P
ProVobis
Guest
During the 60’s there were growing doubts about the validity of the Mass as it was being translated, especially at the consecration. One problem was the “for all” translation which is being fixed. The other problem was that in the English “This is my body,” the ambiguous “this” appears to be referring to the bread, which justifies a heretical consubstantiation belief. Catholics, of course, believe in the transubstantiation and the Latin “Hoc est enim Corpus Meum” places no doubt that the “Hoc” (being in the same gender and number) is the “Corpus Meum” of Christ and not the “panem” (bread) which would have led to “Hic est enim corpus Meum” which it definitely isn’t. There is very little the English (or any language which has vague demonstrative pronouns) can do to express that bread becomes not bread any more but the body of Christ. Just saying.Old Catholic, Orthodox, Polish Catholic, all believe that the bread is tranformed into the actual body of Christ and the blood is actually transformed into the blood. Anglicans believe in a form of consubstantiation, in which the bread is still present, but Christ “becomes one with it”. If the priest believes that he is simply calling on Christ to become present in the bread and wine, then the Eucharist is not consecrated.