Quick question on the Consecration at Mass

(Assuming consecration doesn’t happen at the epiklesis, and that this is the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite)

When the priest says:
**“Take this, all of you, and eat of it: for this is my body which will be given up for you.” **, then the Host is transubstantiated, but the wine is not transubstantiated, right?

and when the priest says:
Take this, all of you, and drink from it:
for this is the chalice of my blood,
the blood of the new and eternal covenant.
which will be poured out for you and for many
for the forgiveness of sins .
Do this in memory of me.

Then the wine is finally transubstantiated, right?

A simple “yes” would answer the question, I don’t want to this thread to drag on. Thank you, God bless

Yes.

Is there a citation from a Church document that you can point us to that affirms this?

I was taught that we don’t know, precisely, when the consecration is complete – just that we know it hasn’t happened prior to the Eucharistic Prayer and we know it’s complete at the conclusion of the Eucharistic Prayer.

Among many places one may turn to answer your question, the easiest is the rubrics of the Eucharistic prayer itself:

In the formulas that follow, the words of the Lord should be pronounced clearly and distinctly, as the nature of these words requires.

For on the night he was betrayed
He takes the bread
and, holding it slightly raised above the altar, continues:
he himself took bread,
and, giving you thanks, he said the blessing,
broke the bread and gave it to his disciples, saying:
He bows slightly.
Take this, all of you, and eat of it,
for this is my Body,
which will be given up for you.
He shows the consecrated host to the people, places it again on the paten, and genuflects in adoration.
111.
After this, he continues:
In a similar way, when supper was ended,
He takes the chalice
and, holding it slightly raised above the altar, continues:
he took the chalice,
and, giving you thanks, he said the blessing,
and gave the chalice to his disciples, saying:
He bows slightly.
Take this, all of you, and drink from it,
for this is the chalice of my Blood,
the Blood of the new and eternal covenant,
which will be poured out for you and for many
for the forgiveness of sins.
Do this in memory of me.
He shows the chalice to the people, places it on the corporal, and genuflects in adoration.

Thank you for the response, God bless you

You are very welcomed.

Aah… I was thinking of the validity of the Mass, not the validity of the consecration. :thumbsup:

Of course, this does not indicate when the transubstantiation takes place. However it may be concluded that it has most likely taken place by that time in the Eucharistic Prayer. But the Missal is not a theological tome, so may be a poor source for such “proof”.

After all, the consecrated bread is still referred to as bread after the mass as in the epistles (and possibly Acts). And the wine is also still in the form of wine.

I was reviewing this on my last retreat in the Catholic Encyclopedia. And no conclusion was offered there. Only a few theories.

I have been taught it is not consecrated before the Eucharistic Prayer, and is transubstantiated by the Great Amen. I also believe it can be narrowed more quite easily, but I believe if the Eucharistic Prayer has begun and the priest dies or is taken ill. Another priest must be called to conclude the prayer as the transubstantiation MAY have taken place.

But why does it matter? Are we Ancient Greeks and must pin down each physical and spiritual matter to exact time and space? Be content to accept a little mystery in the Sacred Mysteries.

It does indicate when transubstantiation occurs.

The original poster asked for a simple response and source.

If you believe that one of the most preeminent theological loci to turn to is “poor”…I cannot imagine how you arrive at such a conclusion… then you could directly consult De Defectibus…or for that matter simply go to Dz…in any of its iterations.

The form in confecting the sacrament is not a matter of speculation. It is definitive.

The matter has been rendered far more precise than you indicate.

This is what I was getting at, as well. Looking back at it, though, it seems that this particular discussion deals with the validity of the Mass, rather than of the species themselves.

Is ‘transubstantiation’ complete prior to the end of the Eucharistic Prayer? Hardly. Is the consecration invalid if only one species is consecrated? No. Is it complete, however? Again, no.

[quote=Don Ruggerio]If you believe that one of the most preeminent theological loci
[/quote]

Is the Roman Missal a theological locus or a liturgical locus? It would seem that it’s the latter. :shrug:

Transubstantation occurs, wholly and completely, in an instant of time.

Is the Roman Missal a theological locus or a liturgical locus? It would seem that it’s the latter. :shrug:

Liturgical texts – and the liturgy – are a theological locus. That is fundamental in theological methodology.

Your initial response to the OP seems to indicate that it occurs in two distinct instants in time. :wink:

Liturgical texts – and the liturgy – are a theological locus. That is fundamental in theological methodology.

Hmm. What, then, is implied by the fact that liturgical texts change over time? Does the theology change, when the liturgical text changes? :wink:

You may consult ST III, q. 75, art. 2 as well as art. 7.

Beyond that, I refer the point to the moderator of the forum as she has repeatedly and insistently asked in this sub-forum that we not exceed the scope of the original poster and their post…which, in this case, even asked for only a yes or no answer and specifically asked that the thread not be prolonged, which subsequent posters are doing.

Yes… in speaking of the species of bread, III.75.7 does speak of an ‘instantaneous’ change. Looking at the liturgical action, however, we see that the action is not complete until the consecration of the wine is complete.

Beyond that, I refer the point to the moderator of the forum as she has repeatedly and insistently asked in this sub-forum that we not exceed the scope of the original poster and their post…which, in this case, even asked for only a yes or no answer and specifically asked that the thread not be prolonged, which subsequent posters are doing.

Fair enough. That is… if the original question admitted of a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’. If it’s not as simple as that – which it may not be (after all, what can we say about consecrated bread in the absence of consecrated wine, in the context of the Eucharistic liturgy?) – begging the OP’s indulgence on the request of the length of the discussion hardly seems like a forum infraction. :wink:

The question of the original poster readily admits of an extremely simple answer. Which was given in the thread’s second post.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.