Transubstantiation

[Donahoe285]

The question came up in our Bible Study class as to when the actual transformation into the Body and Blood of Christ takes place during the consecration. Some had heard that it occurred when the priest calls on the Holy Spirit and extends is hand over the chalice. Other, like me, were taught it was at the saying of the word of institution (“This is my body”…) A deacon I asked said it is an open question.

 

[curlycool89]

I’m pretty sure I’ve heard that all that’s needed for consecration to happen is the words “This is my body … This is my blood”.

 

[michaeldaniels]

A Deacon said that??? Are you serious? The priest extends his hands over the gifts and makes the sign of The Cross, so that they will be blessed and become Holy, so that “They May Become” The Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ (it is right there in the words)…then he proceeds with The Consecration:

The Tridentine Mass uses these words: “For this is my body.” “For this is the chalice of my blood of the new and eternal covenant: the mystery of faith: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.”

The Novus Ordo phrases it this way: “This is my body, which will be given up for you. . . . This is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all men [Latin, “for many”] so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.”

Your inclination was right…your Deacon was aggregiously wrong…how did he become a Deacon???

The question came up in our Bible Study class as to when the actual transformation into the Body and Blood of Christ takes place during the consecration. Some had heard that it occurred when the priest calls on the Holy Spirit and extends is hand over the chalice. Other, like me, were taught it was at the saying of the word of institution (“This is my body”…) A deacon I asked said it is an open question.

 

[Monica4316]

The bread and wine become changed into the Body and Blood of Christ when the priest says “This is My Body… this is My Blood…”

in the Eastern churches, it’s believed it happens when the priest calls on the Holy Spirit; maybe that’s where the deacon got this idea

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I’m pretty sure I’ve heard that all that’s needed for consecration to happen is the words “This is my body … This is my blood”.

The thing to remember is that not all Catholic Churches use the Institutional Narrative as the Latin Church does. That does NOT mean that they do not have a valid consecration. The words of Consecration are not magic words or an incantation. Jesus Christ himself is our High Priest, and by the agency of the ministerial priest, he offers Himself as a perfect sacrifice to our Heavenly Father. Exactly when the change takes place is shrouded in some mystery. However, when the priest elevates the Body and Blood of Jesus, the change has already taken place.

 

[Joe_5859]

The bread and wine become changed into the Body and Blood of Christ when the priest says “This is My Body… this is My Blood…”

in the Eastern churches, it’s believed it happens when the priest calls on the Holy Spirit; maybe that’s where the deacon got this idea

That is correct. Our Eastern brothers and sisters place the emphasis on the Epiclesis (the calling down of the Holy Spirit) as being, at the very least, an essential part of the consecration even if not the p(name removed by moderator)ointable (that’s a word, right? ) moment where Jesus is now present.

I wouldn’t dismiss the deacon as a raging heretic just yet. He’s trying to be sensitive to a contentious issue with a long history. Many pastors and/or theologians will skirt the issue so as not to place any further obstacles to union between East and West. Even the Catechism is sensitive to this:

CCC 1353 In the epiclesis, the Church asks the Father to send his Holy Spirit (or the power of his blessing [180]) on the bread and wine, so that by his power they may become the body and blood of Jesus Christ and so that those who take part in the Eucharist may be one body and one spirit (some liturgical traditions put the epiclesis after the anamnesis).

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, his sacrifice offered on the cross once for all.

[180] Cf. Roman Missal, EP I (Roman Canon) 90.

 

[yablabo]

The question came up in our Bible Study class as to when the actual transformation into the Body and Blood of Christ takes place during the consecration. Some had heard that it occurred when the priest calls on the Holy Spirit and extends is hand over the chalice. Other, like me, were taught it was at the saying of the word of institution (“This is my body”…) A deacon I asked said it is an open question.

Firstly, there is an horrible error in terms in your post. There is no transformation that takes place; it is a Transubstantiation. A transformation involves a process called corruption and generation. For example, a transformation occurs when a piece of paper burns/corrupts and ash is generated. There is absolutely no transformation which occurs at the utterance of the consecration formula over the valid matter with the intent to do as the Church does. The substance of bread does not corrupt, and the substance of Christ is not generated from that corruption.

In the process called Transubstantiation, a conversion occurs. The complete substance of the bread ceases to exist, leaving behind only the accidents (or appearances) of bread veiling Christ, Who is now sacramentally present. This is a unique occurrence; the accidents of bread reside in NO substance.

Secondly, I think there is some confusion present as to what exactly is the “consecration” as the word is used in your original post. The word consecration is understood to be the act by which, in the celebration of Holy Mass, the whole substance of the bread and wine are really and truly converted into the whole substance of Christ (the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity). The consecration formula given us in the Latin Rite is simply the words that are said by the validly ordained minister, “This is My Body, etc.,” “This is the chalice/cup of My Blood, etc.” over the matter (i.e., bread and wine respectively).

The Council of Trent (Session 13) deals with the subject of Transubstantiation in both a clear and infallible manner:

Chapter IV.

On Transubstantiation.

And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own Body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this Holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the Body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His Blood; which conversion is, by the Holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.

This shows the matter is certainly closed (certainly NOT an open question).

There is also a statement made about this conversion in the Profession of Faith of the First Vatican Council:

I profess that in the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly, really and substantially the Body and Blood, together with the Soul and Divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there takes place the conversion of the whole substance of the bread into His Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into His Blood, and this conversion the Catholic Church calls Transubstantiation.

It is so nice that we have infallible sources which we can consult in such matters…

– Nicole

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Firstly, there is an horrible error in terms in your post. There is no transformation that takes place; it is a Transubstantiation. A transformation involves a process called corruption and generation. For example, a transformation occurs when a piece of paper burns/corrupts and ash is generated. There is absolutely no transformation which occurs at the utterance of the consecration formula over the valid matter with the intent to do as the Church does. The substance of bread does not corrupt, and the substance of Christ is not generated from that corruption.

In the process called Transubstantiation, a conversion occurs. The complete substance of the bread ceases to exist, leaving behind only the accidents (or appearances) of bread veiling Christ, Who is now sacramentally present. This is a unique occurrence; the accidents of bread reside in NO substance.

Hi Nicole,

You make a good point regarding terminology, but I’m not sure I would characterize Donahoe’s word choice as a horrible error.

I say this because “transformation” is often used colloquially to be equivalent to the word “change”. So, Donahoe’s phrase could certainly be understood in an orthodox way – as long as it isn’t meant philosophically, but rather colloquially.

Speaking of philosophical terms, it seemed in your post you contrasted “conversion” with “transformation”, although you may not have intended such. If that was what you intended, I would say that it seems to me that a transformation is a kind of conversion. Transformation is a formal conversion, a change of form to form. Whereas transubstantiation is a substantial conversion, as you point out above, a complete change of substance, both matter and form.

Just a few (somewhat off-topic!) thoughts.

VC

 

[Rolltide]

The Liturgy of Addai and Mari, used in the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church and the Chaldean Catholic Church, contains no words of institution, but it is still considered a valid liturgy in which Transubstantiation takes place.

 

[malphono]

The Liturgy of Addai and Mari, used in the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church and the Chaldean Catholic Church, contains no words of institution, but it is still considered a valid liturgy in which Transubstantiation takes place.

Not exactly. That is true for ancient (original) recension of the Anaphora, as used by the Assyrian (Ancient) Church of the East. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari as used by the Chaldean Church does indeed have an Institution Narrative, which is essentially a translation of the form from the Roman Canon. The usage of Syro-Malabar Church is similar.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Not exactly. That is true for ancient (original) recension of the Anaphora, as used by the Assyrian (Ancient) Church of the East. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari as used by the Chaldean Church does indeed have an Institution Narrative, which is essentially a translation of the form from the Roman Canon. The usage of Syro-Malabar Church is similar.

There is definitely some church of the East that does not use the Institutional Narrative at the Consecration, which is it?

 

[malphono]

malphono;6309112:

Not exactly. That is true for ancient (original) recension of the Anaphora, as used by the Assyrian (Ancient) Church of the East. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari as used by the Chaldean Church does indeed have an Institution Narrative, which is essentially a translation of the form from the Roman Canon. The usage of Syro-Malabar Church is similar.

There is definitely some church of the East that does not use the Institutional Narrative at the Consecration, which is it?

Yes, there is. As I noted earlier, it’s the original recension of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari as used by the ACoE.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Yes, there is. As I noted earlier, it’s the original recension of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari as used by the ACoE.

ahh. Yes, I once heard a bishop of that church describe the consecration and the cannon of their mass as being very similar to what was probably done at the Last Supper.

 

[Donahoe285]

The question came up in our Bible Study class as to when the actual transformation into the Body and Blood of Christ takes place during the consecration. Some had heard that it occurred when the priest calls on the Holy Spirit and extends is hand over the chalice. Other, like me, were taught it was at the saying of the word of institution (“This is my body”…) A deacon I asked said it is an open question.

Clarification of the question asked:I should have stated the question as when the moment of Transubstatiation takes place. My Deacon friend was saying only that defining of the “moment” is not specifically stated. This being my first attempt at participating, I have learned that I will work at being more precise in my language in future inquiries. Thanks for your responses.

 

[ProVobis]

Other, like me, were taught it was at the saying of the word of institution (“This is my body”…) A deacon I asked said it is an open question.

There is one rite that doesn’t have the traditional words of consecration but the Mass is still valid.

I think the entire canon needs to be recited and then the priest has to communicate for validity.

 

[ProVobis]

The Liturgy of Addai and Mari, used in the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church and the Chaldean Catholic Church, contains no words of institution, but it is still considered a valid liturgy in which Transubstantiation takes place.

The whole canon needs to be recited. Anything less would invite wide abuse and invalidity.

 

[yablabo]

Hi Nicole,

You make a good point regarding terminology, but I’m not sure I would characterize Donahoe’s word choice as a horrible error.

I say this because “transformation” is often used colloquially to be equivalent to the word “change”. So, Donahoe’s phrase could certainly be understood in an orthodox way – as long as it isn’t meant philosophically, but rather colloquially.

Speaking of philosophical terms, it seemed in your post you contrasted “conversion” with “transformation”, although you may not have intended such. If that was what you intended, I would say that it seems to me that a transformation is a kind of conversion. Transformation is a formal conversion, a change of form to form. Whereas transubstantiation is a substantial conversion, as you point out above, a complete change of substance, both matter and form.

Just a few (somewhat off-topic!) thoughts.

VC

Hi, VC,

This is my last public reply on this particular discussion of words, since it is off-topic.

I most heartily restate my original thoughts. It IS a most horrible error in terms to say in a public forum “transformation” when one means “Transubstantiation” (whether the term “transformation” correctly conveyed the mind of the original poster or not). It would certainly be different in a casual conversation; I would agree were that the case. However, posting in a forum is the same as publishing one’s speech, which makes it much more formal an action than giving a public speech.

The word “transformation” is, I would agree, understood to be equivalent to the word “change.” That is why I am taking such exception with it. NO “change” occurs to the bread and the wine at the consecration since it is not part of the potential of the nature of bread to “change” into Christ. I do contrast “transformation” and “conversion” because they are not equivalent terms. “Transformation” and “change” speak of that which is within the potential of a being due to its nature. A “conversion” speaks of that which is not within the potential of a being itself, but is effected from outside that being.

A “conversion” and a “change” are not merely genus and species of one another, but completely non-equivalent terms. A “conversion” is made, for example, when one exchanges his paper dollars for an equivalent amount of paper yen. He had paper dollars in his hand, now he has paper yen in his hand. The paper dollars did not “change” into paper yen, but were “converted.” It is not within the nature of the paper dollar to “change” into paper yen. However, if one were to burn the paper dollar, he would elicit a “change;” the paper would “change” into ash.

That is certainly not the case with the Eucharist. There is NO “change” of the bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, since it is not within the nature of the bread and wine to “change” into such. Instead a “conversion” occurs, as defined infallibly in the Council of Trent. The bread and the wine cease to exist in this unique conversion, leaving behind only the appearances veiling Christ, Who is really, truly and substantially present.

– Nicole