Mass Valid without Epiclesis?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnnyjoe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

johnnyjoe

Guest
I had a friend go to a mass today, and the priest said the words of consecration, but did not extend the hands - the “Epiclesis”, if I am spelling that correctly…

Was the Eucharist valid matter?
 
40.png
johnnyjoe:
I had a friend go to a mass today, and the priest said the words of consecration, but did not extend the hands - the “Epiclesis”, if I am spelling that correctly…

Was the Eucharist valid matter?
Click to expand...
Yes, it was. Most theologians from the Scholastic school would argue that only the Words of Institution are necessary for consecration. The Roman Canon doesn’t have a clear epiclesis anyways, esp. not since Msgr. Bugnini ruined, err… I mean changed, the Offertory in the 1960s. I think the Council of Trent says somewhere that only the Words of Institution are required.

I’m not clear on what actually happened from your description. Did the priest say all the words of the anaphora (Eucharistic Prayer), but simply not extend his hands over the oblation?
 
40.png
johnnyjoe:
I had a friend go to a mass today, and the priest said the words of consecration, but did not extend the hands - the “Epiclesis”, if I am spelling that correctly…

Was the Eucharist valid matter?
Click to expand...
I dodn’t see how bread and wine could be turned into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ without calling down the Holy Spirit.

While the “matter” has to do with the bread/wine used, I don’t think the Eucharist can be confected without the epiclesis…
 
40.png
Benedictus:
Yes, it was. Most theologians from the Scholastic school would argue that only the Words of Institution are necessary for consecration. The Roman Canon doesn’t have a clear epiclesis anyways, esp. not since Msgr. Bugnini ruined, err… I mean changed, the Offertory in the 1960s. I think the Council of Trent says somewhere that only the Words of Institution are required.

I’m not clear on what actually happened from your description. Did the priest say all the words of the anaphora (Eucharistic Prayer), but simply not extend his hands over the oblation?
Click to expand...
My understanding is that he said what many call the words of consecration…“Take this all of you and eat it, This is my Body…Take this all of you and drink it, This is my Blood…”, but did not extend his hands over the gifts before that time, saying: “Bless and approve our offering; make it acceptable to you, an offering in spirit and in truth. Let it become for us the body and blood of Jesus Christ, your only Son, our Lord”…

This is my friends confusion. From what he has said, the priest appeared to skip this part completely, and went on to: “The day before he suffered, he too bread in his sacred hands…”

I was once told by a priest that after the Epiclesis, our Lord is there and fully present. The scenerio was proposed that say the priest got ill after the Epiclesis, would a Extrodinary Eucharistic Minister be able to distribute our Lord from that point - if the Eucharistic prayer was interrupted in an emergency - and the mass still be considered “valid”. It was one of those “what if” questions, and was directed toward discovering just exactly when the bread and wine are fully confected into our Lord.
 
40.png
johnnyjoe:
I had a friend go to a mass today, and the priest said the words of consecration, but did not extend the hands - the “Epiclesis”, if I am spelling that correctly…

Was the Eucharist valid matter?
Click to expand...
Yes, the Consecration would have taken place. The validity of the Mass, might be in question, but not the Consecration and Holy Communion.
 
Br. Rich SFO:
Yes, the Consecration would have taken place. The validity of the Mass, might be in question, but not the Consecration and Holy Communion.
Click to expand...
So in other words, our Lord was there, but the Mass “validity” might have been questionable.

Does that mean the mass could have been “illicit”? What is the diffence in “valid” and “illicit”?

If our Lord was still there, how could the mass not be “valid”?
 
40.png
johnnyjoe:
So in other words, our Lord was there, but the Mass “validity” might have been questionable.

Does that mean the mass could have been “illicit”? What is the diffence in “valid” and “illicit”?

If our Lord was still there, how could the mass not be “valid”?
Click to expand...
Valid, in layman’s language, means it either happened (valid) or didn’t happen (invalid).

Licit means lawful; it happened, and the laws were followed.
Illicit means it happened, but not all of the laws were followed.

If “our Lord was there” means that there was a consecration, then the Mass had to be valid. The validity can’t be questioned.

And before we get too lathered up about the licitness or illicitness, let’s keep in mind that forgetfulness and distraction is not a sin. Or, at least, unintentional distraction is not a sin. So if Father simply lost his place, and thought he had said everything properly, the Mass may have been technically lacking licitness in some part. But to call it an abuse is a far step, as that carries the implication of intent. And licitness, or lack thereof, can vary. Not every violation, intentional or other wise, of the rubrics is a major issue. Some are, some aren’t. And if you don’t know the difference, err on the side of caution, particularly when it comes to your own blood pressure…
 
40.png
johnnyjoe:
I was once told by a priest that after the Epiclesis, our Lord is there and fully present.
Click to expand...
It is the opinion of many Eastern (Catholic and especially Orthodox) theologians that an epiclesis is necessary, but most Western theologians would argue that only the Words of Institution (“This is my body…This is my blood”) are necessary.

The Holy See recently declared that the Anaphora for Mar Addai and Mari that is used by the Assyrian Church is valid, even though it doesn’t have an explicit Institution (but does have an epiklesis).

FWIW, in most of the anaphora used in Eastern Churches, the epiclesis follows the Institution.
 
40.png
Benedictus:
It is the opinion of many Eastern (Catholic and especially Orthodox) theologians that an epiclesis is necessary, but most Western theologians would argue that only the Words of Institution (“This is my body…This is my blood”) are necessary.

The Holy See recently declared that the Anaphora for Mar Addai and Mari that is used by the Assyrian Church is valid, even though it doesn’t have an explicit Institution (but does have an epiklesis).

FWIW, in most of the anaphora used in Eastern Churches, the epiclesis follows the Institution.
Click to expand...
In fact, I believe it is the opinion of most theologians that both required, they differ as to the ‘moment’ concecration occurs.

In the East (including Byzantine Catholics), they hold that this occurs at the Epiclesis, in the West, at the Words of Institution.

I would probaby hold that Mass as doubtful.
 
40.png
Crusader:
I wish an actual expert would opine on this query…
Click to expand...
I don’t know if Cardinal Arinze is around? No one excepting a Bishop would be an “actual expert” in this matter.

My opinion follows:

The reception of Holy Communion takes place after the Blessed Sacrament is confected by the Consecration of the Eucharistic elements. This Consecration takes place within in this case the “Roman Rite or Latin Rite” commonly referred to as the Mass.
The Consecration takes place within this Rite, but can take place outside of it, validly but not licitly. For instance suppose that the Mass is interupted after the Consecration of the bread. The fact that the Mass is not completed or cannot be completed does not in any way alter the fact that the bread is now the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.
 
Br. Rich SFO:
I don’t know if Cardinal Arinze is around? No one excepting a Bishop would be an “actual expert” in this matter.

My opinion follows:

The reception of Holy Communion takes place after the Blessed Sacrament is confected by the Consecration of the Eucharistic elements. This Consecration takes place within in this case the “Roman Rite or Latin Rite” commonly referred to as the Mass.
The Consecration takes place within this Rite, but can take place outside of it, validly but not licitly. For instance suppose that the Mass is interupted after the Consecration of the bread. The fact that the Mass is not completed or cannot be completed does not in any way alter the fact that the bread is now the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.
Click to expand...
I’m still not sure the Eucharist was confected when the epiclesis was omitted…
 
The way the 12,000+ members of this forum attend Mass, I would have to guess that about two-thirds of them are employed full time as figure skating judges.

And they use their professional skills to rate their celebrants!

I pray for priests. I didn’t realize how much pressure they were under!
 
Br. Rich SFO:
. The fact that the Mass is not completed or cannot be completed does not in any way alter the fact that the bread is now the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.
Click to expand...
There is little doubt of that Brother. But the question is really, “Did a Concecration actually occur”

I’m pretty doubtful that it did.
 
Well, tomorrow I will ask my parish pastor, a Monsignor, and a canon lawyer. Perhaps he will have the definitive answer. I will post what he says…
 
40.png
Brendan:
There is little doubt of that Brother. But the question is really, “Did a Concecration actually occur”

I’m pretty doubtful that it did.
Click to expand...
My point was that parts and pieces of the Rite that surrounds the Consecration can be omitted (hopefully not intentionally) and the Consecration still takes place. In the Latin Rite the words “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood” (along with the proper Intent and Matter) are what effects the Consecration. If you look at some of the material on the celebration of the Mass well before the N.O. It contains some very specific “What if’s” And all indicate that the only words necessary for Consecration are the words of Institution.
 
I often which moderator experts would step in on several topics however this one does not seem that complicated.
In Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern-rite Catholic churches, and formerly in Latin-rite (i.e., Western) Catholic churches, the epiclesis (also sometimes spelled epiklesis, since it is a transliterated Greek word) is that part of the prayer of consecration of the Eucharistic elements (bread and wine) in which the priest invokes the Holy Spirit. Eastern Orthodox theologians hold that the epiclesis is essential to the eucharist – without it, the miraculous transubstantiation will not occur. Roman Catholics hold that it is not essential
Click to expand...
Since Roman Catholics hold that the epiclesis is not essential in the current Mass, then the Mass would be valid as well as the consecration.
 
40.png
deogratias:
I often which moderator experts would step in on several topics however this one does not seem that complicated.

Since Roman Catholics hold that the epiclesis is not essential in the current Mass, then the Mass would be valid as well as the consecration.
Click to expand...
Says who?
 
If I am following what is being said on this thread, it seems like depending on the rite, i.e. Latin, Byzantine etc. and the differing opinions of theologians-that it really doesn’t matter what exact words are used, but that when a valid priest intends to confect the eucharist, it happens. God provides or something like that. Its a great comfort if true but that idea seems kind of unsettling to me…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top