The Words of Institution

[EphelDuath]

One of my professors has claimed that the Words of Institution were not what caused transubstantiation in the Mass until the 7th or 8th centuries. Can somebody provide me with scholarly sources that refute this please? I was under the impression that the Words of Institution have always been used.

 

[MACHIU]

I think you got it the other way around.

You are right the the Words of Institution has been used since the beginning of the Church. If your professor claims differently, it is up to him to provide proof. We proof it by opening our scripture.

The word transubstantiation is first used to refer to the change from bread and wine to body and blood of Christ in the 13th century. But that does not mean that transubstantiation only happened after that time. It is like saying the element Oxygen was only discovered in the 18th century therefore life before that did not need oxygen.

Maybe your professor means the term ‘Words of Institution’ first coined in 7th or 8th centrury, although that alone is really hard to proof.

Hope this helps.

 

[thistle]

One of my professors has claimed that the Words of Institution were not what caused transubstantiation in the Mass until the 7th or 8th centuries. Can somebody provide me with scholarly sources that refute this please? I was under the impression that the Words of Institution have always been used.

I agree with the other poster. It is not up to us to refute a baseless claim.
It is up to your professor to provide evidence to support his claim which we can then debate.

 

[ProVobis]

One of my professors has claimed that the Words of Institution were not what caused transubstantiation in the Mass until the 7th or 8th centuries. Can somebody provide me with scholarly sources that refute this please? I was under the impression that the Words of Institution have always been used.

The term was not used until perhaps later than that but we always had the “Hoc est enim Corpus Meum” where Christ revealed “this” (neuter, refering to corpus, meaning “body”) is no longer panem, “bread” (which would be masculine in gender). It’s not definitive but can be more easily seen in the Latin.

 

[Joannm]

One of my professors has claimed that the Words of Institution were not what caused transubstantiation in the Mass until the 7th or 8th centuries. Can somebody provide me with scholarly sources that refute this please? I was under the impression that the Words of Institution have always been used.

I think what your professor was trying to say was that it is not just the words of institution but the entire anaphora that in consecratory. I believe, and those of the Eastern rites can correct me, is that the exact moment of consecration is somewhere between the Epiclesis and the Institution. If you read the Didache, one of the earliest Church documents that speaks of the celebration of the Eucharist, we do not have words of institution. Justin, in his First Apology in the mid to late second century and the Apostolic Tradition in the third century has some form of it.

It is interesting to note that the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, which is very ancient and still in use today and does not include an institution narrative, has received the approval of the Vatican to continue to be valid. I have off today but I have a book at work of ancient anaphoras and can check it out on Monday.

 

[EphelDuath]

I don’t know if it’s a baseless claim. That’s why I’m asking for proof that the Words of Institution were used for transubstantiation as early as possible.

 

[yablabo]

One of my professors has claimed that the Words of Institution were not what caused transubstantiation in the Mass until the 7th or 8th centuries. Can somebody provide me with scholarly sources that refute this please? I was under the impression that the Words of Institution have always been used.

That’s an absurd statement, since it explicitly affirms that Christ, Our Lord, used some other words to effect the Sacrament of the Eucharist, when the Holy Council of Florence, in the Bull of Union with the Armenians tells us most confidently:

The form of this sacrament are the words of the Saviour with which He effected this sacrament. A priest speaking in the person of Christ effects this sacrament. For, in virtue of those words, the substance of bread is converted into the Body of Christ and the substance of wine into His Blood. In such wise, however, that the whole Christ is contained both under the form of bread and under the form of wine, under any part of the consecrated host as well as after division of the consecrated wine, there is the whole Christ. The effect of this sacrament, which is produced in the soul of one who receives it worthily, is the union of him or her with Christ.

and the Bull of Union with the Copts:

However, since no explanation was given in the aforesaid decree of the Armenians in respect of the form of words which the Holy Roman Church,*** 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, We concluded that it should be inserted in this present text. 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 everlasting covenant, which will be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.”***

Whether the wheat bread, in which the sacrament is confected, has been baked on the same day or earlier is of no importance whatever. 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 converted in substance into the true Body of Christ.

So…relying on the Council of Florence, we can see easily that Christ effected the Sacrament in those words LONG before the 7th & 8th centuries.

– Nicole

 

[ConstantineTG]

In the same fourth century, St. Ambrose of Milan thought that the consecration happens through the words of Institution. So we see that the different Churches, being in union with each other, used different formulas for consecration; all those usages were considered as legitimate.

The difference of opinions continued in the following centuries. Hence, Pope Gelasius (492-96): «How will the heavenly Spirit when invoked come for the consecration of the divine mystery, if the priest who implores Him to be present be rejected as full of criminal deeds?» This passage shows the existence of an epiclesis in the Roman Mass at the time, and that it was considered as consecratory.

From my reading of the history of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom
kiev-orthodox.org/site/english/639/

 

[EphelDuath]

That’s an absurd statement, since it explicitly affirms that Christ, Our Lord, used some other words to effect the Sacrament of the Eucharist, when the Holy Council of Florence, in the Bull of Union with the Armenians tells us most confidently:

The Council of Florence was in the 15th century. The professor I have is speaking in terms of historical evidence.

 

[yablabo]

The Council of Florence was in the 15th century. The professor I have is speaking in terms of historical evidence.

I’m familiar as to when the Council of Florence was. Are you suggesting that the men at the Council did not know whether the words of Institution with were first said by Our Lord were, in fact, the words used to effect the Sacrament of the Eucharist? and that they were the words that had been used since that time?

Does it make it any less true that the words of Institution were always used if a 15th century Ecumenical Council teaches that they were?

– Nicole

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

There seems to be some confusion here. Your professor did not claim that the Words of Institution were not used at all, just that the theology that the Words effect/confect the Sacrament did not come around until the Centuries indicated. I don’t know how true this is for the Roman Church.

For Eastern Christians of the Byzantine tradition (both Catholic and Orthodox) it is not thought to be the Words of Institution that confect the Eucharist, but the entire Liturgical action. In the East, when they narrow it down to one moment in the Liturgy that “transubstantiation” (a word not used by the East) takes place, it is always at the Anaphora, the calling down of the Holy Spirit upon the Gifts because it is the Holy Spirit that “breathes life” into the Eucharistic elements. So it is still true of the East today that the Words of Institution do not cause “transubstantiation.” Rather, our theology points to the Anaphora (I’m speaking here for Eastern Catholics as well as Orthodox). In reality, both elements are essential.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

By the way, you won’t find any explicit reference to “transubstantiation” and when it takes place among the Patristic Fathers at least prior to the 7th or 8th Centuries. They were content to affirm the Real Presence without trying to pick apart the mystery. It wasn’t until around the time of the Protestant Reformation that a theology of transubstantiation and when it takes place was fully developed, and at that only in the Latin West. The Christian East has maintained a more Patristic approach to the Eucharist which would prefer to affirm the Real Presence without trying to explain it. This does not make the East better. In developing the theology of transubstantiation the West was simply responding to a local problem that did not, and has not affected the East.

 

[EphelDuath]

I’m familiar as to when the Council of Florence was. Are you suggesting that the men at the Council did not know whether the words of Institution with were first said by Our Lord were, in fact, the words used to effect the Sacrament of the Eucharist? and that they were the words that had been used since that time?

Does it make it any less true that the words of Institution were always used if a 15th century Ecumenical Council teaches that they were?

– Nicole

My professor is making claims about historical data, and he says that according to the earliest documents analyzed, there is nothing to indicate the Words of Institution were what transubstantiated the bread and water until the 7th century. I don’t believe this myself, but I can’t very well refute a claim based on historical evidence with something very post-facto as the Council of Florence’s decrees.

By the way, you won’t find any explicit reference to “transubstantiation” and when it takes place among the Patristic Fathers at least prior to the 7th or 8th Centuries. They were content to affirm the Real Presence without trying to pick apart the mystery. It wasn’t until around the time of the Protestant Reformation that a theology of transubstantiation and when it takes place was fully developed, and at that only in the Latin West. The Christian East has maintained a more Patristic approach to the Eucharist which would prefer to affirm the Real Presence without trying to explain it. This does not make the East better. In developing the theology of transubstantiation the West was simply responding to a local problem that did not, and has not affected the East.

Actually the word “transubstantiation” was used in 1215 at the Fourth Lateran Council, which is well before the Protestant Reformation. I’m not talking about the usage of the word, though; I’m talking about the mystery of the Eucharist being instated in the Latin Rite of the Mass through the Words of Institution (which is the miracle of transubstantiation, even if not called that until later), and whether it can be demonstrated that this was true before the 7th century.

 

[EphelDuath]

So far all I’ve found is this, from Saint John Chrysostom: “That saying, ‘This is my body’, once uttered, from that time to the present day, and even until Christ’s coming, makes the sacrifice complete at every table in the churches.”

Homily on the Betrayal of Judas (De proditione Judae hom. 1/2, 6)

This is from the 4th century. Is there anything perhaps earlier?

 

[ConstantineTG]

So far all I’ve found is this, from Saint John Chrysostom: “That saying, ‘This is my body’, once uttered, from that time to the present day, and even until Christ’s coming, makes the sacrifice complete at every table in the churches.”

Homily on the Betrayal of Judas (De proditione Judae hom. 1/2, 6)

This is from the 4th century. Is there anything perhaps earlier?

Try hunting down early text of the Liturgy of Saint James.

 

[Warrenton]

My professor is making claims about historical data, and he says that according to the earliest documents analyzed, there is nothing to indicate the Words of Institution were what transubstantiated the bread and water until the 7th century.

Your professor is doing several things here. First, the prof is making an objective statement regarding the state of the data: “no data exist prior to the 7th century.” You have found a homily from prior to that date.

Second, your prof is implying that the lack of data justifies a conclusion: that transubstantiation did not occur at the words of institution prior to the 7th century. This is more problematic. It is not a negation, but a positive assertion. The prof bears the burden of proof for the assertion.

You must first pin the assertion down: “Doctor so and so, what conclusion do you draw from the lack of data that you claim?” Then, and only then, can you find responsive data. Otherwise, the prof will perpetually say that your data does not satisfy the revised assertion.

It’s an old lawyer’s trick!

Cheers.

 

[fred_conty]

Here is an explaination of the real presence by Jim Dandy on this CAF forum a while back.​

The Truth is in the teaching of the Apostles. The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ for the salvation of the world in A.D. 33, She had been confecting the Eucharist and offering the Sacrifice for at least 20 years before the first word of the NT was written (Thessalonians, the early 50s). By the time John’s Gospel was written c. 90-100, the Church was 60-something. The Church didn’t read Chapter 6 and then decide what to believe. To the contrary, the Eucharist described in John’s Gospel mirrors what he and the other Apostles had been taught by Christ and what they, in turn, taught the Church. The Gospels are the memoirs of the Apostles or their disciples.

“Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was unquestioningly realist, i.e, the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood.” Early Christian Doctrines, J.N.D. Kelly, Adam and Charles Black, London, 1958 p. 426, Kelly is a Protestant scholar.

Jim Dandy

 

[Amiciel]

So far all I’ve found is this, from Saint John Chrysostom: “That saying, ‘This is my body’, once uttered, from that time to the present day, and even until Christ’s coming, makes the sacrifice complete at every table in the churches.”

Homily on the Betrayal of Judas (De proditione Judae hom. 1/2, 6)

This is from the 4th century. Is there anything perhaps earlier?

Perhaps, these thoughts can help.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 1353) teaches that “In the Institution Narrative, the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ’s body and blood …” The Catechism teaches us that (1) the words and action of Christ and (2) the action of the Holy Spirit are required for transubstantiation to take place. It follows that in the absence of the Words of Institution, an essential element is lacking and therefore, no transubstantiation occurs. But if all the essential elements are there, then transubstantiation occurs.

Is there scriptural basis for this teaching? Yes, there is. We start with the Lord’s anamnesis command: “Do this in memory of Me” (Lk 22:19; 1Cor11:23, 25). "Do this" is an expression found in the Old Testament and Jewish liturgy which frequently refers to the repetition of a rite. Note that the expression is an imperative (not a request); it is a command that an action be done. So we ask, in Christ’s “Do this”, to what does the word “this” refer?

A textual analysis of Lk 22:19 (parallel 1Cor 11:23, 25) can be made to show that Jesus’ imperative to do this refers to both action and words of Jesus at the Last Supper with reference to the bread and wine. Referring to Jesus, Luke writes in Lk 22:19: "The he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me. Lk 22:19 describes the Rite of Breaking Bread. In 1Cor 11:23, 25, the Pauline tradition repeats Jesus’ command to 'Do this’ in the Rite of Blessing the Cup.

Thus, in the Lord’s command to Do this, the word 'this’ refers to the Rite of Breaking Bread and the Rite of Blessing the Cup. Both rites include the action and words of Jesus with respect to the bread and wine. Jesus was commanding the apostles to repeat His action and His words. If one element of the rite is missing, such as the Words of Institution, the rite is not complete; the Lord’s imperative is not complied with, and thus, no transubstantiation takes place. But if the Lord’s imperative is complied with, then transubstantiation takes place. (to be continued)

 

[Amiciel]

Thus, in the Lord’s command to Do this, the word 'this’ refers to the Rite of Breaking Bread and the Rite of Blessing the Cup. Both rites include the action and words of Jesus with respect to the bread and wine. Jesus was commanding the apostles to repeat His action and His words. If one element of the rite is missing, such as the Words of Institution, the rite is not complete; the Lord’s imperative is not complied with, and thus, no transubstantiation takes place. But if the Lord’s imperative is complied with, then transubstantiation takes place. (to be continued)

Scott Hahn, in his book, Reasons to Believe, refers to Jesus’ Words of Institution as “a speech-act, a declaration that brings about what it expresses … therefore, Jesus’ speech does not come after the event; it brings about the event” (p. 76).

Remember Genesis 1? “And God said, ‘let there be light’; and there was light” (Gen 1:3). “And God said, ‘let there be firmament …’; and it was so (Gen 1:6-7). “And God said, ‘let the waters under the heavens be gathered …’; and it was so” (Gen 1:9). We know that **Jesus is the **Word of God. When at the Last Supper, He said: 'This is My Body … This is My blood …”, we can only say: And it was so! When throughout the ages after the Last Supper, Jesus says the Words of Institution through the priest acting in persona Christi, we can only say: 'And it is so! - transubtantiation takes place.

In his book The Masss of the Early Christians, Mike Aquilina writes that during early Christianity, there was a noticeable tendency to reticence which later scholars called the discipline of the secret. M. Aquilina writes: “… Throughout this book, you’ll find it applied in varying degrees and in different ways by individual Fathers. Some would only hint at a Eucharistic meaning; others would speak abstractly of the doctrines without revealing the actual words of the Mass; still others would speak plainly, then command secrecy with the direst warnings” (p. 43).

M. Aquilina continues: “Why did the Church keep the best of its Good News shrouded in secrecy? The Fathers offer many explanations:
. The mysteries of faith were so great that reducing them to words would be a profanation.
. The Church should not risk exposing the mysteries to ridicule by those who would not understand …” (p. 43-44). (Other reasons are available in M. Aquilina’s book.)

Another scholar, J. Jeremias, also deals at length with this tendency in early Christianity in his book Eucharistic Words. See the sub-section titled The Protection of the Sacred Formula (p. 125 ff) and The Protection of the Eucharistic Words From Profanation (p.132 ff).

It will probably be helpful to ask the Professor what specific historical data served as his basis for believing that “the Words of Institution” were not what caused transubstantiation in the Mass until the 7th or 8th century."

 

[fred_conty]

Try this site. It has a number of fathers cited about the real presence before 700 AD.

calledtocommunion.com/2010/12/church-fathers-on-transubstantiation/