Consecratory Epiclesis After the Words of Institution

  • Thread starter Thread starter amicatholic2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

amicatholic2000

Guest
The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom has its consecratory epiclesis (the prayer that asks that the Holy Spirit come down and make the bread and wine the Body and Blood of Christ) after the words of Institution. The RCC teaches that by the end of the words of institution, the consecration is complete and the gifts are no longer bread and wine but the Body and Blood of Christ. I noticed that in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in the US, their English translation of the consecratory epiclesis says “having changed” the bread and wine into the Body and Blood instead of “changing them,” which is used in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (which is Eastern Orthodox and not Eastern Catholic).

My question is: do those Eastern Catholic Churches that celebrate the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in Greek or Church Slavonic change the verb tense of the word “change” in the consecratory epiclesis from the original in order to concur with RCC teaching about when the consecration occurs? Or is it believed that the tense of the verb in Greek or Church Slavonic is vague enough that changing it is not necessary?

Also, was the English translation used by the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church intentionally worded to indicate that the consecration already occurred by the time the words of institution were said? Was this translation intentionally made to be different from the English translations used by Eastern Orthodox Churches? Are the English translations used by Eastern Orthodox churches viewed by the RCC as doctrinally incorrect?
 
amicatholic2000 said:
The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom has its consecratory epiclesis (the prayer that asks that the Holy Spirit come down and make the bread and wine the Body and Blood of Christ) after the words of Institution. The RCC teaches that by the end of the words of institution, the consecration is complete and the gifts are no longer bread and wine but the Body and Blood of Christ. I noticed that in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in the US, their English translation of the consecratory epiclesis says “having changed” the bread and wine into the Body and Blood instead of “changing them,” which is used in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (which is Eastern Orthodox and not Eastern Catholic).

My question is: do those Eastern Catholic Churches that celebrate the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in Greek or Church Slavonic change the verb tense of the word “change” in the consecratory epiclesis from the original in order to concur with RCC teaching about when the consecration occurs? Or is it believed that the tense of the verb in Greek or Church Slavonic is vague enough that changing it is not necessary?

Also, was the English translation used by the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church intentionally worded to indicate that the consecration already occurred by the time the words of institution were said? Was this translation intentionally made to be different from the English translations used by Eastern Orthodox Churches? Are the English translations used by Eastern Orthodox churches viewed by the RCC as doctrinally incorrect?
Click to expand...
I’m not really familiar with the Ukrainian Catholic translation, but am familiar with what the Ruthenian, Romanians and Melkites use. The translation “changing them,” IS used by in the translations used by these Churches.

The RCC teaches that by the end of the words of institution, the consecration is complete and the gifts are no longer bread and wine but the Body and Blood of Christ. You must remember that this is the ROMAN teaching and NOT the teaching of ANY of the Byzantine Churches (either Catholic or Orthodox).
 
According to the old Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on Epiklesis (see NewAdvent.org), the Traditional Latin Catholic position is that the words of institution and/or the epiclesis form a single event. In other words, it is not really that well-defined in the Latin Catholic Tradition for one to be able to accuse the Easterns of a definite error on the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk
amicatholic2000 said:
The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom has its consecratory epiclesis (the prayer that asks that the Holy Spirit come down and make the bread and wine the Body and Blood of Christ) after the words of Institution. The RCC teaches that by the end of the words of institution, the consecration is complete and the gifts are no longer bread and wine but the Body and Blood of Christ. I noticed that in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in the US, their English translation of the consecratory epiclesis says “having changed” the bread and wine into the Body and Blood instead of “changing them,” which is used in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (which is Eastern Orthodox and not Eastern Catholic).

My question is: do those Eastern Catholic Churches that celebrate the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in Greek or Church Slavonic change the verb tense of the word “change” in the consecratory epiclesis from the original in order to concur with RCC teaching about when the consecration occurs? Or is it believed that the tense of the verb in Greek or Church Slavonic is vague enough that changing it is not necessary?

Also, was the English translation used by the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church intentionally worded to indicate that the consecration already occurred by the time the words of institution were said? Was this translation intentionally made to be different from the English translations used by Eastern Orthodox Churches? Are the English translations used by Eastern Orthodox churches viewed by the RCC as doctrinally incorrect?
Click to expand...
 
Remember that the Roman epiclesis is before the institution narrative.

Rome requires an epiclesis and the institution narrative. In the roman, that’s the ordee, but in the east, it’s reversed. Both are still needed.
 
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.
 
MonkMoses said:
The RCC teaches that by the end of the words of institution, the consecration is complete and the gifts are no longer bread and wine but the Body and Blood of Christ. You must remember that this is the ROMAN teaching and NOT the teaching of ANY of the Byzantine Churches (either Catholic or Orthodox).
Click to expand...
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.
 
Aramis said:
Remember that the Roman epiclesis is before the institution narrative.

Rome requires an epiclesis and the institution narrative. In the roman, that’s the ordee, but in the east, it’s reversed. Both are still needed.
Click to expand...
“Requring an epiclesis” is something that Rome has started to do because of the Liturgical Movement. I don’t think that Rome thought much about whether the epicleses (descending and ascending) in the Roman Canon - which notably do not make specific mention of the Holy Spirit changing the bread and wine into the Body and Blood - had a role in the Eucharistic Prayer that mattered as to the validity of the consecration in any way comparable to that of the words of institution, which had bells, incense, elevations, genuflecting, etc., all to indicate that that is when the consecration was happening.

I’m not an ultra-traditionalist from the Roman Rite who thinks the Liturgical Movement was a bad thing, but I think that it has involved an effort to reconcile rather different Western and Eastern Liturgical and Eucharistic Theologies in a way that is not yet completely settled.
 
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?
Click to expand...
The Christian East has not found it necessary to define a moment when the gifts become the Precious Body and Blood.
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).
Click to expand...
As others have said in both the East and the West the consecration always includes both the Words of Institution, and the calling down of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps the epiclesis is implicit in the EF of the Mass. I’m less familiar with that. We know when we partake of the Precious Body and Blood that this is Him. Why is it necessary to define a specific moment? The Liturgy/Mass takes place outside of time anyway. 🙂 All we need to know is that through the prayers of the priest, with the people, and the power of the Holy Spirit the gifts are indeed transformed.
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
5Loaves said:
All we need to know is that through the prayers of the priest, with the people, and the power of the Holy Spirit the gifts are indeed transformed.
Click to expand...
They are not transformed, indeed the form stays exactly the same; they are transubstantiated.
 
amicatholic2000 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don’t think such a conclusion that can be drawn from the Byzantine rubrics here regarding when the consecration is complete, as the priests makes many bows and metanias throughout the Liturgy . If anything the words of the epiclesis in the anaphora of St. John Chrysostom liturgy would indicate belief that the consecration is not yet complete until after the epiclesis is complete.
Priest: Again we offer unto Thee this reasonable and bloodless worship, and we ask Thee, and pray Thee, and supplicate Thee: Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here offered.
Deacon: Bless, master, the holy bread.
Priest: And make this **bread **the precious Body of Thy Christ.
Deacon: Bless, master, the holy cup.
Priest: And that which is in this cup, the precious Blood of Thy Christ.
Deacon: Bless both, master.
Priest: Making the change by the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
(As an illustration, see this clip from my Russian Greek-Catholic parish, which begins just before the words of institution: oltv.tv/id901.html)

As others have said, there is not a lot of interest in the East in defining a precise moment when the change takes place.

What do you make of Liturgy of Addai and Mari in the Assyrian Church of the East, which contains no explicit words of institution at all, yet whose validity is recognized by the Holy See? (See Fr. Robert Taft’s summary here: www.atonementfriars.org/centro_lectures/2002%20Taft.doc
 
The Eucharistic Prayer without the words of institution is the Anaphora of Sts. Addai and Mari. It comes from the Syriac Christian tradition and is among the most ancient Eucharistic prayers still in use.
 
I don’t think there is anything invalid or even necessarily erroneous about any of the Eucharistic prayers used by the Eastern Rite, Western Rite, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, even the Anaphora of Sts. Mari and Addai.

I’m pointing out that it seems inconsistent for the RCC to teach that, in the Roman Rite, the consecration is completed by the time the words of institution are said (which in the Roman Rite is always after the epiclesis), when at the same time the Eastern Catholic Churches teach that there is no specific moment of consecration or that if there is a moment it is after both the words of institution and the epiclesis. It seems that there should be one teaching that is true for any Eucharistic Liturgy. It would seem that this should be that the Eucharist occurs out of time so you cannot isolate any moment of consecration or even a moment during the Eucharistic prayer before which the consecration must have occurred - which is the Eastern understanding. Basically, if as a Church you have two contradictory teachings in two different traditions, then the truth must be the less specific or more mystery-embracing of the two (ok, I maybe am going a bit too far in saying that). The teachings were probably not contradictory in the first place, but the way they are explained in the case I am describing appears to be.

So, if what Eastern Christians believe is true, how can the Roman Rite’s understanding of the “time” of consecration also be true?
 
amicatholic2000 said:
Basically, if as a Church you have two contradictory teachings in two different traditions …
Click to expand...
I don’t see the teachings as contradictory, though. Rome’s teaching about the “time” of consecration at the words institution is about its **own **Liturgy. There’s certainly no logical contradiction in saying that the consecration is completed at different times in different rites, or that in some rites it is indeterminate.

My point in bringing up the anaphora of Sts. Addai and Mari was again that Rome’s teaching about the words of institution are specifically about its own rite. A Latin Mass without the words of institution word not be considered valid, I believe. But the ACOE Liturgy is, as it has its own form.
 
amicatholic2000 said:
I don’t think there is anything invalid or even necessarily erroneous about any of the Eucharistic prayers used by the Eastern Rite, Western Rite, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, even the Anaphora of Sts. Mari and Addai.

I’m pointing out that it seems inconsistent for the RCC to teach that, in the Roman Rite, the consecration is completed by the time the words of institution are said (which in the Roman Rite is always after the epiclesis), when at the same time the Eastern Catholic Churches teach that there is no specific moment of consecration or that if there is a moment it is after both the words of institution and the epiclesis. It seems that there should be one teaching that is true for any Eucharistic Liturgy. It would seem that this should be that the Eucharist occurs out of time so you cannot isolate any moment of consecration or even a moment during the Eucharistic prayer before which the consecration must have occurred - which is the Eastern understanding. Basically, if as a Church you have two contradictory teachings in two different traditions, then the truth must be the less specific or more mystery-embracing of the two (ok, I maybe am going a bit too far in saying that). The teachings were probably not contradictory in the first place, but the way they are explained in the case I am describing appears to be.

So, if what Eastern Christians believe is true, how can the Roman Rite’s understanding of the “time” of consecration also be true?
Click to expand...
Why are you so hung up on one teaching? Differentt Church= different tradition=different way of seeing things.🙂
 
amicatholic2000 said:
So, if what Eastern Christians believe is true, how can the Roman Rite’s understanding of the “time” of consecration also be true?
Click to expand...
It is true for the Roman Rite. Since other rites have different liturgies, what is true in the Roman Rite does not necessarily apply across the board.
 
amicatholic2000 said:
I’m pointing out that it seems inconsistent for the RCC to teach that, in the Roman Rite, the consecration is completed by the time the words of institution are said (which in the Roman Rite is always after the epiclesis), when at the same time the Eastern Catholic Churches teach that there is no specific moment of consecration or that if there is a moment it is after both the words of institution and the epiclesis.
Click to expand...
This forum has already discussed this ad nauseam. If you are unfamiliar with the search function, here is a 10-page example: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=827748&highlight=epiclesis
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top