Epiclesis and Roman Canon

  • Thread starter Thread starter Madaglan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Madaglan

Guest
Through the liturgical reforms attendant to Vatican II, an explicit epiclesis was added to the Eucharistic Prayer of the Mass. Formerly, the Tridentine Latin Mass did not have an explicit epiclesis.

Had the Mass in Rome never had an explicit epiclesis prior to Vatican II? Or, was an explicit epiclesis at one time removed from the liturgy?

Thanks
 
Unless I’m mistaken, the Tridentine Mass does have the epiclesis right before the Consecration. The server always rings the bell at the time.
 
Some consider that the prayers ‘Quam oblationem’ and/or ‘Supplices te rogamus’ are the nearest equivalent(s) to an epiclesis in the old Roman canon.

I believe Cavasilas or some other was of the opinion that the second prayer especially, (Supplices te rogamus) is an epiclesis, albeit asking that the holy offerings be carried up on high, rather than calling for the descent of the Holy Spirit upon them.

Quam oblatiónem tu, Deus, in ómnibus, quæsumus, benedíctam, adscríptam, ratam, rationábilem, acceptabilémque fácere dignéris: ***ut nobis Corpus et Sanguis fiat ***dilectíssimi Fílii tui Dómini nostri Jesu Christi.

Súpplices te rogámus, omnípotens Deus: jube hæc perférri per manus sancti Ángeli tui in sublíme altáre tuum, in conspéctu divínæ majestátis tuæ: ut quotquot, ex hac altáris participatióne, sacrosánctum Fílii tui, Corpus et Sánguinem sumpsérimus, omni benedictióne cœlésti, et grátia repleámur. Per eúndem Christum Dóminum nostrum. Amen.

Rather than picking bits and pieces out of the text it might be easier to regard the entire canon of the old Roman mass as ‘epiclectic’.
 
Madaglan said:
Through the liturgical reforms attendant to Vatican II, an explicit epiclesis was added to the Eucharistic Prayer of the Mass. Formerly, the Tridentine Latin Mass did not have an explicit epiclesis.

Had the Mass in Rome never had an explicit epiclesis prior to Vatican II? Or, was an explicit epiclesis at one time removed from the liturgy?
Click to expand...
To my knowledge, the Epiklesis in the Roman Mass (*) seem to have always been placed before the Institution Narrative and therefore has to be considered more implicit than explicit, irrespective of the text. That’s still the case, Novus Ordo and additional EPs notwithstanding. Not one of them is truly explicit in the Eastern/Oriental sense, either in text or placement.
  • This seems to be true in the Ambrosian and other Western Rites too, although apparently the Mozarabic Rite differs a bit: some say it has no epklesis at all while others say the prayer “post pridie” (after the Institution Narrative) is intended to be an implicit epiklesis.
 
It might be good for Eastern Christians to note that the Roman Tradition has never put an emphasis on the Epiclesis, but rather on the “Institution Narrative” or “Words of Institution.” Comparison between the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the Roman Mass might not be the most fruitful comparison in this instance because it’d be almost like comparing apples to oranges.

That being said, there is an Epiclesis prior to the Words of Institution in the Roman Mass. But the Epiclesis is not emphasized as much as in the Divine Liturgy. Fr. Robert Taft wrote a paper on this very topic. Check out this link: archeparchy.ca/documents/Taft%20Eastern%20Presuppositions.pdf
 
Remember also that the traditional Offertory in the EF contains an epiclesis:

Come, Thou Sanctifier, almighty and eternal God, and bless + this sacrifice prepared for the glory of Thy holy Name.

This is pretty much a direct appeal to the Holy Spirit, who is also known as the Sanctifier, and is probably the closest thing to an Eastern Orthodox epiclesis that you will find in the TLM (aside from the implicit ones in the Canon that have already been mentioned here).
 
The Epiklesis in the liturgies was added in the fourth century and evidence exists that it was present in the Roman Mass in the fifth. “We may then surely conclude that in the Vth century Rome had an Invocation of the Holy Ghost.” But, it “was removed at Rome, apparently deliberately, because of the growing Western insistence on the words of institution as the Consecration form.” And “It is however generally admitted that our difficult " Supplices te rogamus " prayer represents a fragment of the old Epiklesis, with the essential clause left out”. “The normal place of the Epiklesis is after the words of institution, at the end of the Anamnesis (so in all extant rites). This place seems to be fixed because the Anamnesis, mentioning the Ascension, leads naturally to the memory of Pentecost and so to the Holy Ghost (above p. 346).”

The Mass A Study of the Roman Liturgy by Adrian Fortescue. Longmans, Green And Co. 39 Paternoster Row, London, New York, Bombay And Calcutta, 1914. (From Appendix II, The Epiklesis).

archive.org/stream/massstudyofroman00fort/massstudyofroman00fort_djvu.txt
 
Vico said:
The Epiklesis in the liturgies was added in the fourth century and evidence exists that it was present in the Roman Mass in the fifth. “We may then surely conclude that in the Vth century Rome had an Invocation of the Holy Ghost.” But, it “was removed at Rome, apparently deliberately, because of the growing Western insistence on the words of institution as the Consecration form.” And “It is however generally admitted that our difficult " Supplices te rogamus " prayer represents a fragment of the old Epiklesis, with the essential clause left out”. “The normal place of the Epiklesis is after the words of institution, at the end of the Anamnesis (so in all extant rites). This place seems to be fixed because the Anamnesis, mentioning the Ascension, leads naturally to the memory of Pentecost and so to the Holy Ghost (above p. 346).”

The Mass A Study of the Roman Liturgy by Adrian Fortescue. Longmans, Green And Co. 39 Paternoster Row, London, New York, Bombay And Calcutta, 1914. (From Appendix II, The Epiklesis).

archive.org/stream/massstudyofroman00fort/massstudyofroman00fort_djvu.txt
Click to expand...
I know this is an old thread, but the topic is really interesting to me. Would it be incorrect to state that the Latin emphasis on the Institution Narrative reflects the Roman heritage of law and the precision of language, vs. the more pronounced Eastern “comfort level” with mystery and the work of the Spirit?
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
I know this is an old thread, but the topic is really interesting to me. Would it be incorrect to state that the Latin emphasis on the Institution Narrative reflects the Roman heritage of law and the precision of language, vs. the more pronounced Eastern “comfort level” with mystery and the work of the Spirit?
Click to expand...
Apophatic vs cataphatic theology. To accept the mystery of the sacrament vs to elucidate the details.

Fortescue also wrote of the removal of the epiklesis, that:

“A long series of Latin Fathers insist on this. So St. Ambrose, 5 St. Augustine, 6 de Sacramentis? Csesarius of Aries (j- 542), 8 St. Isidore of Seville (j- 636) 9 and so on. As soon as people began to ask what is exactly the " form " of the Sacrament they answered, at any rate in the West, that it is the words of Christ 1 which “operate what they state,” as theologians put it. 2 So a later prayer for consecration seemed unnecessary and misleading. Of the time when the Invocation was removed we can only surmise that it was between Gelasius I (Vth cent.) and the Gelasian Sacramentary (Vlth or Vllth cent. ; see p. 121). It is often suggested that this may be one of the changes made by St. Gregory I (590-604.) 3”
 
Fuerza said:
Remember also that the traditional Offertory in the EF contains an epiclesis:

Come, Thou Sanctifier, almighty and eternal God, and bless + this sacrifice prepared for the glory of Thy holy Name.

This is pretty much a direct appeal to the Holy Spirit, who is also known as the Sanctifier, and is probably the closest thing to an Eastern Orthodox epiclesis that you will find in the TLM (aside from the implicit ones in the Canon that have already been mentioned here).
Click to expand...
I was about to mention this, combined it with the Quam Oblatione:

Come, Thou Sanctifier, almighty and eternal God, and bless + this sacrifice prepared for the glory of Thy holy Name.

…

Humbly we pray Thee, O God, be pleased to make this same offering wholly blessed +, to consecrate + it and approve + it, making it reasonable and acceptable, so that it may become for us the Body + and Blood + of Thy dearly beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.

It makes for a complete Epiclesis, no?
 
Rome didn’t eliminate the epiclesis, it moved it to the beginning of its anaphora.
 
Roman Mass Epiclesis, after the Anamensis:

Eucharistic Prayer I
In humble prayer we ask you, almighty God: command that these gifts be borne by the hands of your holy Angel to your altar on high in the sight of your divine majesty, so that all of us who through this participation at the altar receive the most holy Body and Blood of your Son may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing.

1962 Mass
Súpplices te rogámus, omnípotens Deus: jube hæc perférri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublíme altáre tuum, in conspéctu divínæ majestátis tuæ: ut quotquot ex hac altáris participatióne sacrosánctum Fíii tui, Cor+pus, et Sán+guinem sumpsérimus, omni benedictióne cælésti et grátia repleámur. Per eúndem Christum Dóminum nostrum. Amen.

Eucharistic Prayer II
Humbly we pray that, partaking in the Body and Blood of Christ, we may be gathered into one by the Holy Spirit.

Eucharistic Prayer III
Look, we pray, upon the oblation of your Church, and, recognizing the sacrificial Victim by whose death you willed to reconcile us to yourself, grant that we, who are nourished by the Body and Blood of your Son, and filled with his Holy Spirit, may become one body, one spirit in Christ.

Eucharistic Prayer IV
Look, O Lord, upon the Sacrifice which you yourself have provided for your Church and grant in your loving kindness to all who partake of this one Bread and one Chalice that, gathered into one body by the Holy Spirit, they may truly become a living sacrifice in Christ to the praise of your glory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top