The “moment” of consecration

In the comments on yesterday’s post, an interesting discussion emerged regarding what to call the eucharist before and after consecration. Several commenters mentioned that some Christian churches don’t hold, in the same way the Roman Catholic Church does, that there is a “moment” at which consecration occurs. In the Roman Catholic tradition, we believe that before the words of consecration (“This is my body… This is my blood… Do this in memory…”) it is inappropriate to venerate the bread and wine. After the words of consecration, on the other hand, it is obligatory to adore the body and blood of Christ under the species of bread and wine. The scholastic theologians were concerned to identify the exact time of consecration so that adoration would not begin too early (idolatry) or too late (irreverence).

As several commenters mentioned, in the Eastern Churches consecration isn’t so tightly confined. That reminded me of a great video I used to show my undergraduates how differently we treat the unconsecrated bread and wine in East and West. This is a Ukrainian Catholic Church, with clergy and assistants preparing for the Great Entrance, before the anaphora (Eucharistic Prayer) begins. The title of the video comes from the fact that it’s filmed behind the iconostasis, where laypersons are very rarely able to see. You can see the eucharistic elements here are venerated (bowed to).

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8HM4u0PAbA

This is reflected in Eucharistic theology as well as in practice: in the East language about the Eucharist as symbol, icon, or image of Christ in heaven has been retained (alongside “realistic” language that affirms the Eucharist the assembly eats is the body and blood of Christ) since the patristic era. Both kinds of language can be used before or after the eucharistic prayer. (It’s worth mentioning that symbolic language is much more robust in the East, due to its association with Christology, than it seems to most Western Christians.) Symbolic language was less accepted in the West after the medieval controversies on Eucharistic presence. The West took for its inspiration the work of Ambrose of Milan:

[The Roman Canon] says: “On the day before He suffered, He took bread in his holy hands.” Before it is consecrated, it is bread; but when Christ’s words have been added, it is the body of Christ . . . . And before the words of Christ, the chalice is full of wine and water; when the words of Christ have been added, then blood is effected, which redeemed the people (Ambrose, The Sacraments, 4.23; trans. Roy J. Deferrari, Fathers of the Church vol. 44, p 305).

Kimberly Hope Belcher

Kimberly Belcher received her Ph.D. in Liturgical Studies at Notre Dame in 2009. After teaching at St John’s University in Collegeville, Minnesota, she returned to Notre Dame as a faculty member in 2013. Her research interests include sacramental theology (historical and contemporary), trinitarian theology, and ritual studies. Her interest in the church tradition is challenged, deepened, and inspired by her three children.

Posted

in

,

by

Kimberly Hope Belcher

Tags:

, ,

Comments

79 responses to “The “moment” of consecration”

  1. Mark MIller

    Fr Alexander Schmemann said it was the false dichotomy between the “real” and the “symbolic” in the west that ruined sacramental theology there.

    Reply
  2. Jan Larson

    Of course an expression of a broader dimension of the Roman Catholic understanding of the moment of consecration emerged in 2001, with the publication of the Vatican’s statement on the validity of the Eucharistic prayer of the Chaldean church and the Assyrian church of the east. Such Eucharistic prayers are valid even though they have no explicit words of consecration. Rather the intention of such a consecration is intended and implied throughout the prayer. Robert Taft has presented a thorough analysis of what this means: http://www.americancatholicpress.org/Father_Taft_Mass_Without_the_Consecration.html

    Reply
    1. John Swencki

      Ian, if explicit words of consecration can be omitted because “such a consecration is intended”, could the Trinitarian formula at Baptism also be changed/omitted because Baptism into Christ and His death and resurrection is intended? For that matter, could “intention” trump “proper form” in all the sacraments?

      Reply
      1. Karl Liam Saur

        This is where the Western habit of trying to tease out a universal concept reveals a problem. Ever since the Donatist heresy, there has been a powerful incentive to reduce the scope of subjective factors (aside from matrimony in the West, where there are two ministers) to the barest minimum. I don’t see the issue of the Chaldean anaphora being used more generally to move against that. It’s embedded in history and context, and the attempt to generalize from it will likely be unfruitful.

  3. Jack Rakosky

    This video does not show the procession in the church.

    In the local Orthodox Church where there are pews, a center aisle and two side aisles, the priest, and subdeacon with censer facing the gifts and incensing them, and acolytes with candles process down the one side aisle, and then up the center aisle. During this procession the priest is praying for the usual list of people. It looks very much like our processions of the reserved Sacrament.

    During the procession everyone faces the priest, which means if you are on the left side you will make a complete turn during the procession. It is customary to make a bow and the sign of the cross when the priest passes you. This practice of facing the priest when he is in procession is also observed when the priest goes around the side aisles during the incensing of the church and the reverencing of the icons along its walls. Again it is customary to bow and make the sign of the cross when the priest passes you. Of course the people are standing during all this activity.

    Remember a great deal of honor is paid to icons. They are constantly being reverenced by incense, bows, and kisses. So think of the gifts as another icon of Christ. As you look at the video you will also notice a lot of reverence being paid to the bishop, too.

    Reply
    1. Ann Riggs

      When incense is used in the Roman rite, it DOES include an incensing of the altar and gifts prior to the Preface — prior to the c institution narrative.

      Reply
      1. John Swencki

        Because, I think, Ann, the altar symbolizes Christ -at all times. Even some liturgical ministers are incensed (both as a liturgical rubric and an emotional reaction!)

  4. John Swencki

    WHat is the ‘Consecration” at Mass? It’s the entire Eucharistic Prayer, no? (People usually pick out the ‘words of instutition.)
    Interestinglu, the RC Church has never definitively stated “when” the consecration occurs. (In the eastern church, they hold it is at the epilcesis.)
    What if… even though it may take 2-3 minutes to pray the Eucharistic Prayer, we regarded the entire EP as ONE MOMENT, extended over 2-3 minutes (“human time” as opposed to “God time”; forgive my terminology– I was brought up watching too much Star Trek.) The entire EP, words of institution included, is one unified whole that “effects” transubstatiation?

    Reply
    1. Samuel J. Howard

      In the eastern church, they hold it is at the epilcesis.

      This is not the current Russian Orthodox view, though some may hold that the explicit epiclesis is neccesary. The view is that the transformation is completed at this point, not that this is the point where the transformation takes place.

      There is a difference in Russian and Greek practice where the Russians do not prostrate at the Great Entrance lest they appear to be worshipping the yet unconsecrated gifts.

      Reply
    2. Katherine Lapsley

      “The entire EP, words of institution included, is one unified whole that ‘effects’ transubstantiation?”

      A better reading of that sentence would be, in my opinion:

      “The entire EP, words of institution included, is one unified whole that ‘effects’ the change whereby the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christs, a change which is explained by some as ‘transubstantiation.’”

      Reply
      1. John Swencki

        Agreed, Katherine. Thank you.

    3. Dr. Dale Rodriguez

      John, you are correct that there is a difference between “human time” and “God time”. When I trained as a lay presider I studied kairos time which is sort of a liturgical time different from chronological time (human time as you call it) vs kairos time (Gods time as you call it). Kairos time is the time God makes Himself present to us. In well presided liturgy “time flies” because we lose the sense of chronological time as we worship. So it is possible that even though the EP may take a few minutes in chronological time it may be regardes as instantaneous in kairos time.

      Reply
  5. Jack Feehily

    “Fr Alexander Schmemann said it was the false dichotomy between the “real” and the “symbolic” in the west that ruined sacramental theology there.”

    I agree wholeheartedly. Those who like to call themselves “orthodox” Catholics delight in pointing out the polls that seemed to indicate that great numbers of Catholics don’t believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. That is a huge distortion of the facts. Most Catholics (and people in general) tend to identify the word “real” with physical. Since Catholics instinctively know that we do not consume the physical flesh and blood of Christ, they identify with the term “symbolically” partaking of his Body and Blood. Symbolic and real are not terms that need to exclude each other. Symbol is a perfectly good synonym for sacrament so that sacraments may be referred to as sacred symbols. Does this render them “unreal”? The risen body of Christ was perceptible to the eyewitnesses of the post-resurrection appearances. But our senses fail to fathom
    the real presence of Christ and thus can grasp it only with faith’s consent. It is alleged that nuns used to teach little children that they couldn’t chew the host because it would result in a physical injury to the flesh of Jesus. Whether they did or didn’t, we certainly know that this is a ridiculous assertion. Nonetheless we believe that by consuming the Holy Eucharist (a truly sacred symbol) we are partaking of the true Body and Blood (Soul & Divinity) of the Risen Lord. I guess this is why we acclaim it “The Mystery of Faith”.

    Reply
    1. Dr. Dale Rodriguez

      I agree Jack. We in the West/Latin Rite are very legalistic and scholastic. We need to know precisely when things happen and why it happens, dissect it then give it a name. We are impatient.
      In the East it’s all mystery. Ask them if they believe in transubstantiation and you may get the answer: well maybe but it’s a mystery. Ask them when the consecration occurs: well maybe at the epiklesis but it’s a mystery. Because it’s a mystery and unfathomable there is no conflict between faith/reason. It’s all a mystery!

      Reply
      1. Ann Riggs

        I did some VERY brief research on when Catholic theologians grew more comfortable with the word “symbol” rather than the “effective sign” terminology. I believe it was mid-20th century when Karl Rahner (from Otto Semmelroth, I have been given to understand) adopted a more Ricoeur-like understanding of symbol as rooted in and revelatory of that which is symbolized — and hence acceptable for sacramental realities. But even now, I hear older priests claim that Protestants believe that the eucharist is “only a symbol” while Catholics believe that the presence is “real.” It takes a lot of effort to explain to people that Protestants DO believe in the real presence of Christ in the eucharist — at least the traditions from earlier reformers do. The debates were always about the MODE of presence, not its reality. I am beginning to think that the current spectrum of beliefs in the real presence of Christ in the eucharist is probably not much wider now than it was during the medieval debates on the subject, and perhaps not not all that much different from the understandings during the patristic period.

    2. John Swencki

      But people still dont get the difference between “physical presence” and “sacramental presence” and how both are “real”.

      Reply
  6. Joshua Vas

    Samuel J. Howard :

    In the eastern church, they hold it is at the epilcesis.
    This is not the current Russian Orthodox view, though some may hold that the explicit epiclesis is neccesary. The view is that the transformation is completed at this point, not that this is the point where the transformation takes place.
    There is a difference in Russian and Greek practice where the Russians do not prostrate at the Great Entrance lest they appear to be worshipping the yet unconsecrated gifts.

    Isn’t it the other way around: the Russians prostrate, but the Greeks don’t?

    Reply
  7. Peter McCarthy

    This discussion makes me remember my training to be an extraordinary minister back in college (1982). The priest teaching us stated that the Eucharist is not like the Tonight Show. There’s no moment like when Ed McMahon steps out and says “Here’s… Jesus!”

    Reply
  8. Dr. Adam DeVille

    The whole discussion of the role of the epiclesis is considerably more complicated than many have usually realized. An excellent summary comes in Michael Zheltov’s article, which I discuss here: http://easternchristianbooks.blogspot.com/2011/01/eucharistic-praying-east-and-west.html

    Reply
    1. John Swencki

      Yes, Adam. Trying to “figure out” the action of the Holy Spirit has always been complicated!

      Reply
  9. John Swencki

    Remember in the old days….
    If a presider fainted or died:
    —during the Liturgy of the Word
    or
    —-Once the liturgy of the Eucharist already started.

    I forget which, but in one of those instances another priest could pick up where the deceased presider left off; in the other case, the replacing priest would have to begin Mass all over again.
    That familiar to anyone?

    Reply
    1. Karl Liam Saur

      De Defectibus?

      32. If, while the priest is celebrating Mass, the church is violated before he has reached the Canon, the Mass is to be discontinued; if after the Canon, it is not to be discontinued. If there is fear of an attack by enemies, or of a flood or of the collapse of the building where the Mass is being celebrated, the Mass is to be discontinued if it is before the Consecration; if this fear arises after the Consecration, however, the priest may omit everything else and go on at once to the reception of the Sacrament.

      33. If before the Consecration the priest becomes seriously ill, or faints, or dies, the Mass is discontinued. If this happens after the consecration of the Body only and before the consecration of the Blood, or after both have been consecrated, the Mass is to be completed by another priest from the place where the first priest stopped, and in case of necessity even by a priest who is not fasting. If the first priest has not died but has become ill and is still able to receive Communion, and there is no other consecrated host at hand, the priest who is completing the Mass should divide the host, give one part to the sick priest and consume the other part himself. If the priest has died after half-saying the formula for the consecration of the Body, then there is no Consecration and no need for another priest to complete the Mass. If, on the other hand, the priest has died after half- saying the formula for the consecration of the Blood, then another priest is to complete the Mass, repeating the whole formula over the same chalice from the words Simili modo, postquam cenatum est; or he may say the whole formula over another chalice which has been prepared, and consume the first priest’s host and the Blood consecrated by himself, and then the chalice which was left half-consecrated.

      Reply
      1. Gerard Flynn

        I suppose it’s not so far-fetched. We have only to remember what happened to poor Pope John XXI.

  10. Michelle Francl-Donnay

    half-consecrated? I would have thought that there is no intermediate stage, it’s consecrated, or not. Forgive me, I’m a quantum mechanic…

    Reply
    1. Joshua Vas

      I believe the word “half-consecrated” was a way of expressing the scholastic debate on how much of the “form” was required to consecrate the wine in the chalice. As it was a matter of contention, the contents of the chalice were termed “semiconsecratum” as a way of expressing the doubt.

      Reply
      1. Michelle Francl-Donnay

        Fascinating! Thanks….

      2. Dale Rodriguez

        What was really interesting was when some consecrated wine was poured into unconsecrated wine and distributed to the faithful in the early middle ages. They felt that if more than half the wine given to the communicants was consecrated then it was fine! Imagine if that happened today…

      3. Karl Liam Saur

        That’s still the principle used for topping off holy water, IIRC.

      4. Dale Rodriguez

        Karl, I didn’t realize that was being done. So water is added to holy water in the fonts rather than blessed water?
        It’s “half-holy” 🙂

      5. Sean Whelan

        I believe the same is true for the Holy Oils – at least for the sick. We’ve done that on occasion.

      6. Joshua Vas

        Sean Whelan :

        I believe the same is true for the Holy Oils – at least for the sick. We’ve done that on occasion.

        Why didn’t the priest just bless more Oil for the Sick? Currently, the rite allows him to do this.

        When this permission id not exist, the practice was not encouraged although it has been a matter for theological speculation. In practice, however, it was always considered as being of “doubtful validity”.

        It seems that a double standard has been the practice – when it regards the sacraments, mixing the blessed with the unblessed, or causing the unblessed to be blessed by such a manner, it has been considered verboten. On the other hand, for sacramentals, it is common.

        The Greek Orthodox still admit “consecrating by contact” – adding some of the Precious Blood to chalices of wine, and considering those to then be consecrated. Or at least, this has been the practice at several Divine Liturgies which I attended where I have been told this was done, upon inquiring where all those other chalices were.

      7. Karl Liam Saur

        “The Greek Orthodox still admit “consecrating by contact” – adding some of the Precious Blood to chalices of wine, and considering those to then be consecrated. Or at least, this has been the practice at several Divine Liturgies which I attended where I have been told this was done, upon inquiring where all those other chalices were.”

        This is related to the idea in the traditional practice of some of the Eastern Churches that one is not supposed to receive Holy Communion while suffering from bleeding (menstruation is just one of the more salient examples of this), because the recipient’s own blood is sacred upon contact, as it were.

  11. Halbert Weidner

    This is a wonderful contribution to the blog. There could be more from that part of the Church John Paul II called the other lung of the Church.

    Reply
  12. Paul Inwood

    One of the gains of the post-conciliar reform was a move away from the “magic moment” syndrome surrounding the words of consecration. As John Swencki points out, much liturgical catechesis has been devoted to the fact that the whole prayer is consecratory. It starts when the presider says “Lift up your hearts” and ends with the Great Amen after the concluding doxology. Between those two points, it is simply not possible to identify when the change from bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ takes place.

    Lots of people have difficulty believing this. It would help them to ask themselves why, at celebrations in the absence of a priest, it is the entire Eucharistic Prayer that is omitted and not just the institution narrative. John’s comment about the difference between human time and God’s time is also very apposite.

    My understanding of the Orthodox position, from those I have spoken to about this, is that they too, like Western Christians, do not have a magic moment, but believe that the whole Prayer is consecratory. They tell me “If you had to pin us down to a particular moment, then we would say that it is the epiclesis — let your Spirit come upon these offerings — but we’d prefer not to be tied down like that.”

    If we accept that the whole Prayer is consecratory, it has profound implications for how we pray it. No longer can we doze off or let our minds drift while Father drones on. We need to be focused and concentrate on every word. Even adults do not have infinite attention spans, so this is not always easy. This is precisely why many liturgists including myself have for decades been pushing for the integration of additional assembly acclamations into the Prayer as a regular occurrence. Not only does it enable and improve participation by the assembly through engaging them in the action, it also means that you need to listen to what is being prayed in order to respond. A twofold gain. Extra acclamations in the EP are not just for children but for everyone, as the Coptic Catholic experience shows.

    Reply
  13. Protodeacon David Kennedy

    There is a very full collection of YouTube video’s on the St. Elias Parish website from which the above video comes including more on the Anaphora and processions throughout the church. http://www.saintelias.com

    http://diaconateinchrist.typepad.com

    Reply
  14. Gerard Flynn

    Thank you, Paul. A most interesting contribution!

    Reply
  15. Joshua Vas

    “Lots of people have difficulty believing this. It would help them to ask themselves why, at celebrations in the absence of a priest, it is the entire Eucharistic Prayer that is omitted and not just the institution narrative.”

    I don’t think that necessarily expresses or favours the idea that the entire Prayer is consecratory. Even if you have the “moment” idea of the Institution narrative, the rest of the Eucharistic Prayer depends on it, since the oblation, commemorations, etc. according to that line of thought all depend on the Body/Blood being present.

    “If we accept that the whole Prayer is consecratory, it has profound implications for how we pray it. No longer can we doze off or let our minds drift while Father drones on. We need to be focused and concentrate on every word. Even adults do not have infinite attention spans, so this is not always easy. This is precisely why many liturgists including myself have for decades been pushing for the integration of additional assembly acclamations into the Prayer as a regular occurrence. Not only does it enable and improve participation by the assembly through engaging them in the action, it also means that you need to listen to what is being prayed in order to respond. A twofold gain. Extra acclamations in the EP are not just for children but for everyone, as the Coptic Catholic experience shows.”

    I think it could also work the other way and acclamations do not always make people more attentive to WHAT is being prayed. In my (limited) experience, often people either (1) latch on to a particular phrase before making the response. You could have shoved “Let us proclaim the mystery of faith” in a totally different area and you’d get people making the response. (2) one person starts, and the first phrase of the response serves as a signal, and everyone then chimes in.

    Reply
    1. Gerard Flynn

      The anaphora of Addai and Mari has no institution narrative.

      Reply
      1. Jeffrey Pinyan

        There is no institution narrative as such in the anaphora, but is it the presence of a narrative that is required? In other words, is the “institution narrative” exactly the same as “the words of institution”? The former seems to be of a wider scope, including details of time and place, whereas the latter refers to the (liturgical) words of Christ.

        The report from the Pontifical Council on the anaphora affirmed that “the words of the Institution are not absent in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, but explicitly mentioned in a dispersed way, from the beginning to the end, in the most important passages of the Anaphora.”

        There’s also the question of whether a narrative was never a part of the anaphora, or whether it was omitted from the text on purpose (the “disciplina arcanum”), or somehow lost.

        Finally, there is the practice of including the recitation of the words of institution in the anaphora:

        “This possibility already exists in the Assyrian Church of the East. Indeed, the Holy Synod of the Assyrian Church of the East, assembled in 1978 in Baghdad, offered ministers in the Assyrian Church the option of reciting the words of the Institution in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari. […] From a liturgical viewpoint, this might be an appropriate means to bring the present use of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari into line with the general usage in every Eucharistic Prayer both in the Christian East and in the Christian West. From an ecumenical viewpoint, it might be an appropriate expression of fraternal respect for members of other Churches who receive Holy Communion in the Assyrian Church of the East and who are used, according to the theological and canonical tradition of their proper Church, to hear the recitation of the words of the Institution in every Eucharistic Prayer.”

      2. Kimberly Hope Belcher

        There is a copy of an older translation of the Liturgy of Addai and Mari here. The anaphora begins around the page 564 marker.

        http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.xii.iv.html

        You can see from the text that the Roman document doesn’t mean “Christ’s words [of institution] are present scattered throughout the prayer,” since that isn’t the case. The assertion is a theological one, instead. I would explain it by saying that the anaphora is clearly enough and explicitly enough connected to the Last Supper of Christ to be recognizable as an anamnesis of the institution of the Eucharist at that event as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels.

        This is to say that anamnesis of the institution of the Eucharist by Christ is the key to the Institution Narrative. Even if the “words of Christ” are not uttered by the priest, if the celebration is clearly linked to the Last Supper, is an ancient and continuous practice, and is practiced by a “true church” (all points made in the document), then it is a true celebration of the Eucharist.

  16. Donna Eschenauer

    William Bausch (A New Look at Sacraments) wrote to reduce the consecration to a moment is like reducing Thanksgiving to a turkey wing! Makes sense to me.
    Paul Inwood’s post above is the most accurate. However, let us not forget that we also pray that we will also be transformed.

    Reply
  17. John Swencki

    Take the reality of “Grace”, i.e. God’s Life. There is only “one” Grace, but because we humans vascillate (sp?) and waiver in our degree of acceptance of God’s Grace, WE distinguish between “actual grace”, “habitual grace”, etc. There aren’t many “graces”.
    Remember when folks used to talk about grace as a quantitative “thing”– ‘I made novenas aso I can get more grace’…. “I go to confession even if I don’t have sins to confess to get the ‘grace’ of the sacrament” etc etc.
    Or the ancient catechisms that illustrated the soul in grace as a half-filled bottle of milk? (Except for the saints whose bottle overfloweth.) Did people have an innate sense that all those images were really trying to express the depth/degree of our openness to God? Or did they?

    Indulge me in some “extremism” (it sometimes helps understand/make a point.) We say the Mass is the “sacrifice of Calvary”. Well, how much of Calvary? Beginning with Jesus’ scourging? His way of the cross? His nailing to the cross? The moment of His death? Or all of that… and more? It is all part of Jesus’ saving act, all part of one ‘seamless garment’, if you will. Like grace, it is “one”.

    Can we think of the Eucharistic Prayer as a ‘seamless garment’ as well? With “parts” but not because the EP is “fragmented” but because we –on this side of eternity– can only deal with reality from one moment to the next… but the EP is in fact ‘one’ reality/moment/event.

    Oy…. I need my Dunkins coffee. And an aspirin.

    Reply
  18. Barry Hudock

    Especially interesting to me on this is JP2’s insistence on the validity of the eucharistic liturgy of the Assyrian Church of the East, a liturgy which includes no institution narrative (Jesus’s words over the bread and wine, “words of consecration” as we would recognize them in the Latin rite) at all.

    The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity explained: “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.”
    (Source is here:
    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html)

    Reply
  19. John Kohanski

    Paul Inwood writes: “One of the gains of the post-conciliar reform was a move away from the “magic moment” syndrome surrounding the words of consecration.” and also “Between those two points, it is simply not possible to identify when the change from bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ takes place.”

    Then why is the celebrant (and deacon and con-celebrants if any) required to genuflect after elevating the Host and the Chalice after each part of the Institution Narrative?

    Reply
    1. Paul Inwood

      That is precisely the point. Should they be genuflecting? (And I don’t expect the answer “the rubrics say they must”, but a discussion of whether the principles guiding those rubrics are actually correct.)

      A signficant number of presiders use the profound bow, rather than the genuflection, and they do so out of respect for the words of the Master and not because of any idea of the magic moment.

      Concelebrants, by the way, never genuflect — they bow. Neither do deacons genuflect because, if you follow the rubrics, they are already kneeling down during the institution narrative. (In my diocese, however, deacons stand throughout the Eucharistic Prayer on the specific instructions of the Bishop. Particular law. I won’t bore you with the rationale.)

      Reply
      1. Jeff BeBeau

        I have often thought the same thing, why genuflect at those moments. It would make sense to genuflect after the Great Amen.

        In the seminary, it was a time of transition in the posture for the Eucharistic Prayer and a discussion ensued about the posture of the deacon during the Eucharistic Prayer. Since the rest of the community was not kneeling at that time it was proposed that we follow the spirit of the rubric which envisioned the deacon “bending the kneel” for the consecration. Kneel and genuflect are both rooted in the Latin, “bend the knee.” Thus the deacon would remain standing for the Eucharistic Prayer and would genuflect with the presider when he genuflected. Everyone was pleased with the consensus and the result.

      2. John Kohanski

        Paul, Here is the pertinent paragraph from the General Instruction to the Roman Missal 2011.

        “274. A genuflection, made by bending the right knee to the ground, signifies adoration,
        and therefore it is reserved for the Most Blessed Sacrament, as well as for the Holy Cross
        from the solemn adoration during the liturgical celebration on Good Friday until the
        beginning of the Easter Vigil.
        During Mass, three genuflections are made by the Priest Celebrant: namely, after
        the elevation of the host, after the elevation of the chalice, and before Communion.
        Certain specific features to be observed in a concelebrated Mass are noted in their proper
        place (cf. nos. 210 – 251).”

        And yes, you were correct, the GIRM states that the deacon is kneeling at the Institution Narratives and that con-celebrants only bow when the celebrant genuflects. My bad. Mea culpa (x3). 🙂

        It seems silly to think that this genuflection or bow is to “the words of the Master.” That would be idolatry, no?

        Bows of the head seem to be instructed at the mention of the Trinity and at the name of Jesus, that of Mary, and of the Saint of the day. And a bow from the waist to the Altar, at the “Munda cor” before the Gospel, at the “Et incarnatus est” in the Creed, and “In addition, the Priest
        bows slightly as he pronounces the words of the Lord at the Consecration.” Perhaps that’s what you’re referring to as a bow to the words of the Master during the Consecration?

        If the Consecration didn’t just occur by the words of institution, then it would be wrong to genuflect to what would still be only bread and wine.

  20. Brigid Rauch

    Anyone properly raised in the time of the Baltimore Catechism could tell you that the moment of Consecration isn’t important. What’s important is the exact time of the beginning of the Offertory and the end of the Communion. Be present for that complete span, and you’ve avoided that particular mortal sin for the week!

    Reply
    1. Sean Parker

      I always thought that you had to “clock in” before the beginning of the Gospel, not the offertory, (and at least stay through communion) in order for you to say that you fulfilled the requirement of going to mass. Was it set to the offertory at some time in the past?

      Reply
      1. Brigid Rauch

        My recollection is from pre-Vatican II when the Eucharist took priority over any readings from Scripture.

        My post was meant as a mild suggestion that while topics such as this are interesting, we should be careful not to lose focus on what is really important and get caught up in legalities .

      2. John Swencki

        Actually, you had to ‘clock in’ before the collection…..

  21. Jonathan Day

    I remember hearing — no idea where — that the moment of consecration (of the Body of the Lord, at least) took place precisely between the R and the P of corpus!

    How this works in any English translation — new, old, 1998, etc. — I have no idea.

    Reply
  22. Jeffrey Pinyan

    On the matter of the institution narrative and the epiclesis, as necessary or substantial elements in a Eucharistic Prayer, I was curious what the Reformed thinking was on the matter. So I looked at the 20 examples of reformed Eucharistic Prayers in “Prayers of the Eucharist: Early and Reformed” by Jasper and Cuming.

    Each and every one of them includes an institution narrative with the words of the Lord, although the “Directory for the Public Worship of God” (1645) permits them to be read in the third person (“This is the body of Christ, which is broken for you”).

    Only five of them have a clear pre-institution epiclesis regarding the bread and wine; four of those explicitly mention the Holy Spirit.

    Only three of them (and none of the five above) have a clear post-institution epiclesis regarding the bread and wine; all three explicitly mention the Holy Spirit.

    There are also two quotes from Reformers that I think are apropos to the discussion. I do not know if they (like the stats above) are representative of all Reformed thought on the matter, but I would suspect they represent the majority.

    p. 195: “All that matters is that the Words of Institution should be kept intact and that everything should be done by faith.” ~ Martin Luther (1523)

    p. 223: “The whole substance of this sacrament is contained in these words. And it consisteth altogether in the true understand and faith of these words that the sacrament be wholesomely administered and received.” ~ Hermann von Wied (1545)

    Reply
    1. Joshua Vas

      Jeffrey, given that the prayers in that book belong to the earlier period of Reformed worship, I’m not sure how exactly one can consider it as representative of modern Reformed thinking on the subject. Most of the earlier Reformers were more inclined to consider the elements of Eucharistic praying as man-made – for them the central element was repeating the Dominical example – words especially – as they found it laid out in Scripture, their primary source. On the other hand, the modern liturgical movement has brought a liturgical thinking to many denominations, which continues to develop. I think one could certainly find a heightened (or at least, an increasing) appreciation for the role of the epiclesis in modern Reformed thinking.

      Reply
  23. Stanislaus Kosala

    What about the words of the Fifth Council of Florence that “The form of this sacrament are the words of the Saviour with which he effected this sacrament. A priest speaking in the person of Christ effects this sacrament. For, in virtue of those words, the substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ and the substance of wine into his blood.” ?
    Does this justify the belief that the bread and wine are changed in those moments?
    Also could there be an argument from practice, since the priest is instructed not only to adore the holy gifts with genuflections but to present them to the faithful for adoration? Can longstanding liturgical practice justify the belief that the bread and wine have already been changed?

    A friend who is Russian Orthodox once told me that they believe that the bread and wine brought in procession to the altar are taken to signify the dead body of Christ and during the anaphora they are changed into the resurrected body of Christ. Does anyone know more about this?

    Reply
  24. Padre Dave Poedel, STS

    If the priest would faint or die in the middle of the Eucharistic Prayer, could the Lutheran Pastor complete the prayer that results in a valid and licit Sacrament?

    (Sorry, I couldn’t resist….mea maxima culpa)

    From one who prays the Eucharistic Prayer with genuflections at each Mass, and who confesses the Real Presence of Jesus’ Body and Blood in the consecrated bread and wine, and who reserves the Sacrament for distribution to those absent or homebound/hospitalized.

    Reply
  25. Georgina Gerraghty

    I’m getting the impression that some people think the bread transubstantiates (for want of a better word) into the body of christ and the wine into the blood of christ after each individual section of the institution narrative respectively. My understanding is this would be incorrect as both species are required for a valid eucharist – you can’t just consecrate bread only (or wine only). Therefore if there is an exact moment of transformation (or transubstantiation), it would be after the blessing formula for the cup ie the mystery of faith proclamation – or both the elements become the body and blood of christ once the blessing over the cup has been completed.

    Reply
    1. Gerard Flynn

      I think you do need a better word theologically (quite apart from the jarring way you use it is an intransitive verb here.)

      Reply
    2. Jeffrey Pinyan

      Georgina, the consecration of one species without the other is considered a possibility by the Church.

      “It is absolutely forbidden, even in extreme urgent necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other or even both outside the eucharistic celebration.” (CIC 927)

      One of the grave offenses against the sanctity of the Eucharist is “the consecration for sacrilegious ends of one matter without the other in the celebration of the Eucharist or even of both outside the celebration of the Eucharist.” (Redemptionis Sacramentum, 172d)

      There is also the traditional explanation that the separate consecration of the bread first, followed by the wine, in the liturgy is a sign of the true death of Christ on the cross.

      “Cease not both to pray and to plead for me when you draw down the Word by your word, when with a bloodless cutting you sever the Body and Blood of the Lord, using your voice for the glaive.” (Gregory of Nazienzen, Epistle 171)

      “St. Albert: God shows his majesty above all by this […] that reigning in eternity, he is mystically slain upon the altar.” (Crean, The Mass and the Saints, p. 97)

      “The twofold consecration is a mystical shedding of blood and places before our eyes in a most lively manner the bloody death of Christ on the cross.” (Gihr, Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, p. 677)

      “‘The Christ of the Eucharistic Christ [is] the Christ of the past, the Christ of that state of immolation which prevailed on Calvary, when flesh and blood were separated.’ This view seems to be the more traditional one, most in consonance with the text of the Canon. By the double separate Consecration, we have vi verborum ‘mysteriously but really’ the Body separated from the Blood, we have again on the altar, not indeed the dead Christ, but the death of Christ really present, sacramentally present, in His memory.” (Murray, The Canon of the Mass, p. 9)

      Against all that, though, Mazza wrote in “The Eucharistic Prayers of the Roman Rite” (p. 273) that:

      “Nowadays, no one accepts the allegorical explanation of the bread separated from the wine as being an image of the death of Christ. […] The theory will not stand up because in the NT there is question not so much of the separation of the bread from the wine as of the distinction of two rites: the rite involving the bread is distinct from the rite involving the wine. From the outset, the two rites are separated by the course of the meal and are independent of one another. The meaning of the rite involving the bread must, therefore, be complete in itself, independent of the rite involving the cup. Only in the Matthew/Mark tradition are two rites set side by side so that they can take on a meaning that springs from the reciprocal relation thus established.”

      Reply
      1. Henry Edwards

        ““Nowadays, no one accepts the allegorical explanation …”

        Mazza is quite wrong. Many today maintain the traditional view of the Church that “the double (separate) consecration of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of our Lord represents the death of Christ by the separation of His Body and Blood” (as a recent EF missal note phrases it).

  26. John Swencki

    Yes, to HE….. At passover (in Jesus’ day) lambs were brought to the Temple to be ritually sacrificed, etc. There was alot of blood spilled from the bodies of those creatures. Blood separated from the body= death.

    At the Last Supper, the Lamb of God was making present the sacrifice that would occur on the altar of the Cross. His Blood would indeed be ‘separated’ from His body. “He took bread…. [then] He took the cup…..” Blood separated from the Body. Death. Sacrifice.

    The Mass makes present that sacrifice.

    Reply
    1. Jeffrey Pinyan

      Henry and John: I too understand the separate consecration to be a sign of the death of Christ (and the mingling of the Host and Chalice afterward to be a sign of His Resurrection). I think I had an idea of that already before I found it in my research on the prayers of the Mass in 2008.

      Here are a couple of other sources:

      “For the blood, separately consecrated, serves to place before the eyes of all, in a more forcible manner, the Passion of our Lord, His death, and the nature of His sufferings.” (Roman [Tridentine] Catechism)

      “He does not consecrate the bread and wine together, but separately. The separate consecration of the bread and wine is a symbolic representation of the separation of body and blood, and since the Crucifixion entailed that very mystery, Calvary is thus renewed on our altar.” (Fulton Sheen, Calvary and the Mass)

      This is how I distilled all this two years ago, concerning the memorial acclamation “When we eat this Bread…” (cf. 1 Cor 11:26): “The separate consecration of the bread and the wine is a sign of the true death of Jesus Christ: His blood was separated from His body. He gave up His body for us, and poured out His blood for the remission of sins. That, in itself, announces the death of the Lord. When we go a step further and actually consume His Body and Blood, we are fulfilling the command He gave at the Last Supper, because it is the sacrificial banquet in which we ratify our membership in the new covenant formed in Christ’s blood.”

      Reply
    2. Sean Parker

      That raises a question. What was the significance of bringing an animal to be sacrificed? What did it result in, other than a big pile of dead animals? Was it to represent that a person was willing to deprive himself of some of his property in order to “please” God, or were the animals used to feed the poor?

      I’m not criticizing, I’m merely curious.

      Reply
      1. Jeffrey Pinyan

        A) One thing the sacrificed animal were used for was food. When the 12 tribes of Israel parceled out the Promised Land, Levi (the tribe of priests) was not included — Joseph’s two sons’ tribes took the place of Joseph and Levi. The Levites’ “portion” was the Lord, instead. This meant that they lived off their cultic duties for Israel to God. This is described in Deut. 18.

        [1] The Levitical priests, that is, all the tribe of Levi, shall have no portion or inheritance with Israel; they shall eat the offerings by fire to the LORD, and his rightful dues. [2] They shall have no inheritance among their brethren; the LORD is their inheritance, as he promised them. [3] And this shall be the priests’ due from the people, from those offering a sacrifice, whether it be ox or sheep: they shall give to the priest the shoulder and the two cheeks and the stomach. [4] The first fruits of your grain, of your wine and of your oil, and the first of the fleece of your sheep, you shall give him. [5] For the LORD your God has chosen him out of all your tribes, to stand and minister in the name of the LORD, him and his sons for ever. […]

        Clericalism? Perhaps, but it was a trade-off. And the priests weren’t the only ones who got to eat of the sacrifices; consider the Passover lamb, for one.

        And many sacrifices were holocausts — what wasn’t eaten was wholly-burned; no pile of carcasses.

        B) Animals were sacrificed because of the concept that blood must be spilled to atone for (or “cover”) sin. Some commentators see the very first instance of this in Genesis 3. Adam and Eve, having sinned, cover themselves with leaves; but God covers them with animal skins… presumably at the cost of some animal’s life. Then Abel, the shepherd, sacrifices from his flock, and God is pleased, whereas Cain sacrifices grain and fruit, and God is not pleased (for a variety of reasons).

        C) Another theory is that certain animals were sacrificed because of their association with pagan deities. By sacrificing these animals, God was showing the Israelites that the animals were just animals, not “divine” beings, not living idols, etc., in contrast to Himself, the living and true God.

      2. John Swencki

        The notion of ‘sacrifice’ is something that has been a part of most religions’ and spiritualities’ vocabularies from time immemorial. The idea of honoring/appeasing the Giver(s) of gifts by returning some of those gifts through ritual sacrifice was something even the pagans practiced. It was a very human sentiment, and so it became a permanent part of religious lexicon.
        btw… in the Gospel where Jesus sends the demons into the swine, and those swine run off a cliff and drowned. Exorcised or not, I don’t think the neighborhood was too pleased. Can you imagine the stench?? Worse than Lazarus after 4 days.

  27. John Swencki

    Yes, but we know the commingling of the Host & Chalice as symbolizing the resurrection is an accommodated meaning’ the action originally had a different meaning.

    Remember the old Sequence on Corpus Christi that reassured us that if a HOst is broken, Christ is not “lessened”, “that is one receives a part or if one receives the whole, in both cases one receives the enitre Christ.” “There is a breaking of the sign not of the Christ.”
    In receiving either One of the Species, one receives the entire Christ. Receiving both Species has “Sign value”.

    Might similar reasoning, vis a vis sign value, exist in the separate consecrations of B & Wine at Mass?

    Reply
    1. Jeffrey Pinyan

      The mingling of the Host and Chalice comes in three forms: the sancta, the fermentum, and a third (not associated with the papal liturgy). The sancta and fermentum pertained to ecclesial unity and the continuity or one-ness of the sacrament throughout time and space, but there were also associations noted by Jungmann with the one-ness of the sacrament under its two forms and the resurrection:

      “While in the oldest documents the commingling … was interpreted as the union of the two species to constitute one single whole … Syrian documents seem to indicate … a deeper significance. … After Christ’s body and blood has been re-presented under the two separate species by the double Consecration, and his Passion and death had thereby been symbolized, the sacred gifts had to be re-presented now before Communion as the food of immortality, as the living unity of risen Lord’s body and blood.” (“The Mass”, p. 208)

      Reply
  28. John Swencki

    Group:
    Re: the above remarks about adding blessed water/oil to unblessed water/ol to make “more”……

    WHat are your thoughts….. on Ash Wednesday, presiders blessings ashes that had already been blessed at an earlier service? (Whether or not more ashes had been added to the mix.) Is it really correct to “re-bless” the ashes so that the blessing can be witnessed by successive congregations?

    Reply
    1. Karl Liam Saur

      Well, you know, mess around with them thar ashes, and you’ll have a Revolution….

      Reply
  29. John Swencki

    You say you wanta Revolution, well, you know… we WANNA change the world…..
    (Beside Mathew, Mark Luke and John I also grew with Paul, John, George and Ringo. Yeah, yeah, yeah)

    Reply
  30. Mark MIller

    #51 Luther on the Verba
    Yes, I think the reformers and Lutherans in particular kept the emphasis on the Words. But look what they did with that idea!
    For Luther and the reformers the words say what is true, and so it is, for it is the word of God. it is not the proper pronounciation of a validly ordained secerdos.

    The Word “does” it, in all things. The Good News, the Gospel, which is not any one set of words, is the saving power of God to “work faith” in the hearer.

    Same point of emphasis, but a very different idea of how the power of God is mediated. NOT through a power of priesthood, NOT in the control of a legal authority but simply the Word of God, which is free, and belongs to GOD.

    There– why there was a reformation.

    Reply
    1. Jeffrey Pinyan

      Did Luther do away with the ministerial priesthood altogether, or could any Lutheran then (or now) walk up to the table to recite/pray the Institution Narrative over the bread and wine?

      Yes, it is the Word that does it, but the Word’s words must be spoken again, no? Chrysostom said that there is one Eucharist, consecrated by the words of Christ once and for all at the Last Supper, so that every “other” consecration of the bread and wine is an extension of the one and only consecration, by the power of Christ. So it is the Word and His words. But those words must be repeated… or, in the case of the narrativeless Addai and Mari anaphora, they must be represented euchologically.

      The “power of the priesthood” to confect the Eucharist is not an absolute power, which (I think) is why the Roman Church has been so insistent on determining the proper form and matter for the Eucharist: to show that it is the Lord Who works, not the priest alone. The priest cannot “make” the Eucharist out of whatever he feels like using, or with whatever words he feels like using. This is the system of “checks and balances” in the ministerial priesthood.

      Reply
      1. Jordan Zarembo

        re; Jeffrey Pinyan on January 14, 2012 – 7:11 pm

        Martin Luther writes in his introduction to Chapter 6 of Pagan Servitude of the Church, titled “Ordination”:

        “A promise of grace is nowhere given, nor does the whole of the New Testament contain a passage with any allusion to it. It is ridiculous to assert what can nowhere be proved to have be instituted by God is nevertheless a sacrament.”

        — “Pagan Servitude of the Church”. Martin Luther, Selections from his Writings. ed. and intro, John Dillenberger. (New York: Anchor, 1962) 340

        The priesthood of baptism, of the common believer, cannot be a barrier to what Rome considers the sole province of priests i.e. the celebration of the Eucharist (“Pagan Servitude”, 345) Indeed, it is the calling forth of a believer from a congregation which is the ratification of the pastorate, and not what Luther considers the human institution of ontological ordination (“Pagan Servitude”, 349)

        Modern Lutheran communities struggle with the question of lay presidency. Quite a few Lutheran blogs have had extensive discussions about the role of the pastor versus a lay presider. American Lutherans also struggle with pastorless parishes, as we do with priestless parishes. I have sometimes thought that the simplex priesthood, a rough analogue to lay ministry in Lutheranism, should be revived in Roman Catholicism. Perhaps deacons could be ordained priests after a more limited course of theological study without the need to learn Latin, Greek, intensive theology, or the ministration of individual Confession (simplex priests could use the public form of confession with individual absolution but not individual counsel).

        Perhaps different Christian communities can learn from one anothers’ lack of sufficient clergy and apply this knowledge within the distinctive framework of each community.

      2. Jordan Zarembo

        re: Jordan Zarembo on January 15, 2012 – 10:23 pm

        Fr. Brian van Hove’s article Simplex Priests Now! (online version taken from Homiletic and Pastoral Review, June/July 2011) provides a succinct and plausible case for the ordination of simplex priests.

        The danger with a revival of the simplex priest is the possibility that the simplex priest would be viewed as a “less than” priest because of the inability to preach or hear confessions. I have noticed irrational biases about permanent deacons (they’re married!), though quite thankfully prejudices against permanent deacons have begun to subside. Perhaps the same could be said of simplex priests in due time.

  31. John Swencki

    A few years ago -for a short while- the ordained Catholic clergy (even clergy saints) were called (in liturgical contects) “presbyters” instead of “priests” to emphasize the unique priesthood of Christ and the ordaineds’ sharing in it. It highlighted the once-and-for-all sacrifice of Jesus. It caused us tro stop and reflect once again on what ‘happens’ and Mass, ‘how’ and by Whom. It caused uto enter into deeper reflection on the role liturgy plays in making ‘past’ events ‘present’. We reaxamine the roles of ‘intention’, matter and form, validity/licitness and discover that while our giving voice to the Verbum’s verba, His verba are quite independent of any of our own actions. If Abraham could raise up descendents from rocks, Jesus can make Himself present as imperishable food in ways we can’t begin to understand. But still, we follow proper ‘matter and form’ not that Jesus make accomplish but that we may begin to comprehend.

    Reply
    1. Brigid Rauch

      But still, we follow proper ‘matter and form’ not that Jesus make accomplish but that we may begin to comprehend.

      I think that is a very important statement and a good measuring stick for every variation of Liturgy.

      Reply
    2. Karl Liam Saur

      “But still, we follow proper ‘matter and form’ not that Jesus make accomplish but that we may begin to comprehend.”

      And, no less, because of our own weakness: centuries of experience tell us that, when there is uncertainty about whether a sacrament has been confected, there will normally be far more trouble than is worth the whatever was gained by creating the uncertainty by some deliberate act or omission. Recreating the wheel produces anxiety that tends to be enslaving in nature, and that’s not typically of Christ, however good the intentions along the way. We should all know (at least by midlife) that good intentions do not suffice, except in a sentimental view of life.

      Reply
      1. Brigid Rauch

        We do have to reach a balance. Making a fetish of proper form and matter leads to a misunderstanding, a replacement of Mystery with mere magic.

  32. John Swencki

    #73………. I forget who I was reading or speaking with about proper “matter” for the Eucharist. The writer/speaker guessed that leavened bread (or even other food) MIGHT be ‘consecratable’, but HE KNOWS FOR SURE the bread prescribed for our rite is ‘valid and licit’ and so uses it exclusively. ANd so, as you wrote, Karl, he need not be worried about the validity/effectivenes of the consecration.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *