Moment of transubstantiaton

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kepha15
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kepha15

Guest
Something has always puzzled me: Since we know the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of the Lord at the words of institution (“This is my body”…“This is my blood”), but yet we also know each species contains Christ whole and entire – Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity – does this mean transubstantiation happens for both species at the same time? In other words, when the priest says the words “This is my body,” does the wine also at that moment become the blood of Christ? Or does transubstantiation happen separately for each species?
 
They become transubstantiated at different times. That is why the priest raises the Host and chalice for adoration at different times.
 
Confiteor_Deo said:
They become transubstantiated at different times. That is why the priest raises the Host and chalice for adoration at different times.
Click to expand...
Correct this is probably why the bread becomes Body and Blood otherwise for a moment we would have Body but no Blood.
 
The fact is that we do not know. Transubstantiation is a word to attempt to explain what we cannot explain. I think before the 11th century the term was unknown. Does that mean that before the 11th century there was no transubstantiation? No, the presence of Christ in the Eucharist was certainly confected. The real answer is that we do not know.
 
Trivia: Russian Orthodox Church believes that transubstantiation occurs not at the words of institution, but at epiclesis, when the Holy Spirit is invoked upon the gifts. In Byzantine liturgy it follows, not precedes the words of institution. :byzsoc:
 
JurisPrudens said:
Trivia: Russian Orthodox Church believes that transubstantiation occurs not at the words of institution, but at epiclesis, when the Holy Spirit is invoked upon the gifts. In Byzantine liturgy it follows, not precedes the words of institution. :byzsoc:
Click to expand...
The transformation does occur even in the Latin rite at the epiclesis. This is why the bells are rung when the words are spoken over the bread, and why they are rung when they are spoken over the wine. The priest if you notice focuses his thoughts where the epiclesis is occurring. It is rare and often times you may not see it happen in a large Church, but if a priest is saying Mass for a small group he sometimes might not focus properly or an acolyte might not remove the cantor of wine off the altar. The priest then as spoken the words of consecration and all the wine during the epicliesis is transformed into the body and blood of Christ and will need to be consumed.

The two species of bread and wine are to show also symbolically the death of Jesus the blood being separated from the body.
 
eamonnroma said:
**The fact is that we do not know. ** Transubstantiation is a word to attempt to explain what we cannot explain. I think before the 11th century the term was unknown. Does that mean that before the 11th century there was no transubstantiation? No, the presence of Christ in the Eucharist was certainly confected. The real answer is that we do not know.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is correct. We in the west like to know things to the second, but that does not mean we know to the second.
 
eamonnroma said:
The fact is that we do not know. Transubstantiation is a word to attempt to explain what we cannot explain. I think before the 11th century the term was unknown. Does that mean that before the 11th century there was no transubstantiation? No, the presence of Christ in the Eucharist was certainly confected. The real answer is that we do not know.
Click to expand...
This is not true. Here is an answer from Catholic Answers. At what point do the bread and wine become the true Body and Blood of Christ?
 
eamonnroma said:
The fact is that we do not know. Transubstantiation is a word to attempt to explain what we cannot explain.
Click to expand...
Although it remains a mystery, the word transubstantiation was formed to distinguish the event from consubstantiation. (They’re actually from the Latin, “trans” meaning it is no longer the bread or wine, “con” meaning it is both bread and Body, wine and blood. Catholics believe in the former, “trans.”)
 
Confiteor_Deo said:
This is not true. Here is an answer from Catholic Answers. At what point do the bread and wine become the true Body and Blood of Christ?
Click to expand...
I think it’s made clearer in the Latin*.* Hoc est enim corpus meum*. *Hoc *is neuter and can only refer to corpus, His body.

If Christ had meant the “bread is my body” He would have said “Hic est enim corpus meum,” “hic” agreeing in masculine gender with “panem” (bread) in the clause before it.
  • the gender association works the same way in the Greek. Plus the word order is not important as it is in the English. So you can’t have it one way in the Greek or Latin or other inflective language and another way in less inflective language.
 
JurisPrudens said:
Trivia: Russian Orthodox Church believes that transubstantiation occurs not at the words of institution, but at epiclesis, when the Holy Spirit is invoked upon the gifts. In Byzantine liturgy it follows, not precedes the words of institution. :byzsoc:
Click to expand...
Also interesting is that in the Assyrian Church of the East form, the words of institution are not present literally, but in a dispersed euchological way, and it is a valid transubstantiation per the Catholic Church.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html
 
ichabode said:
The transformation does occur even in the Latin rite at the epiclesis. This is why the bells are rung when the words are spoken over the bread, and why they are rung when they are spoken over the wine. The priest if you notice focuses his thoughts where the epiclesis is occurring. It is rare and often times you may not see it happen in a large Church, but if a priest is saying Mass for a small group he sometimes might not focus properly or an acolyte might not remove the cantor of wine off the altar. The priest then as spoken the words of consecration and all the wine during the epicliesis is transformed into the body and blood of Christ and will need to be consumed.

The two species of bread and wine are to show also symbolically the death of Jesus the blood being separated from the body.
Click to expand...
Well, I don’t believe You’re right. In the Western rite the bell is rung at epiclesis to attract attention of the believers to pray for the transubstantiation. And to signal kneeling, for those who are still standing.

The traditional Roman canon contains two epicleses, one before consecration (“Quam oblationem Tu…”) and one after (“Supplices te rogamus”).

Words of Institution still have always been the most important part of the Mass. That’s precisely why they have always been highlighted by capitals.
 
ichabode said:
The transformation does occur even in the Latin rite at the epiclesis. This is why the bells are rung when the words are spoken over the bread, and why they are rung when they are spoken over the wine. The priest if you notice focuses his thoughts where the epiclesis is occurring. It is rare and often times you may not see it happen in a large Church, but if a priest is saying Mass for a small group he sometimes might not focus properly or an acolyte might not remove the cantor of wine off the altar. The priest then as spoken the words of consecration and all the wine during the epicliesis is transformed into the body and blood of Christ and will need to be consumed.

The two species of bread and wine are to show also symbolically the death of Jesus the blood being separated from the body.
Click to expand...
The CCC#1353 says the transformation occurs at the institution narrative, that is, when the priest recites the very words that Jesus used at the Last Supper, namely, “This is my body…” and then “This is my blood…” The bread is transubstantiated into the body of Christ when the priest finishes the words of institution, that is, " Take and eat, this is my body which will be given up for you." And the wine is transubstantiated into the blood of Christ when the priest finishes the words of institution over the wine, “Take and drink, this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and eternal covenant…”
 
Richca said:
The CCC#1353 says the transformation occurs at the institution narrative, that is, when the priest recites the very words that Jesus used at the Last Supper, namely, “This is my body…” and then “This is my blood…” The bread is transubstantiated into the body of Christ when the priest finishes the words of institution, that is, " Take and eat, this is my body which will be given up for you." And the wine is transubstantiated into the blood of Christ when the priest finishes the words of institution over the wine, “Take and drink, this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and eternal covenant…”
Click to expand...
This seems to have been decided in the early centuries. The Epiklesis in the liturgies was added in the fourth century and evidence exists that it was present in the Roman Mass in the fifth. “We may then surely conclude that in the Vth century Rome had an Invocation of the Holy Ghost.” But, it “was removed at Rome, apparently deliberately, because of the growing Western insistence on the words of institution as the Consecration form.” And “It is however generally admitted that our difficult " Supplices te rogamus " prayer represents a fragment of the old Epiklesis, with the essential clause left out”. “The normal place of the Epiklesis is after the words of institution, at the end of the Anamnesis (so in all extant rites). This place seems to be fixed because the Anamnesis, mentioning the Ascension, leads naturally to the memory of Pentecost and so to the Holy Ghost (above p. 346).”

The Mass A Study of the Roman Liturgy by Adrian Fortescue. Longmans, Green And Co. 39 Paternoster Row, London, New York, Bombay And Calcutta, 1914. (From Appendix II, The Epiklesis).

archive.org/stream/massstudy…0fort_djvu.txt
 
It is not a transformation, it is transubstantiation. If it were a “transformation”, then the accidents of bread and wine would become something else. However, they remain, and therefore it cannot be a “transformation”.
 
Kepha15 said:
Something has always puzzled me: Since we know the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of the Lord at the words of institution (“This is my body”…“This is my blood”), but yet we also know each species contains Christ whole and entire – Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity – does this mean transubstantiation happens for both species at the same time?
Click to expand...
No. Each one is consecrated at separate moments. The bread becomes the Body when the priest says “this is my Body” and the wine becomes the Blood when the priest says “this is the chalice of my blood.”
In other words, when the priest says the words “This is my body,” does the wine also at that moment become the blood of Christ?
Click to expand...
No
Or does transubstantiation happen separately for each species?
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
Elizium23 said:
It is not a transformation, it is transubstantiation. If it were a “transformation”, then the accidents of bread and wine would become something else. However, they remain, and therefore it cannot be a “transformation”.
Click to expand...
Yes, technically this is correct because transformations are what happen in natural substantial changes, that is, matter remains but there is a change of substantial forms. Transubstantiation is a change of the whole substances of the bread and wine, that is, matter and form, into the body and blood of Christ.
 
Whatever words that are used to describe the real presence of Jesus, the priest raises the consecrated host for his presence to be acknowledged and adored. If Jesus isn’t present, then we are worshipping a piece of bread only. The same holds at the elevation of the chalice. This is true for the Roman rite. I’m not familiar with the Eastern rites.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top