Holy Communion: Valid consecration words [edited]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zathyn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

Zathyn

Guest
Hi,

I’m sure someone else asked this question on these forums, but for the life of me I can’t find that particular post.

I’m doing research for a project and I was wondering if someone could point me in the direction of the valid words used during Holy Communion. From what I’ve heard the Eucharist can be deemed invalid if the words are altered even slightly. What are the exact words a priest needs to speak?

I’d appreciate any help here - thank you 🙂
 
Every classic Eucharistic liturgy but one has words saying “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood.”’

While the exact words before and after them have been different, they all say this.

The one exception is the Liturgy of Ss Addai and Mari, used by both the Assyrian Church of the East and their counterpart, the Chaldean Catholics.

While the ACOE version does not have the Words of Institution, it’s clear that it intends to accomplish the mystery of the Eucharist (or as Westerners say, confect the Eucharist). When head of the CDF, Benedict XVI said that this Anaphora was indeed valid.

The recension of Ss Addai and Mari as used by the Chaldean Catholics DO have the Words of Institution in them.

As to what words the priest needs to speak, they are included in whatever authorized Anaphora (Eucharistic Prayer) he is using.
 
Aside from what’s contained in the approved Eucharistic prayers, so long as the priest expresses in some way that the body and blood of Jesus are present, then there is a valid, although illicit, consecration. Of course, altering the Words of Institution is a very grave liturgical abuse because if you alter them too much, then you potentially *can *end up with an invalid consecration.
benedictgal said:
There are about 13 or so Eucharistic Prayers that we use in the Mass (Latin Rite). I hope this helps.
Click to expand...
I have never heard the four variations to the Swiss Synod prayer counted as individual prayers, so there are just 10, I believe.
 
benedictgal said:
Here is the link for the Eucharistic Prayers used in the Latin Rite:

catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/EP1-4.htm
Click to expand...
In this link, if you scroll down, you will notice the red words. These are the unchangeable words in Consecration. In fact, they are to be said slowly, coherently, and with extreme reverence. I have copied the two sets of words for your convenience below:

“Take this, all of you, and eat it; this is my body which will be given up for you.”

And then for the transubstantiation of the wine:
“Take this, all of you, and drink from it; this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.”
 
**In this link, if you scroll down, you will notice the red words. These are the unchangeable words in Consecration. In fact, they are to be said slowly, coherently, and with extreme reverence. I have copied the two sets of words for your convenience below:

“Take this, all of you, and eat it; this is my body which will be given up for you.”

And then for the transubstantiation of the wine:
“Take this, all of you, and drink from it; this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.”**

Please note that this is the English translation of the text as used in the LATIN Church.

Eastern Catholic Churches are different, but the meaning is clearly the same.
 
Liturgical historians have counted 89 different formulas of consecration. As Cluny said, the essential words are present though not always the same and, as passus, the priest has to intend to perform the consecration, too.

Too often people subscribe to the notion that somehow the words of consecration are a magic spell that effects the consecration. It is not so much that the priest says the words that Jesus said (not that I’m discounting that) but that he, in persona Christe, intends to do what Jesus did. Off track, I know, but I think it is very interesting.
 
Timothysis said:
Too often people subscribe to the notion that somehow the words of consecration are a magic spell that effects the consecration. It is not so much that the priest says the words that Jesus said (not that I’m discounting that) but that he, in persona Christe, intends to do what Jesus did. Off track, I know, but I think it is very interesting.
Click to expand...
In fact, the typical phrase in Latin “HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM” is where the phrase Hocus Pocus came from. It was used to ridicule the belief of Catholics in the real presence, in that the detractors thought the words made the bread change to the body of Christ rather than the intention and authority of the priest.
 
Evan said:
In fact, the typical phrase in Latin “HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM” is where the phrase Hocus Pocus came from. It was used to ridicule the belief of Catholics in the real presence, in that the detractors thought the words made the bread change to the body of Christ rather than the intention and authority of the priest.
Click to expand...
Very interesting. I’ll make sure I don’t ever use Hocus Pocus again. Thanks!
 
It is not so much that the priest says the words that Jesus said (not that I’m discounting that) but that he, in persona Christe, intends to do what Jesus did. Off track, I know, but I think it is very interesting.

Keep in mind that the various forms of the Words of Institution have almost never been directly taken from scripture, but are rather liturgical (that is, paraphrases of the Scriptural narrative).
 
Wow! I am ashamed.

What a bunch of wishy-washy trash. Not a single person here can give a clear cut answer to this poor soul’s question.

Enough of the “well-technically speaking…” gibberish. There are plenty of ordained men here on these forums. I am sure several are in this very thread.

I myself am not ordained so I do see myself having the valid authority to answer the question. But, I should become a priest just to squash your pride (and mine too :p)
 
What a bunch of wishy-washy trash. Not a single person here can give a clear cut answer to this poor soul’s question.

Did occur to you that maybe there’s NOT a clear-cut answer?
 
Jimzz12 said:
Wow! I am ashamed.

What a bunch of wishy-washy trash. Not a single person here can give a clear cut answer to this poor soul’s question.

Enough of the “well-technically speaking…” gibberish. There are plenty of ordained men here on these forums. I am sure several are in this very thread.

I myself am not ordained so I do see myself having the valid authority to answer the question. But, I should become a priest just to squash your pride (and mine too :p)
Click to expand...
Actually, if you see my two initial replies, I posted links to a site that has the words to the Eucharistic Prayers (at least those used in the Latin rites). Somehow the topic strayed off course, but, the information was provided.
 
'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. . . .”

By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity.’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1412-1413)

‘In the consecration of the body the Church uses this form of the words: “For this is my body”; but in the consecration of the blood, it uses the following form of the words: “For this is the chalice of my blood, the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which will be poured forth for you and many for the remission of sins.”’ (Council of Florence DS 1352)

‘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.’ (Council of Florence DS 1321)
 
Didn't the OP ask for valid Holy Communion words? :D
Latin, OF: The Body [and Blood] of Christ. R. Amen
Latin, EF: May the precious Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your soul unto everlasting life.
Byzantine: The Servant of God N. partakes of the precious, most pure, and all-holy Body and Blood of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ for the remission of his/her sins and for life everlasting. Amen.

Okay back to regular scheduled programming.
 
Hello to all,

In my missal says that the form:

Take this, all of you, and drink from it; this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me."**

it is not the authentic one, hence no valid, because the words of our Lord were:

Take this, all of you, and drink from it; this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for many so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me."**
 
lorena07 said:
Hello to all,

In my missal says that the form:

Take this, all of you, and drink from it; this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me."**

it is not the authentic one, hence no valid, because the words of our Lord were:

Take this, all of you, and drink from it; this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for many so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me."**
Click to expand...
On the other hand, his Holiness has a slightly different understanding. See ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/ratzinger_formany_nov06.asp where he argues that “for all” is also a valid formula for the consecration because the new testament indicates that Jesus died for all (Rm 8:32, 2 Cor 5:13, and Tim 2:6). There is justification for either rendering. Presently the Church has selected “for all”, in the new translation it will be rendered “for many”. Whatever choice is used, the validity of the consecration is based more on the intention and authority of the priest/bishop than on any particular set of words.
 
Evan said:
Whatever choice is used, the validity of the consecration is based more on the intention and authority of the priest/bishop than on any particular set of words.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY!!! I keep mentioning how so many act as if the words of consecration are a magic spell that consecrates the host. While form is important, it is the intent of the priest that causes the consecration. As I read somewhere, it isn’t so much that the priest says what Christ said, but intends to do what Christ intended.
 
** Presently the Church has selected “for all”,**

Actually, so far as I know, it’s only in the English that this is said. The Latin (and for that matter, St. John Chrystostom in any language) says “for many.”
** Hello to all,

In my missal says that the form:

Take this, all of you, and drink from it; this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me."**

it is not the authentic one, hence no valid, because the words of our Lord were:

Take this, all of you, and drink from it; this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for many so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me."**
Reply With Quote**

And your missal is the ultimate authority, isn’t it?
 
Cluny said:
** Presently the Church has selected “for all”,**

Actually, so far as I know, it’s only in the English that this is said. The Latin (and for that matter, St. John Chrystostom in any language) says “for many.”
Click to expand...
According to Vatican, Nov. 18, 2006 (CWNews.com) -
The Vatican has ruled that the phrase pro multis should be rendered as “for many” in all new translations of the Eucharistic Prayer, CWN has learned.
Click to expand...
Although “for many” is the literal translation of the Latin phrase, the translations currently in use render the phrase as “for all.” Equivalent translations (für alle; por todos; per tutti) are in use in several other languages.
Click to expand...
It seems english is not the only language with this translation 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top