Can someone please explain the consecration of the Eucharist to me?

[ProVobis]

The answer was that the entire Eucharistic prayer is needed to confect a valid Eucharist, and we do not know the exact moment the bread and wine changes. Adoring the bread and wine is not wrong because we are offering it to God to become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. In the Divine Liturgy the clergy would make a deep bow of reverence as well even before the Epiclesis. But at this point we really aren’t sure until the end of the Eucharistic Prayers that we have the Body and Blood of Christ on the altar. That is what the Church teaches.

I would agree that the entire Canon needs to be recited PLUS the priest has to consummate both the sacred species for it to be a valid Mass (complete the sacrifice).

 

[AJV]

The intention is the bread and wine are to become the Body and Blood of Christ. Since we do not know the exact moment, God doesn’t take it against us. He knows what is happening right there and then.

But if we don’t know the exact moment, what business do we have giving adoration at that point? Why not just do it after the Prayer?

 

[RyanBlack]

It should be noted that the Roman Canon does not have an explicit pre-consecration Epiclesis (if it has one at all) – the Holy Spirit is not personally invoked to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. There is the Quam oblationem prayer right before the consecration, but that is addressed to God the Father (Quam oblationem tu, Deus, in omnibus, quaesumus, …] facere digneris: ut nobis Corpus et Sanguis fiat dilectissimi Filii tui, Domini nostri Iesu Christi.)

There is a post-consecration epicletic prayer (the so-called “epiclesis of communion”) in the Roman Canon, the Supplices te: Supplices te rogamus, omnipotens Deus …] ut quotquot ex hac altaris participatione sacrosanctum Filii tui Corpus et Sanguinem sumpserimus. This prayer is directed not so much towards the change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood, but towards our fruitful reception of the sacrament.

The Eastern anaphoras (except for one or two very ancient examples) do not have a pre-consecration Epiclesis; the Epiclesis always follows the words of Institution. The modern Eucharistic Prayers of the Roman Rite are a novelty in that regard, having the consecration after the Epiclesis, because Western theology (since Augustine, if not earlier) argues that the words of Christ bring about the change in the Eucharist.

I should also add that, at least in the early 20th century, official Orthodox teaching on the anaphora was that the words of Institution were read in a strictly historical and absolutely non-consecratory sense.

Very good post, but I do wish you would have worded some of it a bit differently. From the Eastern perspective, it makes no sense to say that we do not have a pre-consecration epiclesis; in our theology, the epiclesis is consecratory. This teaching goes back at least as far as the teaching of St. Cyril of Jerusalem.

To your post, I would add that the Western teaching that the consecration takes place at the Words of Institution comes from St. Ambrose. Given that St. Ambrose, though he was truly a great teacher of the Church and an excellent synthesizer of theological thought, was not a particularly original thinker, I suspect that the teaching is actually even more ancient than the writings of St. Ambrose.

 

[RyanBlack]

But if we don’t know the exact moment, what business do we have giving adoration at that point? Why not just do it after the Prayer?

Well, in the Eastern Church, we teach that the epliclesis, which occurs after the Words of Institution, is consecratory, but in the Divine Liturgy, both the priest and the people bow at the Words of Insitution.

 

[japhy]

Very good post, but I do wish you would have worded some of it a bit differently. From the Eastern perspective, it makes no sense to say that we do not have a pre-consecration epiclesis; in our theology, the epiclesis is consecratory. This teaching goes back at least as far as the teaching of St. Cyril of Jerusalem.

I apologize; I was writing, of course, from a Western perspective. By “pre-consecration”, I meant “pre-words-of-Institution”.

And yes, for those of you following along, St. Cyril says at least three times in his mystagogical catecheses that the bread and wine become Christ’s Body and Blood by the invocation of the Holy Spirit.

To your post, I would add that the Western teaching that the consecration takes place at the Words of Institution comes from St. Ambrose.

Right, I knew Augustine mentioned it, but I had a feeling it had also been taught by Ambrose, both in De Mysteriis and De Sacramentis. And I would not be surprised if it was taught earlier than there.

 

[AJV]

With respect, I would hold that if anything, the Eastern emphasis is/should be that the entire Prayer is consecratory and that suggestions that the Epiclesis alone is consecratory are late reactions to the Western teaching of the Words of Institution as consecratory.

It seems to me (and I say this carefully, without wanting to appear triumphalistic), that if one wishes to isolate a particular part of the Prayer as consecratory, then the Western approach seems the stronger argument, because one can unambiguously point to anaphorae that lack an epiclesis, especially in the most developed “consecratory” form, whereas one cannot necessarily do so for the Words of Institution (even with Addai and Mari, for which the absence of the Words is scholarly conjecture, and not unambiguous)

 

[Vico]

Read it here in the Ukrainian Catholic Catechism, page 275, that the early Fathers* considered the moment of consecration as the words of insitution “This is my body… This is my blood…”:

archive.org/stream/UkrainianCatholicCatechismOurFaith/Our_Faith_Byzantine_Catechism#page/n273/mode/2up

• Ambrose, of Milan, Chrysostom of Antioch, Sarapion in Egypt, Gregory of Nyssa.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Read it here in the Ukrainian Catholic Catechism, page 275, that the early Fathers* considered the moment of consecration as the words of insitution “This is my body… This is my blood…”:

archive.org/stream/UkrainianCatholicCatechismOurFaith/Our_Faith_Byzantine_Catechism#page/n273/mode/2up

• Ambrose, of Milan, Chrysostom of Antioch, Sarapion in Egypt, Gregory of Nyssa.

Interesting though is the further you read that link you provided, the more ambiguous the answer is.

 

[Vico]

Interesting though is the further you read that link you provided, the more ambiguous the answer is.

Yet it is clearly stated that in the fourth century the epiclesis was not a major point of contention, and that even in the eleventh century the Liturgy of St. Peter used at Mt. Athos did not have an epiclesis.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yet it is clearly stated that in the fourth century the epiclesis was not a major point of contention, and that even in the eleventh century the Liturgy of St. Peter used at Mt. Athos did not have an epiclesis.

No, I mean at the end of that section/subject, it says that the Epiclesis was a necessary part.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Have you been to a Divine Liturgy? You are speaking that as if the Anaphora in the Divine Liturgy is different from the Anaphora in the Roman Mass. It is not. The Words of Institution are spoken. Here is what goes on during Divine Liturgy Consecration and tell me how different is it from the Roman Mass

youtu.be/tAF6Ajt1WkE

Remember, the Liturgies are essentially the same thing expressed in different traditions. How it “works” in one works the same in all the other Rites. The essential parts of every Liturgy is the same.

I have only been to one and it was many years ago. I am Latin rite Catholic and do not speak about how the consecration is thought about in the other rites. I do not know if it ‘works’ the same in all the rites. That the same thing happens is true. But when it happens may be different. I don’t know. God knows.

But at Mass the words of institution confect the Eucharist. When the priest raises the host and chalice it is the Body and Blood of Christ. Are you in disagreement with this?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I have only been to one and it was many years ago. I am Latin rite Catholic and do not speak about how the consecration is thought about in the other rites. I do not know if it ‘works’ the same in all the rites. That the same thing happens is true. But when it happens may be different. I don’t know. God knows.

But at Mass the words of institution confect the Eucharist. When the priest raises the host and chalice it is the Body and Blood of Christ. Are you in disagreement with this?

I tend to agree more when you say that the priest raises the host AND the chalice. I don’t think that it happens separately as some people here claim (the bread becomes Christ while the wine remains wine until the priest says “this is my blood…”)

 

[japhy]

I don’t think that it happens separately as some people here claim (the bread becomes Christ while the wine remains wine until the priest says “this is my blood…”)

On the contrary, the separate consecration of the bread and wine is a mystical re-presentation of the separation of Christ’s blood from His body. I am of the opinion that the words of Institution over the bread do, in fact, consecrate it, and the words of Institution over the wine do, in fact, consecrate it: so the bread is consecrated first, and the wine second.

 

[Vico]

No, I mean at the end of that section/subject, it says that the Epiclesis was a necessary part.

The Slav Orthodox, in later times, says it is necessary, the Catholic Church does not (and there is no epiklesis in the Extraordinary form 1962 Mass). The problem comes when denying the validity of the Latin Mass or of any Mass or Divine Liturgy without an explicit epiclesis, but containing the words of institution or narrative.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

On the contrary, the separate consecration of the bread and wine is a mystical re-presentation of the separation of Christ’s blood from His body. I am of the opinion that the words of Institution over the bread do, in fact, consecrate it, and the words of Institution over the wine do, in fact, consecrate it: so the bread is consecrated first, and the wine second.

In fact, we were taught that this is the reason the church began the separate elevations, to emphasize this truth which some were denying. Certainly the bread doesn’t remain bread after the priest says, “This is my body.”

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Slav Orthodox, in later times, says it is necessary, the Catholic Church does not (and there is no epiklesis in the Extraordinary form 1962 Mass). The problem comes when denying the validity of the Latin Mass or of any Mass or Divine Liturgy without an explicit epiclesis, but containing the words of institution or narrative.

I believe the conclusion of that link you gave says the same point I made earlier, that the entire Eucharistic Prayer is one consecratory act. The Words of Institution is the main and most important part, but the entire EP is needed, no matter what the form in what Rite is made.

Remember that the Anaphora of Addai and Mari does not have the implicit Words of Institution, yet the Church declared it to be valid.

 

[ConstantineTG]

In fact, we were taught that this is the reason the church began the separate elevations, to emphasize this truth which some were denying. Certainly the bread doesn’t remain bread after the priest says, “This is my body.”

Well, in the Byzantine Rite the elevations are done at the same time, by the Deacon (if one is present). So definitely the elevations have nothing to do with the moment of consecration.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

I tend to agree more when you say that the priest raises the host AND the chalice. I don’t think that it happens separately as some people here claim (the bread becomes Christ while the wine remains wine until the priest says “this is my blood…”)

The catechism states the ‘elevations’ of the host and chalice. There are two elevations in our rite, each immediately following the priest’s words over each element. When the host is raised many of us quietly say, “my Lord and my God” (the Hispanics say it aloud), and the same when the chalice is elevated. You know the saying ‘lex orandi, lex credendi’? How we pray is how we believe; we learn doctrine through the liturgy. So we really are conditioned to believe this.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Is it possible to believe that in the different but equally valid rites Our Lord graciously adapts Himself to our ways of celebrating this sacrament? Could both understandings be true? It seems to me this may be possible.

 

[Vico]

I believe the conclusion of that link you gave says the same point I made earlier, that the entire Eucharistic Prayer is one consecratory act. The Words of Institution is the main and most important part, but the entire EP is needed, no matter what the form in what Rite is made.

Remember that the Anaphora of Addai and Mari does not have the implicit Words of Institution, yet the Church declared it to be valid.

The last item you mention is the narritive I referred to.

The Ukrainian Catechism states that the Mass has an epiclesis so it must be referring to the Mass of 1969, rather than the Mozarabic Rite or the Mass of 1962 which have no epiclesis and is therefore not essential to confection of the Eucharist.

The comments are diverging from the original remark, that the early Fathers mentioned earlier considered the moment of consecration as the words of insitution “This is my body… This is my blood…”; and that is not ambiguous.