P
patrick457
Guest
Yes. No one disputed that transubstantiation occurs during the Canon/the Eucharistic prayer. Earlier Christians were not too much concerned about the precise moment; for all they care, the bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Christ at that point of the Liturgy. It is only when the question of precisely when that happens was brought up that difference in understanding came up and people became more and more insistent about including either the Words of Institution or a clearly-discernible Epiclesis.Not really.
The “giving thanks” prior to the distribution was what is now called the epiclesis.
Over the years there were a series of battles over exactly where in the Canon of the Mass the consecration actually took place. The Western concept was that it takes place at the “words of institution” of “This is my Body” and “This is my Blood”. The Eastern concept was that it takes place at the epiclesis, where God is called upon to bring his Holy Spirit upon the bread and wine.
During Paul VI’s pontificate a decision had to be made about the validity of the Eucharistic Canon of the so-called Nestorian church’s liturgy, a very early Christian rite that lacked both the words of institution and a clear epiclesis. He ruled that it was valid.
The reason was that in narrative form it recalled the Last Supper and Our Lord’s institution of the Sacrament with the intent to do what the Church does. That’s what constitutes a valid consecration.
I am pretty Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ knew what He was about at the Last Supper, so the slight textual differenc is interesting but in the end irrelevant.
.
To the OP: the simplest answer to your question is, that the people you are reading are reading too much into the text. So what if Jesus said “This is my blood” before or after He passed the cup? And so what if our modern practice does not at all square 100% with how He did it at the Last Supper? (If that’s the case, shouldn’t we be using Aramaic and wear tunics and tea-towels for Mass?