Consecration-Eastern difference?

[Vico]

This is the “actual Latin” of what, exactly? Did I miss something in this resurrected thread?

And that actually brings me to another question: why was this thread resurrected after some 15 months?

It refers to the a quote from Letter “Ex quo, nono” of Pope St. Pius X, Dec 26, 1910 published in AAS posted by Cluny, and the purpose it to show the Latin as a reference for those reading this thread.

Cluny posted the opinion that the epiclesis follows the words of instution in the document “Ex quo, nono” (see quote below) however that appears to be the wrong translation.

<<the Catholic doctrine on the most Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist is not left untouched when it is taught inflexibly that the opinion can be accepted which maintains that among the Greeks the words of consecration do not produce an effect unless preceded by that prayer which they call epiclesis,>>

This is by no means an infallible statement for the simple reason that it contains a glaring inaccuracy.

The Epiclesis FOLLOWS the Words of Institution. They do NOT precede it, as Pius X falsely claims here in this quote.

 

[stephraim]

Actually, at the time he wrote this, there was only ONE Anaphora in the Roman rite.

The paragraph Supplices te rogamus has been interpreted as an Epiclesis, even by St. Nicholas Cabasilas.

And don’t forget, this was from a statement entitled “Errors of the Orientals” or something similar.

The Quam oblationem has also been considered as the consecration-epiclesis, especially considering its probable ancestor in De Sacramentis, “Fac nobis hanc oblationem adscriptam, rationabilem acceptabilemque, quod est figura corporis et sanguinis Domini nostri Iesu Christi.”

 

[malphono]

It refers to the a quote from Letter “Ex quo, nono” of Pope St. Pius X, Dec 26, 1910 published in AAS posted by Cluny, and the purpose it to show the Latin as a reference for those reading this thread.

Cluny posted the opinion that the epiclesis follows the words of instution in the document “Ex quo, nono” (see quote below) however that appears to be the wrong translation.

Oh, now I see. I’ve not been engaged in the other thread (“Ex Quo” of Pius X?) so I didn’t put the jigsaw puzzle together. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[jimmy]

The actual Latin:
– Sed nec ibidem intacta relinquitur catholica doctrina de Sanctissimo Eucharistiae Sacramento, cum praefracte docetur, sententiam suscipi posse, quae tenet, apud Graecos verba consecratoria effectum non sortiri, nisi iam prolata oratione illa quam epiclesim vocant, cum tamen compertum sit Ecclesiae minime competere ius circa ipsam sacramentorum substantiam quidpiam innovandi;

**nisi : ***if not, unless, except. *
**iam : ***now, by now, already / presently, immediately, soon. *
**iam : ***moreover, henceforth, indeed, just, further. *

nisi iam = unless already
nisi iam = unless indeed
nisi iam = if not soon
prolata oratione illa = uttered by prayer that
quam epiclesim vocant = which they call the epiclesis

Latin students, how does one know that nisi iam prolata oratione illa quam epiclesim vocant means the following?

“unless soon uttered by prayer that which they call the epiclesis”.

prolata is the perfect, passive, participle: while sortiri is the present infinitive, so it seems to indicate a previous action. Participles are verbal nouns. The perfect participle indicates a past event. If we are to take the word prolata as meaning ‘utter’ (which is how you have it), then it could be translated as ‘which has been uttered’. Illa is the demonstrative ‘that’, and probably refers to prolata. oratione modifies prolata so it becomes ‘that which has been uttered by prayer’.

So your translation is wrong. The original is more accurate. The way you translate it is more like a future participle.

 

[Vico]

prolata is the perfect, passive, participle: while sortiri is the present infinitive, so it seems to indicate a previous action. Participles are verbal nouns. The perfect participle indicates a past event. If we are to take the word prolata as meaning ‘utter’ (which is how you have it), then it could be translated as ‘which has been uttered’. Illa is the demonstrative ‘that’, and probably refers to prolata. oratione modifies prolata so it becomes ‘that which has been uttered by prayer’.

So your translation is wrong. The original is more accurate. The way you translate it is more like a future participle.

Yes, past tense, which works with already (iam).

– Sed nec ibidem intacta relinquitur catholica doctrina de Sanctissimo Eucharistiae Sacramento, cum praefracte docetur, sententiam suscipi posse, quae tenet, apud Graecos verba consecratoria effectum non sortiri, nisi iam prolata oratione illa quam epiclesim vocant, cum tamen compertum sit Ecclesiae minime competere ius circa ipsam sacramentorum substantiam quidpiam innovandi;

sortiri = verb present infinitive passive, to obtain
is part of the previous clause

prolata = brought forth
oratione= prayer

But neither do they leave untouched the catholic doctrine of the Sacred Eucharist Sacrament, it is taught with authority, to be able to posess the opinion, which holds, among the Greeks the effect of the words of consecration not to be obtained, unless already brought forth that prayer which they call epiclesis;

Since we know that in the Greek liturgy the epiclesis follows the consecration and that the anaphora is completed only with the epiclesis, it makes sense that there is an opinion that there is no effect until the epiclesis is in the past, i.e., “already brought forth”.

 

[jimmy]

Yes, past tense, which works with already (iam).

– Sed nec ibidem intacta relinquitur catholica doctrina de Sanctissimo Eucharistiae Sacramento, cum praefracte docetur, sententiam suscipi posse, quae tenet, apud Graecos verba consecratoria effectum non sortiri, nisi iam prolata oratione illa quam epiclesim vocant, cum tamen compertum sit Ecclesiae minime competere ius circa ipsam sacramentorum substantiam quidpiam innovandi;

sortiri = verb present infinitive passive, to obtain
is part of the previous clause

prolata = brought forth
oratione= prayer

But neither do they leave untouched the catholic doctrine of the Sacred Eucharist Sacrament, it is taught with authority, to be able to posess the opinion, which holds, among the Greeks the effect of the words of consecration not to be obtained, unless already brought forth that prayer which they call epiclesis;

Since we know that in the Greek liturgy the epiclesis follows the consecration and that the anaphora is completed only with the epiclesis, it makes sense that there is an opinion that there is no effect until the epiclesis is in the past, i.e., “already brought forth”.

Sortiri is the verb for the first part, the apodosis. The protasis is the clause with prolata, and the apodosis is dependant upon it. It is a conditional clause. “if this, then that”. It isn’t a statement that the effects of the consecration don’t take effect until after the epiclesis. The structure of the statement - prolata being perfect tense, and sortiri being present - indicates that the epiclesis occured before the words of consecration.

Second, it is a stretch to interpret the words in that fashion. That way of speaking is almost indiscernible in itself. It ignores tenses and rearranges the translated words in order to make it fit. There are much more simple and efficient ways of stating it if that is what is meant.

 

[Vico]

Sortiri is the verb for the first part, the apodosis. The protasis is the clause with prolata, and the apodosis is dependant upon it. It is a conditional clause. “if this, then that”. It isn’t a statement that the effects of the consecration don’t take effect until after the epiclesis. The structure of the statement - prolata being perfect tense, and sortiri being present - indicates that the epiclesis occured before the words of consecration.

Second, it is a stretch to interpret the words in that fashion. That way of speaking is almost indiscernible in itself. It ignores tenses and rearranges the translated words in order to make it fit. There are much more simple and efficient ways of stating it if that is what is meant.

[condition] If the epiclesis is not already brought forth, [result] then the effect is naught.

if (protasis):
perfect passive participle – not already brought forth (nisi iam prolata)
then (apodosis):
present infinitive passive verb – effect not to be obtained (effectum non sortiri)

We know from Council of Florence that there is an issue about the need for the epiclesis, which according to the Catholic Church is not needed at all, only the words of institution. Bessarion agreed to this at Florence, yet it has continued to be an issue with the Orthodox, which was the point.

 

[jimmy]

[condition] If the epiclesis is not already brought forth, [result] then the effect is naught.

if (protasis):
perfect passive participle – not already brought forth (nisi iam prolata)
then (apodosis):
present infinitive passive verb – effect not to be obtained (effectum non sortiri)

We know from Council of Florence that there is an issue about the need for the epiclesis, which according to the Catholic Church is not needed at all, only the words of institution. Bessarion agreed to this at Florence, yet it has continued to be an issue with the Orthodox, which was the point.

And the sky is a primary color other than red or yellow.

 

[Vico]

And the sky is a primary color other than red or yellow.

present infinitive passive verb = to be verbed

meaning “to be obtained” (sortiri)

The original Cluny post stated “The Epiclesis FOLLOWS the Words of Institution. They do NOT precede it, as Pius X falsely claims here in this quote.”

Which misses the meaning of the Pope which is that the Greeks were teaching that the epiclesis is necessary for transubstantiation, which it is not.

 

[malphono]

present infinitive passive verb = to be verbed

meaning “to be obtained” (sortiri)

The original Cluny post stated “The Epiclesis FOLLOWS the Words of Institution. They do NOT precede it, as Pius X falsely claims here in this quote.”

Which misses the meaning of the Pope which is that the Greeks were teaching that the epiclesis is necessary for transubstantiation, which it is not.

Uh … by the words “which it is not” (emphasis added above), are you trying to say that the epiklesis is unnecessary?

 

[Vico]

Uh … by the words “which it is not” (emphasis added above), are you trying to say that the epiklesis is unnecessary?

The action of the Holy Spirit is necessary, which can be explicit or implicit. I do not mean that the epiklesis (explicit invocation of the Holy Spirit) is unnecessary according to the approved liturgical prescriptions of the various Churches sui iuris, rather that transubstantiation does not require the explicit epiklesis, according to the Catholic Church, as stated at the Council of Florence and reiterated at the Council of Trent and in the statement of Pope Pius X (1911):

“But the Catholic doctrine on the most holy Eucharist is not left intact when one resolutely teaches that it is possible to hold the opinion which maintains that, among the Greeks, the consecratory words do not produce their effect, unless that prayer which they call the epiclesis, has already been offered. For it is certain that the rights of the Church in no way make her competent to alter the substance of the sacrament in any respect …”

The Eucharistic Epiclesis: A Detailed History from the Patristic to the … By John McKenna, p 89.

It was also stated recently that The Anaphora of Addai and Mari (Assyrian Church of the East) is notable because, from time immemorial, it has been used without a recitation of the Institution Narrative, yet it is valid (this decision made 2001 CDF, approved by Pope John Paul II). Note that they do use an epiklesis.

“The Catholic Church considers the words of the Institution as a constitutive part of the Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer. The Council of Florence stated “The form of this sacrament are the words of the Saviour with which he effected this sacrament. A priest speaking in the person of Christ effects this sacrament. For, in virtue of those words, the substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ and the substance of wine into his blood” (D.H. 1321). The same Council of Florence also characterised the words of the Institution as *“the form of words [forma verborum] which the holy Roman Church …] has always been wont to use [semper uti consuevit] in the consecration of the Lord’s body and blood” *(D.H. 1352), without prejudice to the possibility of some variation in their articulation by the Church.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html

(Cardinal) Metropolitan Bessarion of Nicea, 1439:

“And since we hear from all the holy doctors of the Church, especially from blessed John Chrysostom, who is very well known to us, that it it those words of the Lord which change and transubstantiate the bread and wine into the true body and blood of Christ and that those divine words of the Saviour contain all the power of transubstantiation, we ourselves, by necessity, follow this most holy doctor and his opinion.”

Then in 1442, in the Decree for the Jabcobites, the explicit “verba Salvatoris” is stated as “Hoc est enim corpus meum” and “Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei…”.

The quotes above are also from “The Eucharistic Epiclesis”.

 

[malphono]

The action of the Holy Spirit is necessary, which can be explicit or implicit. I do not mean that the epiklesis (explicit invocation of the Holy Spirit) is unnecessary according to the approved liturgical prescriptions of the various Churches sui iuris, rather that transubstantiation does not require the explicit epiklesis, according to the Catholic Church …

OK, I think see where you’re going, but I also think the wording is questionable. The problem I see is that, in the Western mind, “transubstantiation” requires no epklesis, explicit or implicit. The concept is purely Scholastic and presents huge problems in Eastern & Oriental thought.

 

[Vico]

OK, I think see where you’re going, but I also think the wording is questionable. The problem I see is that, in the Western mind, “transubstantiation” requires no epklesis, explicit or implicit. The concept is purely Scholastic and presents huge problems in Eastern & Oriental thought.

Essentially the Orthodox are saying that the Tridentine Mass canon is invalid. Pope Pius X is responding to this, saying that teaching that the canon is invalid without the epiclesis is an error.

The Latin Church ordinary form Mass has added the epiclesis to the anaphorae. However the Tridentine Mass 1570 and following versions, such as 1962 extrordinary form now in use, do not have an explicit epiclesis calling upon the Holy Spirit. It does have this consecratory prayer before the narrative:

Quam oblationem tu Deus in omnibus, quaesumus, benedictam, adscriptam, ratam, rationabilem, acceptabilemque facere digneris, ut nobis Corpus et Sanguis fiat dilectissimi Filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi.

Humbly we pray Thee, O God, be pleased to make this same offering wholly blessed http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/graphics/rubric-cross.gif, to consecrate http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/graphics/rubric-cross.gif it and approve http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/graphics/rubric-cross.gif it, making it reasonable and acceptable, so that it may become for us the Body http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/graphics/rubric-cross.gif and Blood http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/graphics/rubric-cross.gif of Thy dearly beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.

I believe that the Mozarabic Mass also has no epiclesis.

 

[Cecilianus]

So what would happen (God forbid!) if a Byzantine priest were to omit the Epiclesis in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom?

I’ve never doubted the validity of my communion at a Tridentine Mass, but I would doubt the validity of the consecration if this situation were to occur.

I can make no sense of the epiklesis if the consecration of the Eucharist is already complete at the Words of Institution. Of course, we shouldn’t get too nitpicky as to the exact moment at which the change occurs - is it the exact moment when the priest’s vocal chords stop vibrating as he pronounces the “Amen”, or as soon as he enunciates the “t” in “changing them by His Holy Spirit”, and are you going to consider the moment being when the sound waves leave his diaphragm or a split second later when they pass out of his mouth, etc. etc. etc. That’s alien to the way we approach theology - rather, the whole anaphora should be viewed as the act of consecration, even though it stretches out over time.

As a matter of practice, we should view the Eucharistic elements as being consecrated once the priest finishes his triple “Amen”. I usually bow at the beginning of the institution narrative, and only make a minor prostration (provided there isn’t any pew in my way!) at the end of the “Amen”.

In answer to the OP’s original question, as far as I can remember the institution narrative is the same as the in Roman, except that we do not mistranslate “for many” as “for all”.

 

[malphono]

Essentially the Orthodox are saying that the Tridentine Mass canon is invalid. Pope Pius X is responding to this, saying that teaching that the canon is invalid without the epiclesis is an error.

Yes, I realize that, and of course that school of Orthodox thought is wrong, since there is an epiklesis, albeit implicit rather than explicit. And don’t forget that the other part of the Orthodox argument is the placement. Neither argument really works, and both are nothing more than Orthodox polemics.

The Latin Church ordinary form Mass has added the epiclesis to the anaphorae.

Perhaps they’re a bit more so than the Roman Canon, but those are not all that highly explicit either.

However the Tridentine Mass 1570 and following versions, such as 1962 extrordinary form now in use, do not have an explicit epiclesis calling upon the Holy Spirit. It does have this consecratory prayer before the narrative: …

And that is one of the two prayers before the Institution Narrative (the other being the Supplices te rogamus) considered to be an implicit epiklesis.

I believe that the Mozarabic Mass also has no epiclesis.

I don’t have the text handy (and I don’t have the patience right now to fight with it anyway), but I think it has an implicit epiklesis, similar to the Roman.

 

[Vico]

So what would happen (God forbid!) if a Byzantine priest were to omit the Epiclesis in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom?

I’ve never doubted the validity of my communion at a Tridentine Mass, but I would doubt the validity of the consecration if this situation were to occur.

I can make no sense of the epiklesis if the consecration of the Eucharist is already complete at the Words of Institution. Of course, we shouldn’t get too nitpicky as to the exact moment at which the change occurs - is it the exact moment when the priest’s vocal chords stop vibrating as he pronounces the “Amen”, or as soon as he enunciates the “t” in “changing them by His Holy Spirit”, and are you going to consider the moment being when the sound waves leave his diaphragm or a split second later when they pass out of his mouth, etc. etc. etc. That’s alien to the way we approach theology - rather, the whole anaphora should be viewed as the act of consecration, even though it stretches out over time.

As a matter of practice, we should view the Eucharistic elements as being consecrated once the priest finishes his triple “Amen”. I usually bow at the beginning of the institution narrative, and only make a minor prostration (provided there isn’t any pew in my way!) at the end of the “Amen”.

In answer to the OP’s original question, as far as I can remember the institution narrative is the same as the in Roman, except that we do not mistranslate “for many” as “for all”.

I understand that it is accomplished at the completion of the anaphora (it must be completed). In the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Divine Liturgy Anaphora we profound bow after each of the words of instution narrative at “for the remission of sins” and a third time after the epiklesis after “judgment or condemnation” (in both St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom).

And it is certainly accomplished at the completion of the Latin Mass anaphora, with or without an explicit epiclesis.