Consecratory Epiclesis After the Words of Institution

  • Thread starter Thread starter amicatholic2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
5Loaves said:
The priest bows at the altar a number of times in the Liturgy. During the Eucharistic Canon after the Words of Institution, the Anamnesis and some other prayers he bows, three times. And after the epiclesis and other prayers the priest bows again. There are times when the priest kneels at the altar. I’m not aware of genuflecting in the East.
Click to expand...
Consecration, His Holiness Cyril, Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia, serving divine Liturgy with bishops in Temple of Christ the Savior in Moscow.
 
gferrer said:
It is true. It is the Anaphora of Mar Addai and Mari, used by the Church of the East. The Vatican considers its proper use to effect the consecration:
Click to expand...
May I suggest we avoid such terminology in an EC forum? That gives way too much human agency in “consecration” and it starts to sound, again, a lot like magic word syndrome. The very fact that Pope Benedict said the Anaphora of Addai and Mari should be indicative of if worship includes proper sacrifice and prayer, God will grant His mercy in an active manner, not just as an obligation He has because humans spoke the right words over bread and water.
 
MorEphrem said:
May I suggest we avoid such terminology in an EC forum? That gives way too much human agency in “consecration” and it starts to sound, again, a lot like magic word syndrome. The very fact that Pope Benedict said the Anaphora of Addai and Mari should be indicative of if worship includes proper sacrifice and prayer, God will grant His mercy in an active manner, not just as an obligation He has because humans spoke the right words over bread and water.
Click to expand...
Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven… Wouldn’t the East agree that what the Church (human agency) binds, regarding the proper celebration of the sacred mysteries, is important? Of course it is Christ who offers the Eucharistic sacrifice through His priest / Church, but I think it does matter whether the Church recognizes a particular rite.
 
Good point, brother. Identifying a “point” of consecration does not necessarily imply that one can do without the other.

Blessings
MorEphrem said:
Ask a well informed Roman theologian - the epiclesis is as “consecratory” (a word I shudder to use) as the institution narrative even in the context of the a Roman mass. If a Latin priest were to take a piece of bread and just recite the words of the institution narrative over them, that would not be sufficient for “consecration.” In the same vein, the epiclesis is not consecratory in the sense of the misconceived “words of consecration” in which the very mechanic process of recitation somehow summons Christ in the accidents of bread.

Good question, OP. If you’re interested, there’s a relatively past thread based on a misconception of eastern eucharists being “invalid” due to the order of the preface, institution narrative and epiclesis.

On a related note, in the Maronite epiclesis, the speech implies that the Holy Spirit is perfecting the action of the Eucharist and the fraction rite is “vivifying” the oblation.
Click to expand...
 
Wait, so the Roman Rite Eucharistic Prayers occur in time, but the Eastern Rite Eucharistic Prayers occur outside of time? Doesn’t this seem confusing to anyone else?

I’m not saying there is anything wrong with the teaching as currently presented in each Rite. I 'm just trying to have an understanding of the Eucharist in general that encompasses both of them.
 
amicatholic2000 said:
Wait, so the Roman Rite Eucharistic Prayers occur in time, but the Eastern Rite Eucharistic Prayers occur outside of time? Doesn’t this seem confusing to anyone else?

I’m not saying there is anything wrong with the teaching as currently presented in each Rite. I 'm just trying to have an understanding of the Eucharist in general that encompasses both of them.
Click to expand...
No. Both are experienced in time, but exist and occur outside of time.

The minimum for a valid liturgy is an institution narrative (not even the words themselves), an invocation of the Holy Spirit to change the gifts, the intent of the celebrant to have the gifts changed into the body and blood, a validly ordained priest (acknowledging that all bishops must have been ordained priests first), bread of wheat, and wine of grape.
 
mardukm said:
Good point, brother. Identifying a “point” of consecration does not necessarily imply that one can do without the other.

Blessings
Click to expand...
Yes, even though the Church has definitely defined that, at least in the Roman Rite, the words of institution are the moment at which the consecration occurs, this does not mean that only the words “this is my body” and “this is my blood” are necessary. In the Roman Rite those two phrases are identified as the moment of consecration (hence why the faithful, on their knees, adore the Lord under the form of bread and under the form of wine at those specific moments), but the entire Eucharistic Prayer is necessary for a lawful and pleasing oblation. For a valid mass, the priest must have the intention of the Church, and a priest muttering the words of consecration over bread and wine outside of the context of the mass would not likely have the intent of the Church.
 
amicatholic2000 said:
Wait, so in Western Eucharistic Prayers there is a moment in time when we can say the consecration has occurred that is before the end of the Eucharistic Prayer, but there is no such moment in time in Eastern Eucharistic Prayers? Remember that the Western and Eastern Rites cannot have teachings that contradict each other. In fact, I would say that there is only one teaching of the Church regardless of rite. What differs among the Rites are traditions and disciplines but not teaching. I think that the whole matter of whether you can talk about consecration as a moment in time or whether it occurs in some kind of kairos that is outside of chronos is definitely a matter of “Church teaching” that needs to be consistent across the different Rites. The teaching of the RCC used to be that the consecration happened at the words of institution, not that it was completed by the words of institution. The Western tradition has basically been one of consecration happening at a moment in time up until the modern liturgical movement and ecumenical initiatives.

So I think you basically need to have one teaching: either you can draw a line in time and say the consecration has definitely happened by this point within the Eucharistic Prayer or you can’t make any such statement until the Eucharistic Prayer is completed. What one of you has suggested is that this moment of time within the EP does indeed exist but that it is after both the words of institution (if the EP has them) and the epiclesis (if the EP has them).

Question: In any of the Eastern Rites that have an epiclesis after the words of institution, does the priest genuflect or bow to the gifts on the altar after saying the words of institution or is this a distinctly Western Rite thing? Because if there is genuflecting/bowing to a Real Presence before an epiclesis that is praying for a consecration, this would seem doctrinally inconsistent.

I’m not very knowledgeable about this so I’d like to hear some of your explanations about all of this.
Click to expand...
Byzantine consecration requires three parts and is not complete until the last: Thanksgiving, Anamnesis, and Epiklesis. The celebrant intones:
CELEBRANT: Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you for the remission of sins.
The celebrant, concelebrants, and deacon [and people] together make a profound bow.
RESPONSE: Amen.

The celebrant prays aloud:
CELEBRANT: Likewise, he took the chalice (the celebrant blesses the chalice) after supper, saying:
The celebrant, concelebrants, and deacon (with his orarion) point to the chalice.
The celebrant intones:
CELEBRANT: Drink of this all of you; this is my blood of the new covenant which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins.
The celebrant, concelebrants, and deacon [and people] together make a profound bow.
RESPONSE: Amen.

The celebrant prays aloud:
CELEBRANT: Remembering, therefore, this saving command and all that has come to pass in our behalf: the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the sitting at the right hand, and the second coming in glory:
The deacon, taking the diskos in his right hand and the chalice in his left hand and keeping his forearms crossed in the sign of the cross, elevates the gifts making with them the sign of the cross horizontally over the holy table while the celebrant intones:
CELEBRANT: Offering you, your own, from your own. Always and everywhere.
The deacon replaces the gifts and bows reverently with the celebrant and concelebrants, and all present pray:
We praise you, we bless you, we thank you, O Lord, and we pray to you, our God.
The celebrant prays aloud:
CELEBRANT: Moreover, we offer to you this spiritual and unbloody sacrifice; and we implore, pray, and entreat you: send down your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts lying before us.
The celebrant, concelebrants, and deacon bow three times.
The deacon then bows his head and, pointing with his orarion to the holy bread, says quietly:
DEACON: Reverend Father, bless the holy bread.
The celebrant makes the sign of the cross over the bread praying aloud:
CELEBRANT: + And make this bread the precious body of your Christ.
DEACON: Amen.
The deacon then points with his orarion to the chalice and says:
DEACON: Reverend Father, bless the holy chalice.
The celebrant makes the sign of the cross over the chalice, praying aloud:
CELEBRANT: + And that which is in this chalice the precious blood of your Christ.
DEACON: Amen.
The deacon then points with his orarion to both gifts and says:
DEACON: Reverend Father, bless both.
The celebrant makes the sign of the cross over both the bread and chalice, praying aloud:
CELEBRANT: + Changing them by your Holy Spirit.
DEACON: Amen, amen, amen.
[Byzantine: the bow is later.]
[Melkite: They both bow down to the floor.[/COLOR]]
CELEBRANT: That for those who partake of them they may bring about a spirit of vigilance, the remission of sins, the communion of your Holy Spirit, the fullness of the heavenly kingdom, and confidence in you, not judgment or condemnation.
Byzantine: The celebrant, concelebrants, and deacon [and people] together make a profound bow.
 
While in no way making light of this question, hopefully the comparison drawn by the following situation may assist in answering this matter.

I once asked some bakers when dough became bread.

One said dough was already bread before it went into the oven; it was simply unbaked bread.
Another said it was not bread until it had come out of the oven and completely finished cooling.
Others provided various answers about how moist or risen or firm or bronzed it had to be or mentioned some other requirement they believed it had to fulfill. But the two answers listed above were the extreme moments in time.

To draw the comparison, dough becomes baked bread while in the oven. The bread offered becomes the Lord’s body while on the altar, during the prayers of the liturgy.
No one eats something which is in the oven but waits until it comes out of the oven. Likewise, no one eats what is on the altar while it is on the altar but waits until it is removed from the altar.

So while the bakers may have different thoughts about when dough becomes baked bread, so too theologians may have different thoughts about when the offering becomes the Lord’s body. It makes no difference to the one who eats for by the time the eating occurs, all agree what it is that is being eaten.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top