When is Our Lord present in the Eucharist?

[CatholcCrusader]

When the priest says “Take this, all of you, and eat of it: for this is my Body which will be given up for you”, at that moment the bread is no longer bread, it only apprears to be bread.

Does the Roman Church that teach that transubstantiation happens at the words of institution?..

Catholic Answers’ Senior Staff Apologist Jimmy Akin says so. Personally I would not cross brain-swords with him.

 

[Nita]

I was going to check the catechism myself. Thanks for that!

And thanks for the post. Yours was a very interesting response.

-Tim-

It get’s even more interesting !!!

(Before beginning just want to clarify that “Institution Narrative” refers to the words “This is My Body… Blood…”)

In the Catholic Church the Institution Narrative is necessary for transubstiation to take place. The epiclesis is not necessary. (For example, the Tridentine Mass used prior to the Novus Ordo does not contain the epiclesis.)

I think all the schismatic Orthodox Churches with a valid priesthood contain the Institution Narrative as well as the Epiclessis – EXCEPT FOR THE ASSYRIAN CHURCH OF THE EAST. Their rite **does not **contain the specific words of the Institution Narrative. Yet in 2001 the Church recognized their Eucharist as being valid.
(Bolding in the text below is mine.)

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html
3. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari

The principal issue for the Catholic Church in agreeing to this request, related to the** question of the validity of the Eucharist celebrated with the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, one of the three Anaphoras traditionally used by the Assyrian Church of the East. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari is notable because, from time immemorial, it has been used without a recitation of the Institution Narrative. As the Catholic Church considers the words of the Eucharistic Institution a constitutive and therefore indispensable part **of the Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer, a long and careful study was undertaken of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, from a historical, liturgical and theological perspective, at the end of which the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith on January 17th, 2001 concluded that this Anaphora can be considered valid. H.H. Pope John Paul II has approved this decision. This conclusion rests on three major arguments.

In the first place, the Anaphora of Addai and Mari 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” (U.R., n. 15). 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” (U.R., n. 15).

Finally, the words of Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in a coherent narrative way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession.

The Council of Florence, 1439 AD, states:The words of the Savior, by which He instituted this Sacrament, are the form of this sacrament; for the priest speaking in the person of Christ effects the sacrament. For by the power of the very words the substance of the bread is changed into the body of Christ and the substance of the wine into the blood;…

(cf Denzinger #698)

 

[jochoa]

Does the Roman Church that teach that transubstantiation happens at the words of institution?

The reason why I ask is because some of the Eastern Catholic Churches believe that transubstantiation happens at the epiclisis, at the calling down of the Holy Spirit at “Let your spirit come upon these gifts” or whatever similar words are used.

Great Question!

I have always been taught that transubstantiation takes place when the priest says “This is My Body…” and “This is My Blood…”.
For example, if Mass got interrupted after the epiclesis but before those words were spoken over the bread and wine, then transubstantiation would not have occurred.
This seems logical to me since the institution narratives in the Bible do not contain the epiclesis prayer, but they do contain the words “This is My Body… My blood”.

I tend to logically agree with you through an alternate reasoning. If the gifts of the bread and wine became the person of Jesus at the epiclesis, then the gift of the money offering should also become the person of Jesus at the epiclesis.

Just offering an additional rational! Thanks for the interesting topic!

 

[Nita]

Great Question!

I tend to logically agree with you through an alternate reasoning. If the gifts of the bread and wine became the person of Jesus at the epiclesis, then the gift of the money offering should also become the person of Jesus at the epiclesis.

Just offering an additional rational! Thanks for the interesting topic!

Except for one thing – money does not qualify as valid material. Has to be bread and wine for consecration to take place.

 

[jochoa]

Except for one thing – money does not qualify as valid material. Has to be bread and wine for consecration to take place.

Please consider that I am trying to support the belief that consecration occurs upon declaring, “This is My Body…This is My Blood.” The concept of the consecration occurring upon epiclesis, would indicate that the gift of the money has also become the person of Jesus because His Spirit comes upon all the gifts and not just the bread and wine.

Another reasoning against consecration occurring at epiclesis given the money could become the person of Jesus, just like the bread and wine do, the question would become do we have to eat the money in order to become completely unified with the person of Jesus.

 

[Nita]

In the Catholic Church the Institution Narrative is necessary for transubstiation to take place. The epiclesis is not necessary. (For example, the Tridentine Mass used prior to the Novus Ordo does not contain the epiclesis.)

Just rechecked my old 1957 missal, and there is a prayer to the Holy Spirit over the gifts of bread and wine just prior to the priest washing his hands. It is part of the Offertory segment and not the Canon/Eucharistic Prayer. (I had only checked the Canon before.)
Come, Almighty Sanctifier and ever-living God, and bless this sacrifice prepared for the glory of Your Holy Name. Don’t know if that would be considered an epiclesis or not.

 

[Nita]

Please consider that I am trying to support the belief that consecration occurs upon declaring, “This is My Body…This is My Blood.” The concept of the consecration occurring upon epiclesis, would indicate that the gift of the money has also become the person of Jesus because His Spirit comes upon all the gifts and not just the bread and wine.

…

I realize that jochoa. I was just trying to point out that it’s impossible for money to ever be transubstantiated (thru epiclesis or institution narrative) because the Church specifically states the material used MUST be bread and wine for transubstantiation to occur. So even if a valid priest spoke the words of consecration (“This is My…”) over money, they would not become the person of Jesus.

 

[jochoa]

I realize that jochoa. I was just trying to point out that it’s impossible for money to ever be transubstantiated (thru epiclesis or institution narrative) because the Church specifically states the material used MUST be bread and wine for transubstantiation to occur. So even if a valid priest spoke the words of consecration (“This is My…”) over money, they would not become the person of Jesus.

Thank you for further clarification!