www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Words of Consecration

Greeting to All in Christ,

During Divine Liturgy, the priest says "Drink of this, all of you, this is my Blood of the new testament, which is shed for you and for many, for the remission of sins".

During the Latin Mass, the priest says " ...which is shed for all for the remission of sins".

The Divine Liturgy wording is exactly the same as what's in my bible. And, if I can remember correctly, that was also the way it used to be said at the Latin Mass.

Does anyone know who changed it, when, why?

Loretta

The latin "pro omnis" (for all) in the missal of Paul VI in the Novus Ordo was a change from "pro multis" (for many) in the previous missal of 1962 which had also been used in most previous written versions of the latin missal.

Who exactly did this, I don't know, I've heard that the Paul VI missal was largely the work of Anatole Bugnini, but anyway it has the imprimatur of Pope Paul VI and his letter of promulgation.

The "Novus Ordo" Mass still has "pro multis" (literally "for many.")

An interesting subject...

Whether these are the "Words of Consecration" or the "Words of Institution" might be another

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

That is an interesting question regarding the various Latin versions of the Novus Ordo...I have seen "pro omnis" in some in the Latin versions, albeit all after 1970s...

That's a loaded question about institution vs. consecration...in the older Roman Canon thee is not an explicit epiclesis, only the implicit of "supplices te rogamus" in the 1962 and earlier missals. For the Novus Ordo I guess it depends on which Eucharistic Prayer is taken, but none have the explicit declatory epiclesis as in the Byzantine liturgies of St. John Chrysystom and St. Basil.

As was noted, the offical Latin is "pro multis" -- while the vernacular translation in about 20 different languages is "for all." The theology behind this is simple: Christ died once for all. When Rome was working on the Mass of Paul VI the emphasis was on the efficacy of the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus. That not all will benefit from this death and resurrection is a possibility. The Church has not made any formal declaration that all will be saved (the "apokatastasis").

And, those are from the words of institution, not the words of consecration which, according to Latin theology are "This is my body" and "this is my blood". But since those words aren't found in the Anaphora of Adai and Mari they may not actually be required, even under Roman theological constraints.

Edward, deacon and sinner

The entire Divine Liturgy constitutes a single, unified consecratory act. One cannot point to a "decisive momement", nor can one divide the liturgy into essential and incidental elements, as some Scholastics tried to do to the Mass. The Latin Church is coming back to the patristic understanding of the entire Mass as a consecratory act, and no longer focuses itself on subsidiary, indeed, irrelevant issues such as "when" the transformation of the gifts occurs, nor even, for that matter, on the "how". It is enough simply to know that the bread and wine are transformed.

Forgive me, an old and VERY sentimental old man but I still weep profusely when the realization hits me that the Most Holy One gives Himself to us poor, sinful and fragile creatures, under the humble forms of bread and wine. Saint Julie Billiart used to exclaim "Oh how good is the good God!"!
Monk Silouan

Stuart, I can't agree with your statement about the Latin Church coming around to a more patristic notion of the entire liturgical act vs. consecration.

Article 1377 from the Cathechism of the Catholic Church:

The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins AT THE MOMENT (my emphasis) of the CONSECRATION and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist...etc.

Very little difference between the new Cathechism and the Baltimore on that point.

[ 09-08-2002: Message edited by: Diak ]

Diak wrote:


While the CCC does refer to a `moment of consecration' it does not specify when that moment is. Interestingly, there is a considerable amount of discussion on the epiclesis in the CCC.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Yes, the sections 1105-1109 are a BIG step forward in a more organic understanding of the action of the Holy Spirit. Any specific mention of the action of the Holy Spirit was generally absent from older catechisms. However none of these sections relate to any specific aspect or textural references of the Roman liturgy. Still a little ambiguous.

But the language of paragraph 1377 and the fact that it is phsicially separated in the text from 1105-1108 still indicate that ol' Roman tendency of defining the moment (as the text itself uses the term) of when 'zap' the consecration takes place is still around. Was 1105 put in to placate Eastern Catholics ? One cannot really 'organicially' discuss the liturgy one without the other (epiclesis/consecration) simultaneously.

I'm not making any judgement good or bad about that, the theologians need to work that out. I'm just pointing out that the "momental" thinking is still around. I guess from the "glass half full" perspective I will concede that this is a gradual improvement in general liturgical thinking that epiclectic thought is even present in any Latin catechism.

On a tangent about the CCC, I heard a lecture from Fr. Andriy Chirovsky once when he made the case that the Cathechism of the Catholic Church doesn't necessarily apply to Eastern Catholics since the entire first section is premised on a Roman creed (Apostles Creed) and not the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed which is the universal creed of the Eastern Catholic Churches. The fact that the Apostles Creed, a Roman creed, was used as the basis for the CCC and not the Nicean-Constatinopolitan does seem somewhat exclusive.

As always, what the CCC says does not coincide with the thinking of theologians within the Catholic Church, including within the Congregationfor the Doctrine of the Faith. We need to note that there are within the Catholic communion particular Churches whose Eucharistic liturgy does not in fact contain an institution narrative at all--yet the Church assures us that the giftsare transformed. Conversely, there is within the old Roman Canon no explicit epiclesis--yet for a thousand years the Churches of the East were satisfied that the gifts were transformed (the notion, put out by some Orthodox zealots, that the Roman rite originally HAD an Epiclesis, but that Rome suppressed it is false: the absence of an Epiclesis in the Roman Canon is witnessed by all the ancient texts, and is in fact evidence of the antiquity of the Canon).

The CCC is, as always, something intended for consumption by the laity, and thus remains one, and sometimes two generations behind the thinking of the Church. The fact is, since the Patristic revolution that began in the middle of the 20th century, the Latin Church has been moving steadily towards what are customarily considered "Eastern" positions, but which rightfully should be called "Catholic" positions, as they are the patrimony of the undivided Church.

Stuart,

You are quite correct that the Eastern Church has always looked at the confection of the Eucarist as process rather than event. The Latin Church, on the other hand, is far more into detailed definition and, therefore, was more interested in the question of when Christ was made present under the forms of bread and wine, and how long that presence lasted.

While there has been a subtle shift of emphasis away from the "moment" the Latin Church is still very Latin in its thinking. Thanks to the Melkite voice for bringing the Orthodox thinking to Vatican II, there has been a greater emphasis on the epiclesis -- but that again requires a focus on a particular time. It's hard to get away from that mindset.

Edward, deacon and sinner

Dear Edward and Stuart,

I think that when all is said and done, every Particular Church will emphasize in the Liturgy its own theological perspective of the Eucharist.

In the L'viv theological seminary, there were what were called "Extreme Epiclesists" like Fr. Kostelnyk, who believed the Epiclesis to be something of a "Formula of Consecration."

Others, like my wife's grandfather, Fr. Stepan Chabursky who wrote "Epiclesis," believed with Goar that there is a "double consecration" in the liturgy, both by the Words of Institution and the Epiclesis where the latter involves more of an invitation to the Spirit to transfigure us and to fill the Holy Gifts with "spiritual vitamins" as he put it for the communicants' benefit etc.

In our pew-books, there is no doubt as to what the official Eparchy view is - the change is completed with the Words of Institution and the people are asked to stand following them without a care for the Epiclesis that follows . . .

The Western Church solemnizes the moment of Consecration following the Words of Institution and this will always characterize its perspective. Even when it received an Epiclesis, it placed it BEFORE the Words of Institution, thereby making it fruitful from the Eastern perspective.

The East will always see the transmutation as the fruit of Pentecost and the Descent of the Holy Spirit, as it sees this in the action of all other Mysteries and Blessings.

And other Churches, like the Assyrian, definitely underscore the entire Liturgy as the Consecratory Act.

Certainly, Christ is present from the very beginning of the Liturgy.

But the Church should allow for diversity and nothing is served by imposing either Latinization or Byzantinization on one or the other.

Alex

Yes, as Eastern Catholics an concerned, the CCC was only to apply to the Roman Particular Church tradition and her members, not the numerous "sui juris" and Patriarchial Particular Eastern Christian Churches (in union with Rome). Eastern Particular Churches (again, not Rites) however, are to adhere to the new Canon Law (even though written by the Holy See) for the Eastern Catholic Churches, using that (along with their own particular interpretation for thier own
"Particular Church's tradition) as a Catechism.

Ung-Certez

The words of the consacration in the ancient christian church have never been a condition "si ne qua non" for the validity of the Liturgy.
In the Chaldean-Assyrian Rite (Anaphora of St Addai and Mari, a primitive expresion of christian worship) the words of the consacration are not present, but their liturgy is entirely valid. They do not use the words of the consacration because of their sacredness (those words were so sacred that they had to be protected from any contact with the pagans).

The problem of the New Mass of the Western Church is its ambiguous content. It's clear that the main purpose of the Eucharist and the Real Presence have been affected by new incorrect interpretations (memorial of the last supper, the bread and wine as fruits of the human work, all men go to heaven). In this new version, the presence of Chirst in the Eucharist could be understood as a spiritual presence (like in protestantism).

St Mathew:

And taking the chalice, He gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: "Drink ye all of this. For this is My Blood of the new testament...

St Mark:

And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, He gave it to them. And they all drank of it. And He said to them: "This is My Blood of the new testament...

Novus Ordo - BCP

He gave the cup to His Disciples and said: "This is the cup of My Blood, the Blood of the new and everlasting covenant.
It will be shed for you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven."

This should be understood in a conservative way: Christ shed his blood to save all men, and all men can potentially get their salvation, but not all of them will get this salvation.