Lost in Translation #166
As the priest says the adjuration to the Embolism (per eumdem Dominum nostrum…), he breaks the Host in two and then breaks off a small particle. Laying down the two large halves on the paten, he holds the particle over the chalice, makes the sign of the cross three times with it, and says Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum, that is, “May the peace of the Lord be with you always.” The servers, congregation, or choir reply: Et cum spiritu tuo. The priest then drops the particle into the chalice as he says:
Haec commixtio et consecratio Corporis et Sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi, fiat accipientibus nobis in vitam aeternam. Amen.
Which I translate as:
May this mingling and consecrating of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ be, for us who are receiving it, for life everlasting. Amen.
Since the Middle Ages, the actions accompanying this prayer have been interpreted allegorically. As we noted in an earlier post, the death of Our Lord Jesus Christ is mystically represented at the Canon’s closing doxology by five signs of the cross, the first three hearkening to His three hours on the Cross and the last two signifying the separation of Christ’s soul from His body. And according to William Durandus, the three prayers that follow the Canon – the Praeceptis salutaribus, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Embolism – remind us of the three days that Our Lord’s body lay lifeless in the Sepulcher. [1]
Following this line of thought, the separation of the two halves of the Host represents the cleaving of Christ’s flesh when the soldier pierced His side with a lance (John 19, 34), while the placement of the particle in the chalice represents the Resurrection, the reunion of Christ’s body, blood, and soul. On Good Friday, Christ’s blood was separated from His body (tradition holds that He was all but exsanguinated) and His soul from His body, His soul descending to limbo and His body placed in the Sepulcher. (His divinity, on the other hand, remained present to all three). On that first Easter Sunday, all that had been sundered on Good Friday was reunited and glorified, never to be separated again.
The 1970 Missal lacks this symbolism, in part because the fraction rite was moved to a different location (which we will discuss in a later post). A.W.J. Keyzer writes of this part of the Novus Ordo:
The meaning of the fractio panis is ambiguous. It is a sign of unity. We participate in the one bread, we are part of it. This sign of unity concerns the community itself. It is also a sign of unity with Christ. A second meaning of the fractio panis lies in the breaking itself. The breaking, taken literally, is a condition for participation. The first Christians recognized the Lord in this ritual; it is even the name for Missa. In number 130, no prescriptions are included regarding the proper manner in which the host should be broken. The host is broken into a number of pieces, one of which is placed in the chalice. [2]
Peter J. Elliott concurs:
The third moment in the fourfold action of Jesus Christ is the “Breaking of the Bread”, or fraction. This practical action signifies that, in Communion, the many faithful are made one body in Christ, the one Bread (cf. 1 Corinthians 10, 17)….The breaking of the Host(s) is carried out over the paten(s), not over the chalice(s). [3]
All rites, Eastern and Western, have a fraction rite in which a particle from a newly consecrated Host is placed into the newly consecrated Precious Blood, but the city of Rome had two additional practices. First, in the titular churches, a particle of a Host consecrated at a papal Mass called the fermentum was dropped into the chalice to signify the presbyterate’s unity with their bishop. (Fortescue speculates that the Latin fermentum was chosen for this particle in part to convey the idea that it unites the bishop to his priests as leaven unites bread.) [4] Second, there was another custom of dropping a particle of a Host consecrated at a previous Mass (this one called the sancta) to express “the continuous unity of the eucharistic sacrifice” from one Mass to the next. [5]
No custom, however, quite explains the appearance of consecratio in the prayer, which gives the impression that the Host and Precious Blood have not yet been consecrated – and if they have been consecrated (and of course they have), it seems pointless to consecrate now what was maximally consecrated at the Words of Institution. Finally, there is something mildly ironic about using “consecration,” which means to set apart, in a prayer that is recited when putting two things together. The word choice was so perplexing that it was a topic of conversation at the Council of Trent. [6] Jungmann’s interpretation is:
The word consecratio, which stayed in the text in spite of the objections brought against it, and in spite of the fact that it was missing in some medieval texts here and there, must be rendered by “hallowing” in the sense that through the commingling a sacred token or symbol is effected in the sacramental species and mediately in the Body and Blood of Christ. [7]
I also believe that the word can be translated in light of the symbolic action that it accompanies. If we keep in mind that the chalice containing the particle represents the Risen Lord, I suggest the following: “May this coming together and setting apart of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ…” The “coming together” alludes to the Resurrection, and the “setting apart” can refer to Christ’s glorified Body, which is set apart insofar as it is different from our current bodies and certainly more special. The Ambrosian Rite uses the formula: Haec commixtio consecrati corporis et sanguinis, “This mingling of the consecrated body and blood of Christ.” No doubt, “consecrated” refers to the sacramental action that has just taken place, but it too can be construed in a wider sense as Christ’s glorified Body.
“Hard sayings” are not the Novus Ordo’s forte, and so the offending word was removed in the 1970 Missal. The current prayer is:
Hac commixtio Corporis et Sanguinis Domini nostri Iesu Christi fiat accipientibus nobis in vitam aternam. No. 129
Which both the 1985 and 2011 ICEL versions translate as:
May this mingling of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ bring eternal life to us who receive it.
Most other translations follow suit, although oddly, the Mexican, Italian, and French versions add the line “united in this chalice” after “Lord Jesus Christ.” [8]
Notes
[1] William Durandus, Rationale Divinorum Officionorum IV.47.3.
[2] A.W.J. Keyzer, Om voor Gods gelaat te staan. Een expositio missae (Baarn: Gooi & Sticht, 1999), 193.
[3] Peter J. Elliott, Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite, 2nd ed. (Ignatius Press, 2005), nos. 324 and 325.
[4] Fortescue, 24.
[5] Jungmann, vol. 2, 312.
[6] See Jungmann, 311-313.
[7] Jungmann, 316.
[8] The Mexican Missal has El Cuerpo y la Sangre de nuestro Señor Jesucristo, unidos en este cáliz, sean para nosotros alimento de vida eterna. The third edition of the Italian Missal has Il Corpo e il Sangue del Signore nostro Gesù Cristo, uniti in questo calice, siano per noi cibo di vita eterna (p. 447). And the French has Que le Corps et le Sang de notre Seigneur Jésus Christ, réunis dans cette coupe, nourrissent en nous la vie éternelle.
