Words of Consecration: present tense vs. future tense

I know the words of consecration in the Roman Rite are not strictly Scriptural, but I am curious why the verb tense is changed from present to future.

In the Ordinary Form, the words are:

ACCÍPITE ET MANDUCÁTE EX HOC OMNES: HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, QUOD PRO VOBIS TRADÉTUR

ACCÍPITE ET BÍBITE EX EO OMNES: HIC EST ENIM CALIX SÁNGUINIS MEI NOVI ET AETÉRNI TESTAMÉNTI, QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDÉTUR IN REMISSIÓNEM PECCATÓRUM. HOC FÁCITE IN MEAM COMMEMORATIÓNEM

The bolded words are “will be given up” and “will be shed”.

In the Extraordinary Form, the words (for the chalice) are:

HIC EST ENIM CALIX SÁNGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETÉRNI TESTAMÉNTI: MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDÉTUR IN REMISSIÓNEM PECCATÓRUM

The bolded word is “will be shed”.

Concerning the bread, the Latin Vulgate reads:

quod pro vobis datur” (Luke 22:19)

And concerning the chalice, the Latin Vulgate reads:

qui pro multis effunditur” (Matthew 26:28)
qui pro multis effunditur” (Mark 14:24)
quod pro vobis funditur” (Luke 22:20)

All of these are in the present tense. (The Douay-Rheims translate all but one of them – Luke 22:19 – into the future tense.) The Greek agrees with the Latin (being in the present tense) in all four verses.

So why did the Church adopt the future tense for the words of Consecration?

I think this goes back to an explanation that the Holy Father gave in either a homily or a general audience catechesis. The Last Supper anticipates what will happen at both the Crucifixion and the Resurrection. Jesus anticipates His death and the shedding of His Blood on the night before He died. Thus, he speaks in the present, “This is my body” and in the future “which will be given up for you” and “This is my Blood” in the present “which will be shed” in the future. That “future” is the crucifixion, which occurs on the next day.

As Pope Benedict noted, we cannot have the Last Supper without the Crucifixion and the Resurrection and we cannot have the Crucifixion without the Last Supper and the Resurrection. And, we cannot have the Resurrection without the Last Supper and the Crucifixion.

Japhy,

Looks to be an interesting thread.

I don’t have the chops really to contribute much substantially, but perhaps I can ask some clarifying questions and contribute references/sources that might be of use.

First question: can you provide the whole Vulgate sentence for Matthew, Mark and Luke? A link to the Vulgate?

I keep finding quotes from the Vulgate online that have effundetur, and not *effunditur. *Can you shed some light on that?

Thanks,
VC

VC,

Effunditur is the present tense while effundētur is in the future tense.

Right passus, I understand, but my question was about the Latin Vulgate that japhy is quoting from. In japhy’s post he has:

And concerning the chalice, the Latin Vulgate reads:

qui pro multis effunditur” (Matthew 26:28)
qui pro multis effunditur” (Mark 14:24)
quod pro vobis funditur” (Luke 22:20)

But I’ve seen a “vulgate” that has effundetur in this place.

Can you shed some light on that? Was I looking at a different “vulgate”?

thanks,
VC

Maybe I just dreamed it.

I just looked at the Nova Vulgata on vatican.va and see that it is *effunditur, *just as japhy has it rendered above.

japhy – are these consistent in every vulgate version?

VC

The verb tense is the same in the Latin Vulgate and the Biblia Nova Vulgata in all four verses.

I found an example here. I also found that here (newadvent’s copy of the Clementine Vulgate).

The Vulgate I use is from drbo.org; the Nova Vulgata I use is from vatican.va.

It seems to me that benedictgal’s explanation is correct in the context of the Latin Rite.

FWIW, in the Syriac Anaphorae, the verb is maintained in the present tense.

japhy,

what do you think about the various renderings across the different vulgate versions? If you read some authors who address it (for instance Gihr in The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass) they quote from the Clementine Vulgate, and thus the vulgate matches the liturgy, both using *effundetur.

*Do you have any thoughts?

VC

I found the Gihr book on books.google.com. Curious about that.

I’m gonna ask about these multiple Vulgates on the Traditional subforum.

Japhy,

Yeah. If you haven’t had a chance to read Gihr (or at least parts of it) it is well worth it.

In regard to the current thread, do a search on google books in Gihr for effundetur and read around it (pg 93 on or so?). Very interesting, no?

VC

That’s exactly where I was! :slight_smile:

The Vulgate version that uses the future tense only does so in three of the four places (referring to the blood). The present tense is used in Luke 22:19 (referring to the body). Curious to me…

japhy,

Doesn’t Gihr reference that? He seems to be indicating that the original Greek language (and the Vulgate) have the present tense in Luke (for the Body) and the future tense in the others for the Chalice of the Blood. Do you see what I am referring to?

VC

Actually, I myself am not so sure what I am referring to! I’m struggling to understand exactly what Gihr is saying in his footnote about the original text (the Greek) and the Vulgate text ‘saying the same thing but in a different manner’. The bit about the direct and indirect offerings.

VC

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.