Epiclesis and the Consecration

  • Thread starter Thread starter smad0142
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

smad0142

Guest
How long has the Epiclesis been a part of the Divine Liturgy? And if it has been there since the time of St. John Chrysostom how did he reconcile it with other statements he made saying that the Words of Institution effected the change? (Sorry I have no time to provide the source!)
 
The teaching that the epiclesis effects the change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ goes at least as far back as to the teachings of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who was an older contemporary of St. John Chrysostom. At what point an epiclesis came to be included in the Constantinopolitan liturgy, I do not know.
 
“It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God’s. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.”

Here is the quote I had in mind. This is St. John Chrysostom.
 
smad0142 said:
“It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God’s. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.”

Here is the quote I had in mind. This is St. John Chrysostom.
Click to expand...
The Byzantine church has never defined WHEN the change takes place…just that it does in fact take place…does it happen at the words of institution or the epiclesis…or when…who knows. 🤷
 
ciero said:
The Byzantine church has never defined WHEN the change takes place…just that it does in fact take place…does it happen at the words of institution or the epiclesis…or when…who knows. 🤷
Click to expand...
There are many anaphora, but they must all be completed prior to reception of the Mystery of the Holy Euchrist, so it seems to be of little value to specify a particular moment, and some anaphora even do not have an epiklesis.

The Catholic Church addressed the words of institution in the Guidelines For Admission To The Eucharist Between The Chaldean Church And The Assyrian Church Of The East:

"… 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. Although not having any authority as to the substance of the sacraments, the Church does have the power to determine their concrete shaping, regarding both their sacramental sign (materia) and their words of administration (forma) (cf. CCEO, can. 669). Hence the doctrinal question about the validity of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, when used in its short version without a coherent Institution Narrative. Do the words of administration (forma) correspond to the conditions for validity, as requested by the Catholic Church? …

A long and careful study was undertaken of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, from a theological, liturgical and historical perspective, at the end of which the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith on January 17th, 2001 concluded that this Anaphora can be considered valid. Pope John Paul II subsequently approved this decision."

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html
 
But St. John Chrysostom clearly said it took place at the Words of Institution. Thats why I ask if the Epiclesis was added later. Because why would he pray the Epiclesis if he believed the Words of Institution already effected the Mystery? They would be redundant.

This is a legit question. I am not baiting anyone.
 
smad0142 said:
But St. John Chrysostom clearly said it took place at the Words of Institution. Thats why I ask if the Epiclesis was added later. Because why would he pray the Epiclesis if he believed the Words of Institution already effected the Mystery? They would be redundant.

This is a legit question. I am not baiting anyone.
Click to expand...
In Divine Liturgy we are in union with the eternal sacrifice, outside of time, everywhere and always the same, so “redundant” is not applicable. 🙂 We know that the bread and wine truly become the body and blood of Christ. There isn’t a defined “when” in terms of the temporal experience we as persons are limited to.

I realize this doesn’t answer the question you are asking. 🙂
 
I recently purchased a book that explores precisely this question:

The Eucharistic Epiclesis: A Detailed History from the Patristic to the Modern Era by Fr. John McKenna. It was originally published in 1975, and republished in a second edition with new material in 2009. I’m only through the first chapter, and the history of the Epiclesis is far more complicated (and fascinating) than I had been led to believe. Once I finish it, I’ll be able to comment more cogently on this topic. If you really want to study this issue, I suggest you find a copy! 👍

In Christ God,
AJKG
 
Thanks for using your first post on me! The information was a home run!
 
Caeremonarius said:
I recently purchased a book that explores precisely this question:

The Eucharistic Epiclesis: A Detailed History from the Patristic to the Modern Era by Fr. John McKenna. It was originally published in 1975, and republished in a second edition with new material in 2009. I’m only through the first chapter, and the history of the Epiclesis is far more complicated (and fascinating) than I had been led to believe. Once I finish it, I’ll be able to comment more cogently on this topic. If you really want to study this issue, I suggest you find a copy! 👍

In Christ God,
AJKG
Click to expand...
I see this quote from Fr. Taft on the publisher’s website:
McKenna’s deceptively simple discourse and clear language, like that of Schillebeeckx, results from the clarity, not the simplicity, of his thinking on a still disputed and more often than not misunderstood topic in eucharistic and ecumenical theology: in the Eucharist, who offers what to whom, when, and how? Every professor of liturgical and ecumenical theology should have this book in his or her library."
Robert F. Taft, S.J.
Click to expand...
There’s no scholar on Liturgy respected more East or West than Fr. Taft so it sound like you have a good read ahead!

(The publisher has it on sale for $22.50, estimated $7.91 shipping to my house. Amazon has it for $28, free shipping.)
 
In the John McKenna book, The Eucharistic Epiclesis: … p. 127-128 you read that the* intention* to convert the bread and wine to the body and blood of Christ is necessary, and that in the west it is sufficient if that intention is internal, and the east has chosen to make it explicit using an epiklesis. So there is a narrative in the west and an explicit epiklesis is not necessary.

On page 127 he writes of the opinion of a few authors on the two homilies *De Protitione Judae *of St. John Chrysotsom, that Chrysotsom means that Christ is the consecrator and the priest is the minister.
 
Vico,

That does not address the question though. It must be Christ working through the Priest that effects the Sacrament. My question is how could St. Chrysostom say it happens at the Words of Institution but then include the Epiclesis in the DL, especially after the Words of Institution?

Further why does the East require an Epiclesis, at least in the Byzantine tradition, if there is no such Epiclesis anywhere in the Gospels surrounding the Institution?
 
I have heard that part of the reason for the epiclesis in the Eucharistic liturgies of the East was to combat the heresy that the Holy Spirit is not divine. In any case, the use of an epiclesis was not unique to the Constantinopolitan liturgies, as is shown by the writing of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who did teach that the epiclesis effects the change of the elements into the Body and Blood of Christ.
 
smad0142 said:
Vico,

That does not address the question though. It must be Christ working through the Priest that effects the Sacrament. My question is how could St. Chrysostom say it happens at the Words of Institution but then include the Epiclesis in the DL, especially after the Words of Institution?

Further why does the East require an Epiclesis, at least in the Byzantine tradition, if there is no such Epiclesis anywhere in the Gospels surrounding the Institution?
Click to expand...
At the institution of the Eucharist, it was Christ Himself, God Incarnate, united to both the Father and the Holy Spirit, who officiated. Since then, it is mere mortal men, empowered by the Holy Spirit to act on Christ’s behalf, who officiate. Without the power of the Holy Spirit, we would be eating mere bread, and drinking mere wine. Christ did not need to invoke the Holy Spirit to do what He, who is God, has the power to do.
 
smad0142 said:
Vico,

That does not address the question though. It must be Christ working through the Priest that effects the Sacrament. My question is how could St. Chrysostom say it happens at the Words of Institution but then include the Epiclesis in the DL, especially after the Words of Institution?

Further why does the East require an Epiclesis, at least in the Byzantine tradition, if there is no such Epiclesis anywhere in the Gospels surrounding the Institution?
Click to expand...
The epiklesis is an outward expression of the intention and is optional, yet the intention itself is not optional. The words of instution, or narrative, are present no matter if there is an epiklesis or not.

Epiklesis is present in the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysotsom, Divine Liturgy of Saint Basil, the Divine Liturgy of Saint James, and the Divine Liturgy of Saint Mark (Coptic) and the Divine Liturgy of Saint Gregory (Coptic).

In the Divine Liturgy of Adai Mari there is an epiklesis also (but no words of instutuion). Why does the east require it? Saint Cyril of Jerusalem (b. 315) interpolated the epiklesis into the Divine Liturgy. Emperor Justinian desired it to be said loudly (sixth century).
 
Thanks Vico!!

Does anyone know why it comes after the Words of Institution? And why St. Cyril added it? Thanks!!
 
As I stated in a previous post, I’ve heard that the epiclesis was added, at least in part, as a way of combatting the heretical teaching that the Holy Spirit is not truly God.
 
smad0142 said:
Thanks Vico!!

Does anyone know why it comes after the Words of Institution? And why St. Cyril added it? Thanks!!
Click to expand...
There was once an epiklesis of the Logos. Also an epiklesis of the Trinity.

I read that the Roman Liturgy had an epiklesis following the words of institution until being revised by Gregory the Great. Also that Augustine and Ambrose were to a great extent responsible for changing emphasis from the epiklesis to the words of institution. Also that epiklesis was a pagan practice in ancient times. (The new Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia of religious knowledge, p. 153)

Cyril of Jerusalem wrote: “Before the invocation of the adorable Trinity, the bread and wine of the Eucharist are merely bread and wine; but after it, they are the body and blood of Christ.” (Catecheses mystagogicae 1, 7.)
 
My wife’s grandfather, the Rev. Fr. Stepan Chabursky (+memory eternal!) wrote a book on the Epiclesis (appropriately titled, “The Epiclesis” Logos press).

In it are a slew of Patristic references to underline the view of the liturgical structure of the Eucharistic Canon in which the entire Holy Trinity is invoked, the Anamnesis, the Words of Institution and the Epiclesis.

That the Words of Institution change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of OLGS Jesus Christ - of this there can be no doubt.

But the question remains - by what means? By means of the Power of the Holy Spirit through the Epiclesis. In other words, the Epiclesis is the means by which the Words of Institution effect the change.

The historical narrative of Christ at the Mystical Supper is what is recalled at the Divine Liturgy. Christ would not have needed an Epiclesis to effect the Eucharistic Change. But all the Sacraments, including the Eucharist, require the active role of the Holy Spirit in order to be efficacious. This role is liturgically celebrated in a specific, time-determined manner in the East.

Chrysostom only said that the Words of Institution effect the change - at no time did he comment on the liturgical framework/process when he said that. The miracle of the Change is effected by God at some point during the Eucharistic Canon - when, we cannot really know.

It is only after the final “Amen” of the Epiclesis that we KNOW for certain that there is no longer any bread or wine on the Altar, but the Most Pure and Most Precious Body and Blood of OLGS Jesus Christ.

In the East, the role of the Holy Spirit in this regard is so pronounced that the Assyrians omit the Words of Institution, the “historical narrative,” entirely.

In the West, the Epiclesis is often placed before the Words of Institution, although there are Western canons without an explicit Epiclesis.

Alex
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top