host and the wine? You may say that its unlikely but its happened many times. The order of the liturgy is also effected, when do people kneel, particular indulgences e.g theres an indulgence for saying ‘My lord, my God when the host is elevated’ etc… So it is of some important value.

Isn’t it that once the Eucharistic prayers have begun, the Mass must be completed by another priest? This is already covered I believe in De Defectibus, or maybe some other document. I can’t recall exactly, but its covered.

No, the uttering of responses and actions really do not affect it. In the Byzantine Rite, its widely believed that the Epiclesis is consecratory over the Words of Institution, although the Words of Institution of course is necessary. But regardless, we do a bow and exclaim and “Amen” after the Words of Institution are spoken by the priest. The deacon also raises the diskos and chalice while the priest prays audibly, “We offer to you yours of your own in behalf of all and for all.” This again is done before the Epiclesis. I do believe that the Anaphora is one single act and therefore once begun the process of consecration has begun and the bread and wine transform.

 

[jmj1984]

I don’t see where it states that the matter of Sacraments can be changed. First of all it is Christ that established the matter of the Sacraments. Therefore the Church has no power to change what was divinely instituted (as opposed to instituted by the Church).

This clarifies the matter I believe '**

SACRAMENTUM ORDINIS

1… For these Sacraments instituted by Christ Our Lord, the Church in the course of the centuries never substituted other Sacraments, nor could she do so, since, as the Council of Trent teaches (Conc. Trid., Sess. VII, can. 1, De Sacram, in genere), the seven Sacraments of the New Law were all instituted by Jesus Christ Our Lord, and the Church has no power over “the substance of the Sacraments,” that is, over those things which, as is proved from the sources of divine revelation, Christ the Lord Himself established to be kept as sacramental signs.

1. As regards the Sacrament of Order, of which We are now speaking, it is a fact that, notwithstanding its unity and identity, which no Catholic has ever dared to question, in the course of time, according to varying local and temporal conditions, various rites have been added in its conferring; this was surely the reason why theologians began to inquire which of the rites used in conferring the Sacrament of Order belong to its essence, and which do not; it also gave rise to doubts and anxieties in particular cases; and as a consequence the humble petition has again and again been addressed to the Holy that the supreme Authority of the Church might at last decide what is required for validity in conferring of Sacred Orders.
2. All agree that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible signs which produce invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they produce and produce the grace which they signify. Now the effects which must be produced and hence also signified by Sacred Ordination to the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy, namely power and grace, in all the rites of various times and places in the universal Church, are found to be sufficiently signified by the imposition of hands and the words which determine it. Besides, every one knows that the Roman Church has always held as valid Ordinations conferred according to the Greek rite without the traditio instrumentorum; so that in the very Council of Florence, in which was effected the union of the Greeks with the Roman Church, the Greeks were not required to change their rite of Ordination or to add to it the traditio instrumentorum: and it was the will of the Church that in Rome itself the Greeks should be ordained according to their own rite. It follows that, even according to the mind of the Council of Florence itself, the traditio instrumentorum is not required for the substance and validity of this Sacrament by the will of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. If it was at one time necessary even for validity by the will and command of the Church, every one knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established.
3. Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide: that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands; and that the form, and the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects - namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit - and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense. It follows as a consequence that We should declare, and in order to remove all controversy and to preclude doubts of conscience, We do by Our Apostolic Authority declare, and if there was ever a lawful disposition to the contrary We now decree that at least in the future the traditio instrumentorum is not necessary for the validity of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy.**

That is what I am saying as taking the Anaphora as a whole rather than down to a few specific choice words.

True, but as the Anaphora of Addai and Mari has shown, it does not follow a specific formula of words.

It should be noted that the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is unique, it is the rite in which there is no coherent institution narrative and it is not at all certain that the Church would come to the same decision with another rite but it is certain that a rite containing an explicit narrative and valid matter would be valid.

Isn’t it that once the Eucharistic prayers have begun, the Mass must be completed by another priest? This is already covered I believe in De Defectibus, or maybe some other document. I can’t recall exactly, but its covered.

And if no other priest is available? Or its an emergency in a persecuted country and the instruments for mass must be put away? etc… The fact is it has practical importance.

No, the uttering of responses and actions really do not affect it. In the Byzantine Rite, its widely believed that the Epiclesis is consecratory over the Words of Institution…

I did not say they did affect it, I said that in order to obtain the right order of the liturgy, which includes the responses and actions of those present, it is important and good to know the exact moment of transformation. This is clearly indisputable.
As for the epiclesis, I’m not really going to get into the issue except to say that in all Western rites it is the words of institution that are consecratory.