Words of Consecration at Mass
#11
(03-12-2017, 01:12 PM)yablabo Wrote: 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.

All of which is impliedly included in "my blood", as all the rest refers to the Blood of Christ. It expands on it, but doesn't signify anything other than our Lord's Blood - the pouring out for the remission of sins cannot, in Catholic theology, be anything else.

Maybe you're right that the longer form is needed. But that's never explicitly been defined. I'd also be interested to see what the words are in other rites - and I know the Pope has approved one which doesn't even have words of consecration, although there's debate over that, too.
Reply
#12
(03-17-2017, 02:27 PM)Paul Wrote:
(03-12-2017, 01:12 PM)yablabo Wrote: 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.

All of which is impliedly included in "my blood", as all the rest refers to the Blood of Christ. It expands on it, but doesn't signify anything other than our Lord's Blood - the pouring out for the remission of sins cannot, in Catholic theology, be anything else.

Maybe you're right that the longer form is needed. But that's never explicitly been defined. I'd also be interested to see what the words are in other rites - and I know the Pope has approved one which doesn't even have words of consecration, although there's debate over that, too.
No, cobber. The Form for Consecration has been very particularly defined by immemorial custom/practice and it was explained by St Tom Aquinas even though one of the earliest "Imprimaturs" ordered that Tom's text be altered to agree with the "short form" apparently of the opinion of that bishop.

Tom's real argument/explanation was promulgated at the Council of Trent that specified that the whole Form (of immemorial custom) is necessary to confect the Sacrament. The guts of it is that a Sacrament must "signify what it effects and effect what it signifies". The whole Form is apparent in every rite of Mass of every Christian discipline of Apostolic origin.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)