The moment of consecration.

Mark Plaiss is correct to note that the Vatican's recognition of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is, in many ways, exceptional ("This, Too, Is My Body," May 19). I suspect, however, that the decision was meant primarily as an ecumenical gesture toward the Assyrian Church; I doubt that it signals any theological reversal on the consecration of the bread and wine. Plaiss's piece thus seems off the mark.

Plaiss rightly insists that the entire Eucharistic Prayer is important, and that it is only "by faith" that we believe the bread and wine to become Christ's body and blood "sometime" during the Eucharistic Prayer. Still, theological reflection permits us to say more. The early church fathers saw no problem with asserting both that the Eucharist is confected per precem ("through prayer") and that, after enunciating the words of Jesus ("This is my body ..."), the bread is no longer bread but Christ's body. Plaiss's citations from the Catechism and the New General Instruction retrieve this both/and patristic mindset. Even so, one can ask if the entire Eucharistic Prayer is equally sanctifying. Aren't the words of institution more important in this regard than, say, the words of petition for the unity of the church?

Absent from Plaiss's piece is any attention to the sacrificial reality of the Eucharist. It is neither only--nor ultimately--prayer that is offered to God during the Eucharistic liturgy. As a re-presentation of the sacrifice of redemption, the Eucharist naturally emphasizes the narrative of the Last Supper, at which Jesus willingly offers himself for the sins of the world. If the church offers this same sacrifice in the course of the Eucharistic Prayer, granting an exalted role to the words of institution is hardly "misleading." Indeed, even though Addai and Mari lacks Jesus' dicta from the Supper, Jesus' sacrificial intention is most evident, which may be why the Vatican can identify its "continuity with the Last Supper."

While I don't miss the ringing of bells during the Eucharist, that "ringing" still sounds (albeit inaudibly) in the gestures of genuflection or bowing that follow Jesus' words. This highlighting of the words of institution reflects a deep truth about our experience of liturgical prayer. We would like to think that our prayer is devoutly attentive, and that our desire and intention are always pure, especially when participating in the "Great Prayer" of thanksgiving and consecration. But experience teaches us something different. Attention comes only (and intermittently) with long practice, along with occasional visitations of grace. Given this reality, it seems wise that the church underscores the only words of the Eucharistic Prayer that are infallibly pure and efficacious, namely, those spoken in persona Christi.

Why haven't we "heard more" about the Addai and Mari statement? I'd wager that it is because the hierarchy does not see its decision as incompatible with Roman theology concerning the words of institution. Christ's dicta stand as the fulcrum of the Eucharistic Prayer, even when we understand the entire prayer as sanctifying.

MICHON M. MATTHIESEN

Brookline, Mass.

THE AUTHOR REPLIES:

Michon Matthiesen wonders if "one can ask if the entire Eucharistic Prayer is equally sanctifying." The answer is obviously yes; the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is proof of that. Since the anaphora lacks the words of institution, it is the entire anaphora that is "sanctifying." Actually, Matthiesen answers her own musing later in her letter: "Jesus' sacrificial intention is most evident [in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari], which may be why the Vatican can identify its 'continuity with the Last Supper.'" Exactly.

As for my "misleading" comment, I said the ringing of the bells at the consecration was "misleading," not that the words of institution are. I wrote that if bells are to be rung, the more appropriate place is at the "Great Amen," when we know through faith that the bread and wine are now certainly the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

MARK PLAISS