Wrong words used at the consecration

[JReducation]

Brother, with all due respect, there are three requirements for a valid sacrament, not just one. And correct form (meaning in the case of the Eucharist the form of words) is thus every bit as necessary for a valid sacrament as correct intention.

I agree with you in that an unintentionally misplaced word here or there probably doesn’t matter, as long as the meaning isn’t affected. On the other end of the scale one cannot change them too much. I don’t think one can knowingly say ‘bibbety bobbety boo’ over the Eucharistic elements, even with the intent to consecrate, and confect the sacrament.

In this case - I think substituting the words ‘this is My blood’ for ‘this is My body’ IS something that changes the meaning significantly.

Consecration of the Blood is intended, and was intended by Our Lord, to be a different thing from consecration of the Body, and vice versa, otherwise the exact same words would be said over each element, or else both elements would be consecrated at the same time, or something.

I think that what Brother is saying is that in the Eastern Church they do not use the words of consecration and the consecration still takes place. This raises the question whether the actual words are sufficient to invalidate the consecration.

How is it possible that half of the Church must have the right words and the other half does not have them at all and yet they have the same sacrament?

JR

 

[YADA]

The bold is mine. Actually, without the power of the priest, God does not act.

JR

Really, are you sure about that? … Are you saying that God is prevented from acting if the priest fails to act and act perfectly …

Really?

God can act anywhere, at any time and to any purpose … Man cannot prevent the will of God. YOur bold statement to the contrary …

JReducation - the priest derives his power from God … not the other way around

 

[LilyM]

I think that what Brother is saying is that in the Eastern Church they do not use the words of consecration and the consecration still takes place. This raises the question whether the actual words are sufficient to invalidate the consecration.

How is it possible that half of the Church must have the right words and the other half does not have them at all and yet they have the same sacrament?

JR

How is it possible that Eastern Catholic priests can be married, whereas Latin Rite priests require special permission, rarely sought or granted?

How is it that Eastern liturgies can use leavened bread, Latin Masses can’t - by Canon Law?

How is it that Eastern liturgies can use such liturgical languages as Old Church Slavonic etc, whereas Latin Masses (apart from those rare cases where there is an indult) MUST use Latin or approved vernacular translations?

The form of words, along with all these other requirements, may well be a disciplinary matter, but they are nonetheless binding even so. It has long been established what the requirements are for a valid Eucharist in the Latin Rite, and what the form (of words) is that is required, and that substantial and intentional variation from those thus invalidates the Mass.

 

[passus]

Really, are you sure about that? … Are you saying that God is prevented from acting if the priest fails to act and act perfectly …

He did not say that God is “prevented” or cannot act. Just that He does not act. The meaning of “sacrament” would be changed if the necessity of the minister (priest in this case) were removed should God choose to act independently of him.

 

[AJV]

Note to Benedictgal: I do not believe that a priest can go “back” and consecrate an element once it has passed. For that reason in the Latin / Western Rite of the Catholic Church once the Eucharist has been given out and there is not enough for the rest of the congregation he can not go back to the altar and consecrate some more but must go to the reserve sacrament.

Yes, but he cannot because of the consecration of the Elements belongs also to the sacrifice - the double consecration showing the immolation and the oblation that follows in which we offer the Victim. That is why to consecrate one element is never allowed and consecrating more if the priest runs out is also not allowed because it separates the communion from the sacrifice.

This is entirely different from if a priest forgets to consecrate one - because, by divine law which the Church has no power over, he is bound to consecrate both elements.

This is not the case in Orthodox Church where a priest can consecrate more elements within the same liturgy.

Is there somewhere where I can read about this practice? I always thought that the Orthodox were more stringent since they don’t have the scholastic idea of “form” of a sacrament

 

[malphono]

I think that what Brother is saying is that in the Eastern Church they do not use the words of consecration and the consecration still takes place. This raises the question whether the actual words are sufficient to invalidate the consecration.

How is it possible that half of the Church must have the right words and the other half does not have them at all and yet they have the same sacrament?

JR

Just a point of clarification: the only “Eastern Church” that does not normally use an Institution Narrative is the Assyrian Church of the East. Yes, the Eucharist is validly confected, but it’s not because of the absence of the Institution Narrative. Rather, it’s because the Anaphora is considered an entity in itself.

 

[JReducation]

Just a point of clarification: the only “Eastern Church” that does not normally use an Institution Narrative is the Assyrian Church of the East. Yes, the Eucharist is validly confected, but it’s not because of the absence of the Institution Narrative. Rather, it’s because the Anaphora is considered an entity in itself.

That is correct. But I’m thinking that this is the example that Brother is drawing from.

JR

 

[JReducation]

Really, are you sure about that? … Are you saying that God is prevented from acting if the priest fails to act and act perfectly …

Really?

God can act anywhere, at any time and to any purpose … Man cannot prevent the will of God. YOur bold statement to the contrary …

JReducation - the priest derives his power from God … not the other way around

This is the teaching of the Church. Christ set it up this way. This was the problem with some of the liberal groups who believed that the faith of the people confected the Eucharist. The Church said this was not the case. The Eucharist is confected by the words of the priest and without them, there is no Eucharist, because Christ himself set it up this way.

JR

 

[YADA]

He did not say that God is “prevented” or cannot act. Just that He does not act. The meaning of “sacrament” would be changed if the necessity of the minister (priest in this case) were removed should God choose to act independently of him.

Well he cannot “know with certainty” that God did not, does not and would not act … if a priest inadvertantly misspoke the words of consecration … and I am not saying that the words do not matter only that it is God that acts …

Sacraments are not “magical” … Consecration is not a magic spell placed upon the elements … the words are a part of the human process but God can and does work in the world … at His choosing and pleasure