This answer both proves too much and too little. If the priest is in persona Christi, then by definition whatever words he speaks are words of Christ. If you mean the words that Christ spoke at the Last Supper, then the problem is that we don’t know them (unless, I guess, he was speaking in Greek) and we don’t know how far, by translation, mistake, or otherwise, we can get from those original words and still be in the clear. So, while trivially valid, this response doesn’t mean much.The words of consecration must be spoken in the first person regardless of the language: “This is my Body…This is my Blood.” The priest acts in Persona Christi so his words must be Christ’s.
This is right, except that you don’t quite mean “refers to” here. If the priest says “Hic est enim corpus meum,” the problem isn’t that “hic” is referring to the chalice, it’s that this is bad Latin. It would be a little like saying, “He took the cup, gave him to his disciples, and said…”With the acceptance of the Chaldean Rite, it can easily be argued the entire canon must be read for a valid consecration.
Hic and hoc are both “this” in English. However in Latin the genders have to agree, so “hoc” refers to “corpus” (body-neuter gender), and “hic” refers to “calix” (chalice-masculine gender).
As I understand, the Latin words “Hoc est enim corpus Meum” means “For this is My body”. Is the word “For” necessary? What about “Hoc est corpus Meum”?The words of consecration must be spoken in the first person regardless of the language: “This is my Body…This is my Blood.” The priest acts in Persona Christi so his words must be Christ’s.
“Enim” is a vagueish word that can roughly be translated “for” in the way that it’s generally done, or “indeed,” “really.” I would guess on the same basis I described above that it’s omission would not affect the consecration, but, again, don’t take that to the bank.As I understand, the Latin words “Hoc est enim corpus Meum” means “For this is My body”. Is the word “For” necessary? What about “Hoc est corpus Meum”?
“This is my blood” would be “Hic est sanguis meus.” Omitting “the cup/chalice of…” sounds to me like it is changing the meaning of the prescribed words of institution; seems like a very bad idea.What are the latin words for “This is my blood”? Does the word “chalice” or “cup” have to be included in the words?
“Sanguis” is masculine. As to your impression about “hic” and “hoc,” that isn’t correct. They mean this same thing (“this”); the only difference is that there are different forms to match the different possible genders of what is being pointed to. And Latin genders don’t particularly correspond to anything in reality: words about men will be masculine, of course, et cetera, but there’s no particular reason why “body” is neuter and “blood” is masculine", or, for that matter, why “arm” is neuter and “hand” is feminine.One thing about the English language is the lack of “gender” for common nouns. I thought maybe “hoc” was for numerable nouns such as “body”, and “hic” was for innumerable nouns, such as “blood”. By the way, what is the gender for “blood”?
V - Defects of the form
- Defects on the part of the form may arise if anything is missing from the complete wording required for the act of consecrating. Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are:
So this means if the priest were to say, for example, “This is my blood…only for those of Irish descent” that would make it invalid. (Excuse me for the vulgarity; I was just making a point.)HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, and HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM
If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin.
Demonstrative pronouns:One thing about the English language is the lack of “gender” for common nouns. I thought maybe “hoc” was for numerable nouns such as “body”, and “hic” was for innumerable nouns, such as “blood”.
Actually, it’s un taco and una mujer. As a rule of thumb, in both Italian, Spanish and I guess, in some cases, Latin, if a word ends in “o”, it’s masculine. If the word ends in “a” it’s feminine. Now, in Latin, the word “Filiio” is masculine. It means “Son”. For name such as “Virginae Mariae”, the “ae” at the end, even if “Mariae” were not there, makes the word feminine.Although Latin has three genders, you can consider the difference by comparing to Spanish: “un” and “una”, or “esto” and “esta”, don’t mean different things because the genders are different. “Una taco” and “Esto mujer” mean “A taco” and “This woman,” it’s just that the Spanish is bad because the genders are wrong.
I said, ““Una taco” and “Esto mujer” mean “A taco” and “This woman,” it’s just that the Spanish is bad because the genders are wrong.”Actually, it’s un taco and una mujer. As a rule of thumb, in both Italian, Spanish and I guess, in some cases, Latin, if a word ends in “o”, it’s masculine. If the word ends in “a” it’s feminine. Now, in Latin, the word “Filiio” is masculine. It means “Son”. For name such as “Virginae Mariae”, the “ae” at the end, even if “Mariae” were not there, makes the word feminine.
Another Latin grammar question: What is the difference between “Meum” and “Meus”?“This is my blood” would be “Hic est sanguis meus.”
It depends whether the thing described is masculine or neuter (neither of those forms agrees with a feminine word). If masculine, the nominative case of this adjective (used to describe the subject of a sentence) is meus, and the accusative case (used to describe the direct object in a sentence) is meum. So:Another Latin grammar question: What is the difference between “Meum” and “Meus”?
Exactly. Better stick to the official script. There is no advantage to changing the words, even if they don’t invalidate the consecration.My understanding that as long as he is a priest, he is meaning to consecrate the Eucharist, and he says words intending to communicate “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood” the consecration is valid.
The words are important and the Church teaches that changing them illicitly is a grave matter. But the sacrament is not a magic trick that depends on correctly pronouncing the incantation. The priest needs to be a priest, intending to consecrate, and communicating what Christ communicated at the Last Supper. The rest is important, but not necessary to the validity of the sacrament.