Mass Valid without Epiclesis?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnnyjoe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
rwoehmke:
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…
Click to expand...
The posts need to be carefully read. One above states that “Eastern Orthodox theologians hold that the epiclesis is essential to the eucharist”. Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic are not the same. But I believe that the original question involved the Roman Rite Mass and that is the line along which I have been answering. Any Idea of “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.” Must be avoided. It must be remembered that most all posts here are opinions and interpretations, including those of the moderators.
 
Originally Posted by rwoehmke
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…
Click to expand...
Well - that’s not what I was saying. The epiclesis is something that usually comes before the sanctus except in the fourth Eucharistic prayer where it comes afterwards. It is my “OPINION” that even though I believe it should be said (the epiclesis) because it is in some form in all four Eucharistic prayers and in the Canon of the 1962 Missal - it does not render the consecration invalid so long as the words of the consecration are said.

The epiclesis is an “invocation” to the Holy Spirit. The priest requests God the Father to send the Holy Spirit so that the bread and wine may become Christ’s body and blood.

Now if he stopped here - it would not become the body and blood just because he requested it.

I remember reading St. Thomas asked “why does the priest ask for what he knows will positively take place in the consecration” His answer was, “How many times did Jesus Christ ask for what he well knew would infallibly happen? The priest seems to pray , not so much that the miracle of transubstantion will occur as for the happy fruits it may produce in our souls”.

So whether the epiclesis is or is not required as part of the Eucharistic prayer, it does not change the consecration.
A reliable priest told me that as long as the consecration is valid, the rest of the Mass may be full of abuses but it is still valid.

The words of the consecration are:

The Bread
“Take this all of you and eat it:
This is my body which will be given up for you.”

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 all men
so that sins may be forgiven.
Do this in memory of me.”

The consecration is the essential part of the Mass
 
40.png
deogratias:
Well - that’s not what I was saying. The epiclesis is something that usually comes before the sanctus except in the fourth Eucharistic prayer where it comes afterwards. It is my “OPINION” that even though I believe it should be said (the epiclesis) because it is in some form in all four Eucharistic prayers and in the Canon of the 1962 Missal - it does not render the consecration invalid so long as the words of the consecration are said.

The epiclesis is an “invocation” to the Holy Spirit. The priest requests God the Father to send the Holy Spirit so that the bread and wine may become Christ’s body and blood.

Now if he stopped here - it would not become the body and blood just because he requested it.

I remember reading St. Thomas asked “why does the priest ask for what he knows will positively take place in the consecration” His answer was, “How many times did Jesus Christ ask for what he well knew would infallibly happen? The priest seems to pray , not so much that the miracle of transubstantion will occur as for the happy fruits it may produce in our souls”.

So whether the epiclesis is or is not required as part of the Eucharistic prayer, it does not change the consecration.
A reliable priest told me that as long as the consecration is valid, the rest of the Mass may be full of abuses but it is still valid.

The words of the consecration are:

The Bread
“Take this all of you and eat it:
This is my body which will be given up for you.”

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 all men
so that sins may be forgiven.
Do this in memory of me.”

The consecration is the essential part of the Mass
Click to expand...
No. Consuming the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is Jesus Christ is not the main reason we attend the Mass. After all we are only required to receive holy communion once a year.

We attend Mass to be present at the sacrifice of Jesus Christ to God the Father for propitiation of the numerous and ongoing sins of mankind.

While the consecration might indeed be the climax of the Mass, the entire Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is “essential.”
 
40.png
Crusader:
No. Consuming the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is Jesus Christ is not the main reason we attend the Mass. After all we are only required to receive holy communion once a year.

We attend Mass to be present at the sacrifice of Jesus Christ to God the Father for propitiation of the numerous and ongoing sins of mankind.

While the consecration might indeed be the climax of the Mass, the entire Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is “essential.”
Click to expand...
That is not what I said - I did not say the reception of communion - I said the consecration - if there were no consecration there would be no valid Mass ergo it is ESSENTIAL. What you say is valid but it is not what I was saying.

And quit telling me and others NO - we are not children - we are equal to you in knowledge and faith.
 
I found another reference regarding the validity of the consecration

.
The formula of consecration of the bread is: “This is my body which will be given up for you”; of the wine: ''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." The words which precede these formulas in no way pertain to the validity of the formula. It is commonly taught today that the essential words of the formula of the Eucharist-and their omission would invalidate the form-are: "This is my body, " ''This is the cup of my blood" (or ''this is my blood"). In practice it is seriously prescribed to pronounce the entire formula; if any of the words from "the blood of the new . . . " on are omitted, the whole formula is to be repeated conditionally.

[Ref.: The Sacraments and Their Celebration
Click to expand...
, Fr. Nicholas P. Halligan, O.P.]
 
are your absolutely sure the epiclesis was omitted, or is it possible the priest used another Eucharistic prayer and your attention wandered for a moment, since the invocation of the Holy Spirit is not identical in each Eucharistic Prayer.
 
DeoGratias has it correct. The form for consecration is those of the words of the institution. The double consecration signifies the separation of the Blood of Christ from the Body of Christ by transubstantiation. That the whole Christ is found under each species is taught by St. Thomas as concommitance. The important thing here is to realize that it is the separation of the Blood from the Body that constitutes the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of the Cross. Even without the Epiclesis, the Mass in question is definitely valid, since the Sacrifice of the Cross has been made present.
 
40.png
kk1727:
DeoGratias has it correct. The form for consecration is those of the words of the institution. The double consecration signifies the separation of the Blood of Christ from the Body of Christ by transubstantiation. That the whole Christ is found under each species is taught by St. Thomas as concommitance. The important thing here is to realize that it is the separation of the Blood from the Body that constitutes the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of the Cross. Even without the Epiclesis, the Mass in question is definitely valid, since the Sacrifice of the Cross has been made present.
Click to expand...
Double consecration? No such thing…
 
Crusader:

The term ‘double consecration’ refers to the consecration of the host as separate of the consecration of the Chalice. By regulation of the liturgy Rome has definitively taught that the first consecration effects the Real Presence, since she has encouraged the adoration of the host before the consecration of the Chalice has taken place, hence the elevation of the host. The reason that the consecration of the two elements are separate rather than both being consecrated together is that this is the will of Christ and because it signifies the separation of the Blood of Christ from His Body. The double consecration is quite simply the essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass. If the one were consecrated without the other, then the Real Presence is there (in the element which has been consecrated), but the Sacrifice of the Mass is invalid.
 
40.png
kk1727:
If the one were consecrated without the other, then the Real Presence is there (in the element which has been consecrated), but the Sacrifice of the Mass is invalid.
Click to expand...
Invalid, or simply incomplete?
 
Br. Rich SFO:
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.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this response, Br. Rich, for this was indeed the response of my parish priest. His point was that the intention is key, and that the exclusion of the Epiclesis must be viewed as a simple error, unless the behavior is consistant. My friend does not attend mass at this parish often, and we cannot say for sure if this is a habitual practice.

My priest did point out that if this is an intentional practice, the priest needs to be approached about this error.
 
40.png
puzzleannie:
are your absolutely sure the epiclesis was omitted, or is it possible the priest used another Eucharistic prayer and your attention wandered for a moment, since the invocation of the Holy Spirit is not identical in each Eucharistic Prayer.
Click to expand...
Well, it was a friend who attended the mass, and not myself. My friend did believe the rest of the Eucharistic Prayer to be Prayer #1, since it was so familiar to him (It is the only prayer my Monsignor uses, and he attends at my parish fairly often).

His question was specific, for the omission was specific, to his experience, so that is why I started the thread.
 
A good idea might be to ask the priest himself, he may clear up any misunderstanding. Ask him in a way that is not direct but indirect. If he knows he missed something during what he was doing he will than explain. And if this was the first time something like this happened than he is a good priest and God will have provided.

But all in all I’m sure you received Jesus. God bless you - Jude I -

:amen:
 
40.png
otm:
Invalid, or simply incomplete?
Click to expand...
If the second consecration does not take place, or if the first is invalid for various reasons then the Sacrifice of the Mass is invalid because both species must be consecrated for the Sacrifice to be re-presented. If the Sacrifice is invalid, so is the Mass. If one of the species has been validly consecrated then the Real Presence is truly there in the consecrated species.
 
Is there a de fide statement of the church that only the words of consecration, this is my Body, This is my Blood, are necessary for consecration. Meaning, has the Church closed the issue definitively on this that no Epiclesis is necessary?

It bothers me that the Eastern Orthodox are not in agreement with us here on such a fundamental principle because they insist on the Epiclesis. Something just doesn’t sit right that we disagree on this issue.
 
40.png
Dan-Man916:
Is there a de fide statement of the church that only the words of consecration, this is my Body, This is my Blood, are necessary for consecration. Meaning, has the Church closed the issue definitively on this that no Epiclesis is necessary?

It bothers me that the Eastern Orthodox are not in agreement with us here on such a fundamental principle because they insist on the Epiclesis. Something just doesn’t sit right that we disagree on this issue.
Click to expand...
There would be no “De Fide” statement on this matter because it is not a matter of Doctrine but a matter of Discipline.
 
I guess i don’t understand why this is a matter of discipline rather than doctrine.
 
40.png
otm:
Invalid, or simply incomplete?
Click to expand...
You mean, can the Sacrifice be completed later, like when a baserunner comes back to touch home plate after running past it the first time? Interesting question.

IANAT (I am not a theologian…), but I wonder what would have happened if an ancient Jewish family’s Passover sacrifice was officially offered (by touching the lamb’s head), but before the lamb’s throat could be cut, some calamity occurs. Does the family get to take the lamb back? What if the lamb runs off and is never seen again? What if the lamb runs off and is captured by another family and offered by them for sacrifice? What if an imposter priest performs the sacrifice? Does the family have to offer another lamb?

I’d imagine the Talmud would have some answers. But I do seem to remember our Lord telling the Samaritans that their sacrifices, which were offered to God but on invalid altars, were invalid.
 
Wow! that was a great debate. In many matters like this , “The church provides.” Remember the Mass is valid even if the priest has mortal sin on his soul. If the intention to consecrate was there on the part of the celebrant and the intention to partake of the sacrifice of Jesus was there on the part of the people…" The church provides."

God bless,
Deacon Tony
 
40.png
Crusader:
I wish an actual expert would opine on this query…
Click to expand...
Isn’t it odd that good conscientious Catholics would be reduced to yelling what amounts to: “Is there a Doctor in the house!”? Why do we have priests and bishops that not only do not feed us but actually raise devisive questions of faith for us that they do not lift a finger to answer? Isn’t the call for an expert an admission that the Church hierarchy is dysfunctional? – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top