"Mass" with no words of consecration?

[batteddy]

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.

Ah. But the same Catholic encyclopedia says in its article on Absolution:

“Surely all the [ancient] sacramentaries assert that the form was deprecatory, and it is only in the eleventh century that we find a tendency to pass to indicative and personal formulæ (Duchesne, loc. cit.).”

“Is the indicative form necessary? Many learned Catholics seem to hold that the indicative form as used at present in the Roman Church is necessary even for the validity of the Sacrament of Penance. The great Doctor of the Sacrament, St. Alphonsus (De Sac. Pœnit., n. 430), declares that no matter what may be the verdict from the point of view of history, it is of faith since the Council of Trent that the indicative form is essential. St. Thomas and Suarez also declare that the indicative form is necessary. **Others equally learned, and perhaps better versed in history, hold that in the light of the Divine institution the deprecative form must not be excluded, and that the Council of Trent in its decree did not intend to make final pronouncement in the premises. **They point out with Morinus (De Pœnit., Lib. VIII) that up to the twelfth century the deprecatory form was employed both in the East and in the West: that it is still in use among the Greeks and among Orientals generally. In the light, therefore, of history and of theological opinion it is perfectly safe to conclude that the deprecatory form is certainly not invalid, if it exclude not the idea of judicial pronouncement (Palmieri, Parergon, 127; Hurter, de Pœnit.; Duchesne, loc. cit.; Soto, Vasquez, Estius, et al.). Theologians, however, have questioned whether or not the deprecatory form would be valid to-day in the Latin Church, and they point out that Clement VIII and Benedict XIV have prescribed that Greek [Eastern Catholics] priests should use the indicative form whensoever they absolve penitents belonging to the Latin Rite. But this is merely a matter of discipline, and such decrees do not give final decision to the theological question, for in matters of administration of the Sacraments those in authority simply follow the safest and most conservative opinions. Morinus is followed by Tournely in asserting that only the indicative form is to-day valid in the Latin Church (Morinus, De pœnit., Lib. VIII; Tournely, ibid., do absolutionis formâ); but many hold that if the deprecatory form exclude not the judicial pronouncement of the priest, and consequently be really equivalent to the ego te absolvo, it is surely not invalid, though all are agreed that it would be illicit as contravening the present law and discipline of the Roman Church.”

I love Aquinas, but he is not the end all of everything. The rigid “forms” of the scholastics were only one school of thought. There are variations acceptable as long they convey the essence of the sacrament. Aquinas imagined, sometimes rather naively, that things had always been done they way he saw them done. But the testimony of the East (including eastern Catholics) and the testimony of history shows that other forms have been used since the beginning…and if they’re invalid, then 11-centuries of catholics have not been being absolved, etc…

Yes, John Paul II’s decision is not infallible, but it remains in force until abrogated by a Pontiff or Council.

If I were Pope, I’d probably abrogate the decision just to be sure (one does not gamble with such grave matters…the anaphora may somehow be valid…but we know for sure that the institution narrative is)

 

[USMC]

Ah. But the same Catholic encyclopedia says in its article on Absolution:

“Surely all the [ancient] sacramentaries assert that the form was deprecatory, and it is only in the eleventh century that we find a tendency to pass to indicative and personal formulæ (Duchesne, loc. cit.).”

…St. Thomas and Suarez also declare that the indicative form is necessary. **Others equally learned, and perhaps better versed in history, hold that in the light of the Divine institution the deprecative form must not be excluded, and that the Council of Trent in its decree did not intend to make final pronouncement in the premises. **the deprecatory form was employed both in the East and in the West: that it is still in use among the Greeks and among Orientals generally. In the light, therefore, of history and of theological opinion it is perfectly safe to conclude that the deprecatory form is certainly not invalid, if it exclude not the idea of judicial pronouncement , however, have questioned whether or not the deprecatory form would be valid to-day in the Latin Church, and they point out that Clement VIII and Benedict XIV have prescribed that Greek priests should use the indicative form whensoever they absolve penitents belonging to the Latin Rite. But this is merely a matter of discipline, and such decrees do not give final decision to the theological question, for in matters of administration of the Sacraments those in authority simply follow the safest and most conservative opinions. Morinus is followed by Tournely in asserting that only the indicative form is to-day valid in the Latin Church (Morinus, De pœnit., Lib. VIII; Tournely, ibid., do absolutionis formâ); but many hold that if the deprecatory form exclude not the judicial pronouncement of the priest, and consequently be really equivalent to the ego te absolvo, it is surely not invalid, though all are agreed that it would be illicit as contravening the present law and discipline of the Roman Church."

I love Aquinas, but he is not the end all of everything. The rigid “forms” of the scholastics were only one school of thought. There are variations acceptable as long they convey the essence of the sacrament. Aquinas imagined, sometimes rather naively, that things had always been done they way he saw them done. But the testimony of the East (including eastern Catholics) and the testimony of history shows that other forms have been used since the beginning…and if they’re invalid, then 11-centuries of catholics have not been being absolved, etc…

You did all that research, and posted that long post, based on a side comment I made that had little to do with the main subject? What about the magisterial documents I used to prove the primary point of the discussion - that the Form of Absolution is “This is My Body”, and not, as the Schismatics hold, the epiklesis?

Did you have no reply, and rather than conceding the point you focus in on a side comment that I made? Is that the best you can do?

And you begin with “Ah. But the same Catholic encyclopedia says in its article on Absolution” as if my case was built upon the side comment I made regarding what St. Thomas taught. After making the side comment, I even wrote *"**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 remember, the Form of absolution was only given to the Church “in genere”, unlike the Form for Baptism and the Eucharist which was given “in specie”.

Back to the main point: Do you still question when conscration occurs? Do you still think that the Epiklesis is the Form, and not the words “This is my Body”? Remember what you wrote earlier:

Batteddy:

What it [the Anaphora of Addai and Mari] 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? … no “magic words” are needed as long as the Form conveys the essence of the sacrament.

As we have seen, “magic words” are needed, since they consititue the Form of the Sacrament.

And regarding your comment about “magic words”. Keep in mind where the magical term “hocus pocus” came from. The heretics from the 16the century who denied transubstantiation used those words to mock “hoc est enim corpus meum” (the words of consecration). Hocus Pocus came from “hoc est”, the first two words of consecration.

The heretics mocked the idea of these “magic words” consecrating the host, thus they came up with the phrase “hocus pocus” to signify the supposedly “magical event”.

I find it interesting that you also referred to the form of consecration as “magic words”.

 

[porthos11]

And still, we have the Latins imposing the Latin way of thinking on non-Latins, something the Holy See explicitly forbids.

Our Eastern Catholic brethren still regard the Epiclesis as the defining moment of Consecration, and they believe the priest is the one who confects the Sacrament of Marriage (as opposed to the spouses, as thought in the Latin church), and they are NOT schismatics, and NOT heretics.

The Assyrians have always intended to confect the Eucharist from the most ancient times, way before the theological development of the sacrament. Since the epiclesis is considered the essential part of the Anaphora in Eastern theology (including Catholicism), care was taken to preserve this part. The whole Anaphora is considered consecratory according to Eastern thought, which is not opposed by the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Enclyclopedia reflects Latin thought, and imposing Latin ways of understanding on those to whom it’s foreign does nothing good to East-West relations.

 

[Digitonomy]

I thought I read somewhere that the Church didn’t…question or have a problem with rites that could be shown to have existed from Apostolic times. Is the rite in question that old?

The relevant Vatican document relies largely on that exact idea:

…is one of the most ancient Anaphoras, dating back to the time of the very early Church; it was composed and used with the clear intention of celebrating the Eucharist in full continuity with the Last Supper and according to the intention of the Church; its validity was never officially contested, neither in the Christian East nor in the Christian West.

Secondly, the Catholic Church recognises the Assyrian Church of the East as a true particular Church, built upon orthodox faith and apostolic succession. The Assyrian Church of the East has also preserved full Eucharistic faith in the presence of our Lord under the species of bread and wine and in the sacrificial character of the Eucharist. In the Assyrian Church of the East, though not in full communion with the Catholic Church, are thus to be found “true sacraments, and above all, by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist”

 

[CatholicNerd]

And still, we have the Latins imposing the Latin way of thinking on non-Latins, something the Holy See explicitly forbids.

Our Eastern Catholic brethren still regard the Epiclesis as the defining moment of Consecration, and they believe the priest is the one who confects the Sacrament of Marriage (as opposed to the spouses, as thought in the Latin church), and they are NOT schismatics, and NOT heretics.

The Assyrians have always intended to confect the Eucharist from the most ancient times, way before the theological development of the sacrament. Since the epiclesis is considered the essential part of the Anaphora in Eastern theology (including Catholicism), care was taken to preserve this part. The whole Anaphora is considered consecratory according to Eastern thought, which is not opposed by the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Enclyclopedia reflects Latin thought, and imposing Latin ways of understanding on those to whom it’s foreign does nothing good to East-West relations.

Amen, amen, amen!!! I’m a Latin and I find the practice to be despicable. The sad bit is that most Latins I know are content to keep it that way and a few were incredulous when I brought up the cruelty of Archbishop Ireland and friends. And you hit the nail on the head regarding The Catholic Encylopedia. It’s mostly a rather informative work, and the information covered is certainly valid for Latin-Rite Catholics, but the East is sorely misrepresented and perhaps even subtly presented as inferior. Sadly we Latins viewed the Eastern churches as daughters instead of sisters for many years (and in practice treated them like slaves). Catholic doctrine obviously does not teach this, and it’s about time we wake up and practice what we preach.

 

[AJV]

As an aside, USMC I noticed you said “Nestorian heretics”. Is the term still appropriate after the common Christological declaration?

The Roman Canon has texts of an inexplicit epiclesis in Quam oblationem and Supplices te rogamus (unique in being an ‘ascending epiclesis’) and some scholars have even found traces in other parts like the Te igitur. I think that the rubrics of the 2000 MR reinforce the impression that it is Quam oblationem becuase of the actions prescribed for this part are identical at the invocaiton of the Holy Spirit in the other Eucharistic Prayers.

As USMC pointed out there is a difference between Baptism and the Holy Eucharist and the rest of the sacraments. Just before Aquinas there was an extremely fierce controversy among the scholastics in the Latin Church about the validity of baptisms in the East where “ego te baptizo” is not used. Even a couple of Popes expressed opinions in the matter but then, as EWTN noted, their opinions are not infallible else most of the baptisms of the East would be invalid.

But the idea of the silent words of institution are only scholarly opinion and cannot be proved one way or the other. There are a number of con arguments to that theory: I think one of the most imporatnat is: would the Assyrians while preserving many other ancient customs and “secret” ceremonies despite persecution, neglected to handover something so important? Forget that they didn’t know about form and all, but they are the Words of Christ Himself.

I don’t understand how people can claim that it is the WofI for the West but the Epiclesis for the East that effects the sacrament. How can it be 2 different things? Does the Church have such latitude in determining the “form” of that sacramant? Even the document about the Anaphora of Addai and Mari mentions explicitly that the WofI are the form but goes on to say that they are spread out rather than concentrated. Admittitedly there is some latitude with the form and the precise words do not have to be used: one of the Ethiopian anaphoras has “this bread is My Body”- but shouldn’t the question be rephrased more as how much latitude is there? From what has been posted so far, it appears USMC is arguing that is is very limited and batteddy for a wider interpretation.

 

[porthos11]

I don’t understand how people can claim that it is the WofI for the West but the Epiclesis for the East that effects the sacrament. How can it be 2 different things? Does the Church have such latitude in determining the “form” of that sacramant? Even the document about the Anaphora of Addai and Mari mentions explicitly that the WofI are the form but goes on to say that they are spread out rather than concentrated. Admittitedly there is some latitude with the form and the precise words do not have to be used: one of the Ethiopian anaphoras has “this bread is My Body”- but shouldn’t the question be rephrased more as how much latitude is there? From what has been posted so far, it appears USMC is arguing that is is very limited and batteddy for a wider interpretation.

There are many differences in understanding between the West and East. The problem with us Latins is that we look at things through Latin-colored glasses and then refuse to understand how the East formulates their theology. We use Aquinas the Catholic Encyclopedia to criticize them and the Pope while all the time not realizing that we’re speaking different languages and come from different perspectives. Both sets of understandings are valid.

The Eastern Christians are not sticklers for “the moment of this” or “the formula of that” or even terms such as “in persona Christi” and “transubstantiation” and “ex opere operato” or even the very word “sacrament.” These Western terms are foreign to them. They emphasize more the mystery, and the fact that *it happens, *never mind when and how. We Latins are more sticklers for the when and how, which is fine for us, but not for them. For us to impose it on them is unfair and offensive, just as it would be unfair and offensive for us if they were to impose their thought on us.

The Church in her wisdom has allowed this latitude, and wants no quarrels over it. These are mysteries, not magic, and God certainly can work with various sacramental forms according to the intent of the Church (yet another Latin concept. Sigh.)