THE EUCHARISTIC EPICLESIS1. The question of the Epiclesis and the Formula of Eucharistic ConsecrationSome1 have tried to interpret the aorist imperative as an aorist past participle. They translate metadalov as "whatYou have changed" in stead of: "changing it" in a sentence as: "Make of this bread the precious body of YourChrist, and of what is in the chalice the precious blood of Your Christ, changing it by Your Holy Spirit". But theGreek use the aorist past participle frequently with a meaning in the present; here the participle agrees with theaorist imperative. Well, the aorist imperative is never a meaning in the past2. We find the same clause in theNestorian, Armenian and Byzantine liturgies: Nestorian: "changing and sanctifying them by the operation of theHoly Spirit"; Armenian: "changing by Your Holy Spirit".2. The Magisterium on the Form of the Eucharist1. ThesisThe form of the eucharist is constituted by the words of Christ at the Last Supper, "This is My body, this is Myblood...", words with the priest recites at the altar in the name and in the person of Christ. Once these wordspronounced, the transubstantiation is perfectly accomplished. This thesis is not solemnly defined, but taught bythe ordinary magisterium at least as a certain and close to the faith.2. Councils1. The Council of Florence: Eugenius IV, Decretum pro Armenis (16.6.1439):The form of this sacrament is the words of the Saviour with which He effected this sacrament; for thepriest effects the sacrament by speaking in the person of Christ. It is by the power of these words that thesubstance of bread is changed into the body of Christ, and the substance of wine into His blood3.The Council of Florence didn't define this truth so as not to give the impression that the Greeks ever disagreedon this point; only the Fathers wanted to avoid that simple people misunderstand the epiclesis. cf. Eugenius IV'sown affirmation on the session on 16.6.1439:What is just now said does not mean that we accuse y...