Words of Consecration at Mass
#1
Can anyone point me to something online that explains the two different theological opinions regarding the necessary words for validity at the consecration during Mass, and how some have thought it is the longer form, and some the shorter form. I would like to further study this. I would prefer something not from Sedevacantists or Fr. Hesse, and not for the same reasons.
Reply
#2
I don't really have anything for you but I believe St. Thomas Aquinas many others have said that the form of the sacrament is when the priest says "this is my body" and "this is my blood". Nothing more is necessary as long as it is a proper priest using wheat bread and grape wine with the intention to transubstantiate it Into the body and blood of Christ.

Of course if a priest just went to the bread isle at a grocery store and said "this is my body" it would be extremely illicit and incomplete but if he had the correct intention it would be valid.
Reply
#3
Editing




Reply
#4
Hi,

If you check out the Papal Bull De Defectibus, you'll see under the section on "form" what Pope St. Pius V taught was the minimum necessary meaning to be conveyed:

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

I don't know that we're allowed to entertain opinions on this matter.  Hope this helps your search.

-- Nicole
Reply
#5
(12-04-2016, 04:14 PM)yablabo Wrote: Hi,

If you check out the Papal Bull De Defectibus, you'll see under the section on "form" what Pope St. Pius V taught was the minimum necessary meaning to be conveyed:

If only it were that simple. Smile

The full section is this:

Verba autem Consecrationis, quæ sunt forma huius Sacramenti, sunt hæc : Hoc est enim Corpus meum. Et : Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et æterni testamenti : mysterium fidei : qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Si quis autem aliquid diminueret, vel immutaret de forma Consecrationis Corporis et Sanguinis, et in ipsa verborum immutatione verba idem non significarent, non conficeret Sacramentum. Si vero aliquid adderet vel detraheret, quod significationem non mutaret, conficeret quidem, sed gravissime peccaret.

And the words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these: For this is my Body. And: For this is the Chalice of my Blood, of the new and eternal testament: the mystery of faith: which for you and for many will be poured out in remission of sins. And if anyone should take away, or change anything of the form of the Consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that alteration of the words the words do not signify the same thing, the Sacrament is not confected. But if he should add or delete anything, which does not change the meaning, it is indeed confected, but he sins most grievously.

If the full formula were required, the last sentence wouldn't be there.
Reply
#6
I think you're dead wrong, Dominicus.

There was, as I understand, a very early version of the relevant Summa that was altered by the Imprimatur to conform with his presumed "Short version" of the Form of Consecration. However, Tom's original conforms exactly to the prescriptions of Vatican I as regards a Sacrament must "signify what it effects and effect what it signifies"... to wit... it says what it is and why.

The most significant departure from the ubiquitously held "statement of intent" is the "for all" as opposed to the "for many".

The guts of it is that the Second Person of the Trinity is immediately efficacious in His intentions and actions. If Redemption is immediately efficacious "for all" then everyone is "saved" whether they like it or not. But it is very clear that there are conditions incumbent on "salvation"... that is "the many" as distinct from the "all'.

That, as far as I know, is the particulars of the perversion of the words (Form) of Consecration.
Reply
#7
(12-06-2016, 04:04 PM)Paul Wrote:
(12-04-2016, 04:14 PM)yablabo Wrote: Hi,

If you check out the Papal Bull De Defectibus, you'll see under the section on "form" what Pope St. Pius V taught was the minimum necessary meaning to be conveyed:

If only it were that simple. Smile

The full section is this:

Verba autem Consecrationis, quæ sunt forma huius Sacramenti, sunt hæc : Hoc est enim Corpus meum. Et : Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et æterni testamenti : mysterium fidei : qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Si quis autem aliquid diminueret, vel immutaret de forma Consecrationis Corporis et Sanguinis, et in ipsa verborum immutatione verba idem non significarent, non conficeret Sacramentum. Si vero aliquid adderet vel detraheret, quod significationem non mutaret, conficeret quidem, sed gravissime peccaret.

And the words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these: For this is my Body. And: For this is the Chalice of my Blood, of the new and eternal testament: the mystery of faith: which for you and for many will be poured out in remission of sins. And if anyone should take away, or change anything of the form of the Consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that alteration of the words the words do not signify the same thing, the Sacrament is not confected. But if he should add or delete anything, which does not change the meaning, it is indeed confected, but he sins most grievously.

If the full formula were required, the last sentence wouldn't be there.

Thanks for your response to my post on your thread.  The words the priest uses as consecration formulae must "signify the same thing": the necessary sense for confection of the blessed Eucharist is contained in the formulae conveyed in de Defectibus.  My understanding of this is that if the priest says "for all" instead of "for many" or changes the order so that "the mystery of faith" occurs after the genuflexion, he has not changed the meaning or the substance of the formula.  The formula still signifies the same, but grave sin has occurred because he has changed the formula in an accidental (instead of a substantial) way.

-- Nicole
Reply
#8
(12-25-2016, 11:05 PM)yablabo Wrote: Thanks for your response to my post on your thread.  The words the priest uses as consecration formulae must "signify the same thing": the necessary sense for confection of the blessed Eucharist is contained in the formulae conveyed in de Defectibus.  My understanding of this is that if the priest says "for all" instead of "for many" or changes the order so that "the mystery of faith" occurs after the genuflexion, he has not changed the meaning or the substance of the formula.  The formula still signifies the same, but grave sin has occurred because he has changed the formula in an accidental (instead of a substantial) way.

Leaving out "the mystery of faith" doesn't change the meaning of "this is my blood", particularly if you say it right after. Even if people think it refers to what follows, and not what preceded it. And there's a difference between the Pope changing the liturgy, which he can do, and a priest changing it on his own, which is what De defectibus concerns. Changing "for many" to "for all" does change the meaning, but it also doesn't - Christ's blood was shed for all, even if it will only benefit some.

Then again, I could be completely wrong, and most Masses in the Church for the past 45 years have been invalid. But given that the issue of whether "this is my blood" is sufficient has never been defined, I'm going to go with the Church on this one. At least they've fixed the translation.
Reply
#9
(12-26-2016, 10:03 PM)Paul Wrote:
(12-25-2016, 11:05 PM)yablabo Wrote: Thanks for your response to my post on your thread.  The words the priest uses as consecration formulae must "signify the same thing": the necessary sense for confection of the blessed Eucharist is contained in the formulae conveyed in de Defectibus.  My understanding of this is that if the priest says "for all" instead of "for many" or changes the order so that "the mystery of faith" occurs after the genuflexion, he has not changed the meaning or the substance of the formula.  The formula still signifies the same, but grave sin has occurred because he has changed the formula in an accidental (instead of a substantial) way.

Leaving out "the mystery of faith" doesn't change the meaning of "this is my blood", particularly if you say it right after. Even if people think it refers to what follows, and not what preceded it. And there's a difference between the Pope changing the liturgy, which he can do, and a priest changing it on his own, which is what De defectibus concerns. Changing "for many" to "for all" does change the meaning, but it also doesn't - Christ's blood was shed for all, even if it will only benefit some.

Then again, I could be completely wrong, and most Masses in the Church for the past 45 years have been invalid. But given that the issue of whether "this is my blood" is sufficient has never been defined, I'm going to go with the Church on this one. At least they've fixed the translation.

Thank you for your response.  I agree with your first paragraph and it is a repeat of what I in fact posted.  I will point out, however, the priest does not "leave out" the term "mystery of faith"; it is instead said after the genuflexion.

In response to your second paragraph:  I disagree.  While the issue as to whether "this is my blood" is sufficient or not has not (to my knowledge) been explicitly defined, it has implicitly been rejected for consideration in de Defectibus.  "This is my blood" does not convey the same sense as the consecration formula for the wine, as it does not contain any information about the covenant, mystery of faith, or the pouring out for the remission of sins.  As long as the priest has conveyed the sense according to the intention of the Church over proper matter, then he has confected the Holy Eucharist.  If he changes things in the formula that do not change this essential sense, he sins grievously (and makes the Mass illicit), but the Mass is nonetheless valid.
Reply
#10
So for us non-Latin reading folks it would be nice to see an English translation. (I suppose I could look it up)  With that said, It is an interesting study of the words/meaning in the various languages of the early church. It is my understanding that the phrase "do this in remembrance of me" in Aramaic carries a meaning that translates more closely to "do this to bring me (more fully) back into your presence" If this is true it puzzles me that this is not corrected in the Liturgy of the Eucharist. After all, this is to me a critical understanding, and a refutation of protestant belief that the words are symbolic, and not literal. 

Just my 2 cents worth.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)