"Mass" with no words of consecration?

[USMC]

This thread is being started based on a side discussion from another thread.

I asked someone on another thread if they believe the “mass” that was approved as valid by both Cardinal Ratzinger and the late John Paul II, but which has no words of consecration, is valid. That was my question. The person claimed to have an answer but said he was too busy to reply just then, and my question was off topic. Since we then received a warning from the moderator to stay on topic, I decided to start a separate thread so he would not miss the opportunity to reply.

What is required for a valid Mass? The Church has taught consistently throughout the history of the Church that three things are required for a valid Mass. These three things are:

1.) Proper form (the correct words)
2.) Proper Matter (bread and wine)
3.) Proper Intent (the Priest must intend, at least implicitly, to do what the Church does.

In our day of “ecumenical dialogue” whereby the leaders of the Church seek any way possible to unite with those who reject the Catholic Church and the teachings of our Lord, the Church began a “dialogue” with the Nestorian heretics (yes, they still exist). These heretics have a “mass”. The only problem is that this so-called mass does not include the words of consecration. They are completely eliminated from the Rite. * (The probably reason for the words being excluded is that this Rite goes back to the very early centuries of the Church when the words of consecration were considered so sacred that they were often not written down. Sometimes they were written in gold letters, sometimes they were left out completely. They were obviously always spoken at Mass, but they were so sacred they were sometimes not written down within the body of the text).*

Today, the Nestorian heretics of the Assyrian church use the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, which does not have any words of consecration written down. In another victory for ecumenism, this Rite was approved as valid by both John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger.

EWTN replied to the question of someone who inquired about the Vatican approval of this obviously invalid “mass”. In their reply they began by stating the facts, then quoted a section of the official approval given by Rome, and then conclude by saying:

EWTN]"So, it is in this quasi-narrative, spread throughout the Eucharistic Prayer rather than located in one place, that the Holy See concluded the consecratory form is to be found. **It should be noted that while this was the judgment of the Holy See, confirmed by the Pope, and thus must be considered authoritative, it was not **an exercise of infallibility and is therefore reformable.

Their answer reveals two things: 11) They acknowledge that it was approved by the Pope; 2.) But they also realize that such a blatant error will be corrected in the future, thus they end by saying "It should be noted that while this was the judgment of the Holy See, confirmed by the Pope, and thus must be considered authoritative, it was not an exercise of infallibility and is therefore reformable..

I believe this is **one of many examples ** since Vatican II of Rome going way too far in its version of ecumenism and ending in blatant error. Most of the time there is some way for Catholics who know the truth to “interpret” such documents to mean something other than what they seem on the surface to say. Some people are misled by these documents which appear on the surface to be heretical, while those who know the faith seek to interpret them according to what the Church really teaches. In this way some are deceived and others are not. Let’s consider just one example of some who have been deceived.

John Paul II repeatedly taught that the Old Covenant “has never been revoked by God”. Those who were not mislead by this statement have concluded that he must have meant that the Old Covenant is null and void, which is what the Church teaches, but that it not null and void because it was “revoked”, but because it was “fulfilled”. This is the way those who are not deceived have interpreted the document. Now let’s consider those who were deceived…

continue…

 

[USMC]

continuation

The USCCB’s Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs took the multiple statements of John Paul II about the Old Covenant “never being revoked by God” at face value and issued an official document titled “Reflections on Covenant and Mission” which concluded that the Old Covenant is still salvific for the Jews (which is heresy), and stated that “campaigns that target Jews for conversion to Christianity are no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church”.

As their authority for publicly teaching and promoting this heresy, they quoted John Paul II again and again teaching that “the Old Covenant has never been revoked by God”. This document resulted in outrage by many of the well known Priests and apologist from EWTN. I remember one priest in particular declaring “this is apostasy”, and he was exactly right.

The US Bishops fell into error based at least in part on the teachings of John Paul II. Some may say they misunderstood what John Paul II actually meant, but as far as I know they were never corrected by him, nor any other Vatican official. Since the Pope would have the duty to correct them if they misunderstood him, it makes some assume that he agreed with what was taught by the USCCB’s official Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs in the above mentioned document which was published on the USCCB’s website for all to read.

But in the case in point (a mass with no words of consecration being approved as valid), the error is so blatant, and almost unbelievable, that there is no way to twist, or explain away the error approved by John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger - an error which is completely contrary to everything the Church has ever taught about what is required for the validity of Mass.

So my question to the person from the other thread is this: Does he believe that the mass with no words of consecration, which was approved by John Paul II and Cardinal Ratizinger, is a valid Mass?

And if he does accept this mass as valid, which has no words of consecration, how does he explain away what the Church has always taught?

 

[batteddy]

And if he does accept this mass as valid, which has no words of consecration, how does he explain away what the Church has always taught?

No one ever said that it has no “words of consecration”…

What it lacks is the traditional “institution narrative”…that is, the priest never says “this is my body…this is my blood”

But are those the necessary words of consecration? In the west, certainly. But in the East they consider the Epiclesis to be “the moment” even though they have the Institution Narrative too.

The Form of most Sacraments is not something set in stone. All that is required is that it “express the essence” of the sacrament.

Remember, in the West, the Form of confirmation used to be: “Be signed with the sign of the cross, and confirmed with the chrism of salvation.” Then after Vatican II, they took up an eastern form, “Be sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit”…

And the Church (even in traditional days) has often ruled different Forms used by the east as sufficient (ie, “be baptized” instead of “I baptize you,” “may God absolve” instead of “I absolve”) etc…though there was always much debate by western theologians over this…

But no “magic words” are needed as long as the Form conveys the essence of the sacrament. The institution narrative certainly conveys this essence…and conveys it most perfectly.

But there are passages in the anaphora of addai and mari that can be argued to also effectively convey the essence of the sacrament. For example:

O my Lord, in your many ineffable mercies, repeat, make a good and acceptable memorial for all the just and righteous fathers who were well-pleasing before you through the commemoration of the body and blood of your Christ which we offer you upon your pure and holy altar, as you taught us.

“O my Lord…make a good and acceptable memorial…through the commemoration of the body and blood of your Christ which we offer you upon your pure and holy altar,” seems to convey the essence of the sacrament (real presence AND sacrifice) to me…

 

[Anima_Christi]

This thread is being started based on a side discussion from another thread.

I asked someone on another thread if they believe the “mass” that was approved as valid by both Cardinal Ratzinger and the late John Paul II, but which has no words of consecration, is valid. That was my question. The person claimed to have an answer but said he was too busy to reply just then, and my question was off topic. Since we then received a warning from the moderator to stay on topic, I decided to start a separate thread so he would not miss the opportunity to reply.

What is required for a valid Mass? The Church has taught consistently throughout the history of the Church that three things are required for a valid Mass. These three things are:

1.) Proper form (the correct words)
2.) Proper Matter (bread and wine)
3.) Proper Intent (the Priest must intend, at least implicitly, to do what the Church does.

In our day of “ecumenical dialogue” whereby the leaders of the Church seek any way possible to unite with those who reject the Catholic Church and the teachings of our Lord, the Church began a “dialogue” with the Nestorian heretics (yes, they still exist). These heretics have a “mass”. The only problem is that this so-called mass does not include the words of consecration. They are completely eliminated from the Rite. * (The probably reason for the words being excluded is that this Rite goes back to the very early centuries of the Church when the words of consecration were considered so sacred that they were often not written down. Sometimes they were written in gold letters, sometimes they were left out completely. They were obviously always spoken at Mass, but they were so sacred they were sometimes not written down within the body of the text).*

Today, the Nestorian heretics of the Assyrian church use the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, which does not have any words of consecration written down. In another victory for ecumenism, this Rite was approved as valid by both John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger.

EWTN replied to the question of someone who inquired about the Vatican approval of this obviously invalid “mass”. In their reply they began by stating the facts, then quoted a section of the official approval given by Rome, and then conclude by saying:

Their answer reveals two things: 11) They acknowledge that it was approved by the Pope; 2.) But they also realize that such a blatant error will be corrected in the future, thus they end by saying "It should be noted that while this was the judgment of the Holy See, confirmed by the Pope, and thus must be considered authoritative, it was not an exercise of infallibility and is therefore reformable..

I believe this is **one of many examples ** since Vatican II of Rome going way too far in its version of ecumenism and ending in blatant error. Most of the time there is some way for Catholics who know the truth to “interpret” such documents to mean something other than what they seem on the surface to say. Some people are misled by these documents which appear on the surface to be heretical, while those who know the faith seek to interpret them according to what the Church really teaches. In this way some are deceived and others are not. Let’s consider just one example of some who have been deceived.

John Paul II repeatedly taught that the Old Covenant “has never been revoked by God”. Those who were not mislead by this statement have concluded that he must have meant that the Old Covenant is null and void, which is what the Church teaches, but that it not null and void because it was “revoked”, but because it was “fulfilled”. This is the way those who are not deceived have interpreted the document. Now let’s consider those who were deceived…

continue…

Thanks for bringing this up, USMC! This issue has really troubled me.

 

[USMC]

The Form of most Sacraments is not something set in stone. All that is required is that it “express the essence” of the sacrament.

Remember, in the West, the Form of confirmation used to be: “Be signed with the sign of the cross, and confirmed with the chrism of salvation.” Then after Vatican II, they took up an eastern form, “Be sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit”…

I have to get ready for Mass so I don’t have time to respond. But I have a question for you: What is the difference between the Form (spoken words) used for the Sacraments of Baptism and the consecration at Mass, and the other scraments?

There is a difference between the Form (spoken words) used for Baptism and for the consecration at Mass, and the Form (spoken words) used for the other sacraments. Do you know what the difference is? You can probably find it by doing a google search. Please post the answer once you find it,

I’ll respond to your other points after Church.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Anyone, whether layman, nun, brother, priest, bishop, or even pope, who teaches that the Old Covenant, the Law of Moses, is still in force and binding, is teaching ERROR and going straight against 2,000 years of consistent scriptural and Magisterial teaching on this matter. God did not “revoke” the old covenant, but he did FULFILL and supercede it with the New Covenant. But the Law of Moses is not binding anymore. If it was, God would make some provisions for the Jewish people to observe it’s sacrifices and sacraments, all of which came to an end when the Temple, as Jesus prophecied in advance, was destroyed by the Romans in
70 A.D.

As for the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, I have read it, and am still confused by the Holy See’s decision. Still, they know better than I do about these things, but I’m still not comfortable with the acceptance of this Anaphora as valid. I pray that God will grant me any wisdom necessary.

 

[bear06]

This thread is being started based on a side discussion from another thread.

I asked someone on another thread if they believe the “mass” that was approved as valid by both Cardinal Ratzinger and the late John Paul II, but which has no words of consecration, is valid. That was my question. The person claimed to have an answer but said he was too busy to reply just then, and my question was off topic. Since we then received a warning from the moderator to stay on topic, I decided to start a separate thread so he would not miss the opportunity to reply.

What is required for a valid Mass? The Church has taught consistently throughout the history of the Church that three things are required for a valid Mass. These three things are:

1.) Proper form (the correct words)
2.) Proper Matter (bread and wine)
3.) Proper Intent (the Priest must intend, at least implicitly, to do what the Church does.

In our day of “ecumenical dialogue” whereby the leaders of the Church seek any way possible to unite with those who reject the Catholic Church and the teachings of our Lord, the Church began a “dialogue” with the Nestorian heretics (yes, they still exist). These heretics have a “mass”. The only problem is that this so-called mass does not include the words of consecration. They are completely eliminated from the Rite. * (The probably reason for the words being excluded is that this Rite goes back to the very early centuries of the Church when the words of consecration were considered so sacred that they were often not written down. Sometimes they were written in gold letters, sometimes they were left out completely. They were obviously always spoken at Mass, but they were so sacred they were sometimes not written down within the body of the text).*

Today, the Nestorian heretics of the Assyrian church use the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, which does not have any words of consecration written down. In another victory for ecumenism, this Rite was approved as valid by both John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger.

EWTN replied to the question of someone who inquired about the Vatican approval of this obviously invalid “mass”. In their reply they began by stating the facts, then quoted a section of the official approval given by Rome, and then conclude by saying:

Their answer reveals two things: 11) They acknowledge that it was approved by the Pope; 2.) But they also realize that such a blatant error will be corrected in the future, thus they end by saying "It should be noted that while this was the judgment of the Holy See, confirmed by the Pope, and thus must be considered authoritative, it was not an exercise of infallibility and is therefore reformable..

I believe this is **one of many examples ** since Vatican II of Rome going way too far in its version of ecumenism and ending in blatant error. Most of the time there is some way for Catholics who know the truth to “interpret” such documents to mean something other than what they seem on the surface to say. Some people are misled by these documents which appear on the surface to be heretical, while those who know the faith seek to interpret them according to what the Church really teaches. In this way some are deceived and others are not. Let’s consider just one example of some who have been deceived.

John Paul II repeatedly taught that the Old Covenant “has never been revoked by God”. Those who were not mislead by this statement have concluded that he must have meant that the Old Covenant is null and void, which is what the Church teaches, but that it not null and void because it was “revoked”, but because it was “fulfilled”. This is the way those who are not deceived have interpreted the document. Now let’s consider those who were deceived…

continue…

I responded:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1653897&postcount=90
and
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1654012&postcount=94

Have you read the Vatican’s documents on this?
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html

 

[JimG]

As far as I know, the Church has not set in stone a determination as to exactly when during the Eucharistic Prayer the transubstantiation of the elements occurs. In the West, we consider that it occurs at the words of consecration. In the east, it is considered to occur at the epiclesis.

The Eucharistic Prayer has changed at various times over the course of centuries, and is recited in various languages. When we first changed from Latin to English, I was at first a little startled that English words could effect transubstantion! I had internalized the idea that only the words “Hoc est enim corpus meum” would “work.”

But the Mass is not a magical formula; rather it is a sacrament. I guess I’ll leave this decision up to the Church.

 

[LilyM]

When we first changed from Latin to English, I was at first a little startled that English words could effect transubstantion! I had internalized the idea that only the words “Hoc est enim corpus meum” would “work.”

Well, if Latin was good enough for Jesus …

 

[JKirkLVNV]

This is a question, only a question: I thought I read somewhere that the Church didn’t, I don’t know, question or have a problem with rites that could be shown to have existed from Apostolic times. Is the rite in question that old?

 

[CRW]

Since the Catholic Church hold Sacred Scripture and Tradition as models for it’s teachings, should not a consideration of one of the most ancient Eucharistic Prayer be held the same?

 

[gelsbern]

The only rite I can think of off the top of my head that doesn’t include the institution narrative is the rite of Addai and Mari.

There is an interesting article in regards to this rite on the EWTN site.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?Pgnu=1&Pg=Forum8&recnu=16&number=451443

 

[porthos11]

The Anaphora of Mar Addai and Mar Mari is valid because the Catholic Church says so.

In Eastern understanding, it is the Anaphora in its entirety that effects the Sacrament, without trying to p(name removed by moderator)oint any particular instant, although the Epiclesis is widely considered to be the “moment” of Consecration.

These are points at which theological differences can be tolerated provided none deny the efficacy of the Sacrament.

But complaints such at that of the OP is just another example of Latins trying to impose their theology on the Easterns.

Sacraments are valid because the Church says so. I obey.

 

[mystified]

“If Latin was good enough for Jesús…”
I had always understood that He spoke Aramaic, a form of Hebrew. Because Israel was under the domination of Rome 2,000 years ago, it is possible He might have also been conversant in Latin, but much of the early Church used Greek and only later did the western branch adopt Latin as official.
As for when or how transubstatiation takes place, it is more important that we believe it Does. The priest’s intent to use the power conferred by Ordination is much more important than these questions or the language used by the priest. And he must believe in this supernatural power. As for the Eastern Rite in which the words are not spoken, the intent must be present…What about a Mass in sign language, the words wouldn’t be “spoken” in this case either.

 

[batteddy]

What is the difference between the Form (spoken words) used for the Sacraments of Baptism and the consecration at Mass, and the other scraments?

Yes, yes, the difference is that Jesus himself allegedly specified the Form of Baptism and the Eucharist…

But then how come the East has historically seen the Epiklesis as the moment of consecration?

I’m not saying they’re right, but as long as the prayer contains a present/present-perfect tense statement that the bread and wine are/have-become the Body and Blood of Christ, offered as Sacrifice…I don’t see how you can know for sure that the words “this is my” are necessary.

True, it more perfectly shows the priest acting in persona christi…but the section I showed you from the anaphora said the Body and Blood “which we offer you” implying it too, implying the priest’s role and right to offer CHRIST’S body and blood.

I’m not sure it’s a great decision either. But I can at least see how the argument could be made.

 

[USMC]

Batteddy:

Yes, yes, the difference is that Jesus himself allegedly specified the Form of Baptism and the Eucharist…

Right. The Form used for the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist (and Precious Blood) were given in specie - the precise words; the Form of the other sacraments were given genere – in a general way, leaving it up to the Church to establish the precise Form to be used, which it did probably during the time of the apostles.

Catholic Encyclopedia: “Christ determined what special graces were to be conferred by means of external rites: for some Sacraments (e.g. Baptism, the Eucharist) He determined minutely (in specie) the matter and form: for others He determined only in a general way (in genere) that there should be an external ceremony, by which special graces were to be conferred, leaving to the Apostles or to the Church the power to determine whatever He had not determined - e.g.-, to prescribe the matter and form of the Sacraments of Confirmation and of Holy Orders.”(See Catholic Encyclopedia, v. 13, p. 299.)

Batteddy:

But then how come the East has historically seen the Epiklesis as the moment of consecration?

Before the Church settled the matter once and for all there was some disagreement as to precisely when transubstantiation occurred. This was settled many moons ago. After it was settled, only the schismatics from the East still had any doubts.

Catholic Encyclopedia: *“In all Eastern liturgies (and originally in Western liturgies also) after the words of Institution, in which the celebrant prays that God may send down His Holy Spirit to change this bread and wine into the Body and Blood of His Son. This form has given rise to one of the chief controversies between the Eastern and Western Churches, inasmuch as all Eastern schismatics now believe that the Epiklesis, and not the words of Institution, is the essential form (or at least the essential complement) of the sacrament. …

“The Catholic Church has decided the question by making us kneel and adore the Holy Eucharist immediately after the words of Institution, and by letting her old Invocation practically disappear.”*

The Epiklesis is basically a calling down of the Holy Ghost to bless. An Epeklesis is found in other sacraments, such as baptism, and also in the blessing of wine and oils, etc. The East is completely wrong in thinking that the Epeklesis, not the words of consecration, is when transubstantiation occurs . I’m not going to get into the details of why they are wrong because it is not important. The Church has settled the matter and told us, many times, what the Form of consecration is.

The Council of Florence addressed this point. When it reconciled certain Eastern Schismatics back with the Catholic Church, it defined what the Form for the consecration is. The Form consists of the words Jesus Himself gave us, not the Epiklesis.

Council of Florence: “All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does. If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected.” (Denz. 695)

Council of Florence: “THE FORM OF THIS SACRAMENT [THE EUCHARIST] ARE THE WORDS OF THE SAVIOR WITH WHICH HE EFFECTED THIS SACRAMENT.”

Council of Florence" “Cantate Domino”: **“relying on the teaching and authority of the apostles Peter and Paul, has always been wont to use in the consecration of the Lord’s Body and Blood… It uses this form of words in the consecration of the Lord’s Body: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And of His blood: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS…. **For, provided the substance of bread remains, there should be no doubt at all that after the aforesaid words of consecration of the body have been pronounced by a priest with the intention of consecrating, immediately it is changed in substance into the true body of Christ.”

The Form used for consecration has been taught many times by the Church. Far to many to quote here. I will provide only one other quote to settle the point:

Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus: "The words of Consecration, which are the FORM of this Sacrament, are these: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. Now if one were to remove, or change anything in the FORM of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the sacrament."

continue

 

[USMC]

continuation

Consecration happens when it happens, regardless of who thinks what. It doesn’t matter if the Schismatics think it happens at the Epeklisis, or if the modernists think it happens by an act of the “community”. The subjective does not determine the objective, and the opinions of men to not effect the reality. And the reality is that consecration happens when the Priest speaks the words of Christ, in Persona Christi.

Catholic Encyclipedia: “The final argument against the Epiklesis as Consecration-form is the account of the Last Supper in the Gospels. We know what Christ did then, and that He told us to do the same thing. There is no hint of an Epiklesis at the Last Supper.”

If consecration took place at the Epiklesis, or if theEpeklisis was even a necessary element of the consecration, then all of our Masses in the West would be invalid, since we do not have an Epiklesis, as an earlier quote I provided shows.

Batteddy:

I’m not saying they’re right, but as long as the prayer contains a present/present-perfect tense statement that the bread and wine are/have-become the Body and Blood of Christ, offered as Sacrifice…I don’t see how you can know for sure that the words “this is my” are necessary.

The way I can know for sure is the same way anyone can know for sure. The Church has settled the matter. Consecration takes place when the words of consecration are spoken. The theological way to know that the words “this is my” are necessary is because the Priest consecrates in Persona Christi, just as he absolves in Persona Christi. At the consecration and at the time of absolution, the priest does not pray that Christ will consecration, or that Christ will forgive. No, the Priest himself forgives in the Person of Christ. “This is my…” shows that he is acting in the Person of Christ, just as “I absolve thee…” shows that he is acting in the Person of Christ.

That is actually the way to know the Eastern Schismatics are wrong, even without the declaration from the Church, which we now have.

Batteddy:

True, it more perfectly shows the priest acting in persona christi…but the section I showed you from the anaphora said the Body and Blood “which we offer you” implying it too, implying the priest’s role and right to offer CHRIST’S body and blood.

“We” is not good enough. It is not the priest and Jesus; it is the Priest acting in Persona Christi (there is an important theologican difference between the two). And, again, the issue was settled many centuries ago.

Regarding the “we”, rather than “I”. I remember several years ago going to confession to a Novus Ordo Priest. For absolution he said “I forgive you and so does Jesus, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”.

I left the confessional and went into the confessional next to it and re-confessed to another Priest to get a real absolution. When I returned him I read what St. Thomas said about the words of absolution. He actually addressed that exact false form of absolution that the modernist Preist gave me. St. Thomas taught that it was invalid because he did not say ”I” absolve you. I wrote that priest a letter and included what St. Thomas taught. He wrote back and said he was familiar with what St. Thomas said, but left it at that.

I decided to go to confession to him again to see if he corrected his error. Fortunately, he did give the proper form of Absolution that time (and every other time I confessed to him.) Thank goodness. Victory for the good guys!

But the point of that story is “we” is not good enough because the Priest is not acting in persona Christi, but rather with Christ. And the point is really mute because the “we” in question is being used at the wrong time. Transubstantiation takes place when the Priest say “This is my Body”, not when he afterwards calls down the Holy Ghost to Bless. And again, if the Epiklesis was in any way necessary, then all of our Masses would be invalid, since the West dropped the Epiklesis many centuries ago.

There is more that could be said, but this should be enough. The Church settled the issue of the consecration many years ago. We have known for centuries that transubstantiation takes place when the words “This is My Body” are spoken by the priest. That is why those words were always in all CAPS in the Missals, and usually on a page all by themselves.

 

[JimG]

“If Latin was good enough for Jesús…”
I had always understood that He spoke Aramaic, a form of Hebrew.

I think that LilyM was engaging in a bit of irony in her response.

(Which, incidentally, brings to mind another long thread about lying: Irony is not lying.)

 

[LilyM]

I think that LilyM was engaging in a bit of irony in her response.

(Which, incidentally, brings to mind another long thread about lying: Irony is not lying.)

I put the ironic smiley in and everything …

I think I need to use something like
[sign]IRONY ALERT! IRONY ALERT![/sign] instead.

 

[CatholicNerd]

And again, if the Epiklesis was in any way necessary, then all of our Masses would be invalid, since the West dropped the Epiklesis many centuries ago.

There is more that could be said, but this should be enough. The Church settled the issue of the consecration many years ago. We have known for centuries that transubstantiation takes place when the words “This is My Body” are spoken by the priest. That is why those words were always in all CAPS in the Missals, and usually on a page all by themselves.

We never dropped the Epiclesis, USMC. The Quam Oblationem in the Tridentine Rite presents a rather clear incarnation:

“Do Thou, O God, deign to bless what we offer, and make it approved, effective, right and wholly pleasing in every way, that it may be for our good the Body, and the Blood of Thy dearly beloved Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.”

The Epiclesis in the Pauline Mass is even more explicit, and I truly do think that this is a good thing.

As for the matter of the validity of the anaphorae of the Assyrian Church of the East: Rome has spoken; the case is closed. No amount of copied text from the Catholic Encyclopedia can override the decision of His Holiness to proclaim as valid the Anaphora of Addai and Mari. Yes, John Paul II’s decision is not infallible, but it remains in force until abrogated by a Pontiff or Council.