C
Cor_ad_Cor
Guest
Actually, my point is that we shouldn’t be so literal at all. “By the epiclesis” or “by the end of the epiclesis”… eh, irrelevant. More like “somewhere in there”.
- Status
B
babochka
Guest
Yes, exactly.babochka:
Actually, my point is that we shouldn’t be so literal at all. “By the epiclesis” or “by the end of the epiclesis”… eh, irrelevant. More like “somewhere in there”.
T
twf
Guest
Does it have to make linear sense? We are participating the eternal liturgy of heaven. Even if Christ is present at the words of institution, that doesn’t stop the Church from praying for the same after the fact… God is not bound by time. I mean by that same logic, the words of institution make no sense: This IS my body not This WILL BE my body.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
What do you mean by that? Don’t Words of Institution work same when they are explicit as when implicit?If I have to. choose between the judgment of second century church fathers, and twentieth or twenty first century theologians on such issues, I’ll go with the second century very time
About western rite, I was simply asking why is it considered so important to include Epiclesis even in Western Rite for Orthodox Church- not much to do with Eastern Catholics, I know, but still.
D
dochawk
Guest
I think they all work, yes.
But when Church Fathers instituted a liturgy in the second century, I think it’s pure hubris for any modern person to presume to question its validity . . .
But when Church Fathers instituted a liturgy in the second century, I think it’s pure hubris for any modern person to presume to question its validity . . .
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
I think Vatican questioned validity of that Liturgy simply because at the time, it was considered Nestorian liturgy and not exactly ancient liturgy… people just did not know if that is legit or not, I guess. Of course, Vatican has spoke about matter already very clearly anyway.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
I don’t know where that idea would have come from, as the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is one of the oldest in Christianity.
Last edited:
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
I meant that emphasis was on it being Nestorian, not that it was not ancient. I might be wrong though.
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
Excerpt from The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom by Fr. Basil Shereghy (Part I of footnote):
"The traditional Faith of the Church, East and West, is that the transubstantiation is worked per verbum Christi in virtute Spiritus Sancti — through the word of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. This teaching is very much present in the writings of St. Ambrose and St. Augustine and in other Latin writers of the fourth and fifth centuries. Even St. Irenaeus insists on the need of invoking God’s Name in the Eucharist. It is a work of the Holy Spirit by attribution. This invocation need not be explicit, in a distinct prayer; the early anaphoras in their very structure constitute an invocation to God. The Roman Canon apparently never had an explicit invocation of the Holy Spirit, even at a time when Pope Gelasius was writing that the Holy Spirit is invoked!
"The traditional Faith of the Church, East and West, is that the transubstantiation is worked per verbum Christi in virtute Spiritus Sancti — through the word of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. This teaching is very much present in the writings of St. Ambrose and St. Augustine and in other Latin writers of the fourth and fifth centuries. Even St. Irenaeus insists on the need of invoking God’s Name in the Eucharist. It is a work of the Holy Spirit by attribution. This invocation need not be explicit, in a distinct prayer; the early anaphoras in their very structure constitute an invocation to God. The Roman Canon apparently never had an explicit invocation of the Holy Spirit, even at a time when Pope Gelasius was writing that the Holy Spirit is invoked!
Last edited:
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
Part II of footnote:
"The primitive form of the Epiklesis, considered as a distinct prayer, apparently was not a transubstantiation epiklesis but a communion epiklesis for the effects of the Sacrifice. But we cannot avoid the fact that in the East, beginning in at least the fourth century, the need was felt to have an explicit invocation of the Holy Spirit for the transubstantiation, and the solution adopted was to combine this transubstantiation epiklesis with the more primitive epiklesis. This solution, which puts the prayer after the Consecration, was perhaps due to the fact that to insert an epiklesis prayer before the Consecration would have upset the traditional structure of the Anaphora.
No one should be scandalized by this Epiklesis and it’s position, but rather understand that the transubstantiation is worked at the Consecration per verbum Christi but in virtute Spiritus Sancti. Both operate at the same time, but two prayers cannot be recited at the same time.
Source: Shereghy, Basil. The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1961, pp. 47-49.
"The primitive form of the Epiklesis, considered as a distinct prayer, apparently was not a transubstantiation epiklesis but a communion epiklesis for the effects of the Sacrifice. But we cannot avoid the fact that in the East, beginning in at least the fourth century, the need was felt to have an explicit invocation of the Holy Spirit for the transubstantiation, and the solution adopted was to combine this transubstantiation epiklesis with the more primitive epiklesis. This solution, which puts the prayer after the Consecration, was perhaps due to the fact that to insert an epiklesis prayer before the Consecration would have upset the traditional structure of the Anaphora.
No one should be scandalized by this Epiklesis and it’s position, but rather understand that the transubstantiation is worked at the Consecration per verbum Christi but in virtute Spiritus Sancti. Both operate at the same time, but two prayers cannot be recited at the same time.
Source: Shereghy, Basil. The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1961, pp. 47-49.
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
Please see my two replies to OP. Fr. Shereghy explains it beautifully.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Thank you. That is very helpful. I am not scandalized by Epiclesis, it’s more that I want to understand it’s significance. What I was more concerned about is that it was viewed as necessary in Liturgy by Orthodox Church, but I guess that is not as important anyway. Thank you for your very informative response.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
So, I wonder, would it be fair to say that the Orthodox would argue that the Roman Church has an implicit Epiclesis, just as the Roman Church argues that the Anaphora of Addai and Mari has implicit Words of Institution? That’s an interesting perspective, and I never thought of it that way. But, for me at least, it begs the questions: If the Orthodox maintain that the Roman Canon has an implicit Epiclesis, then why was an explicit Epiclesis added to the Western Rite Orthodox Mass?
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Not just that, it was requirement and there was discussion of whether Roman Mass without Epiclesis was even valid. I understand those were just polemics, but many anti-unionists during Florence or Lyons actually maintained such position. I would like to know why would that be the case.
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
The red book was the hardcover edition of the leatherbound paperback blue book (I have 3 copies at home). And yes, it was much easier to follow that edition.
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
Pope Paul VI stated in Mysterium Fidei:
“The Lord is immolated in an unbloody way in the Sacrifice of the Mass and He re-presents the sacrifice of the Cross and applies its salvific power at the moment when he becomes sacramentally present— through the words of consecration—as the spiritual food of the faithful, under the appearances of bread and wine.”
http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_03091965_mysterium.html
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
But the words of Pope St. Paul VI don’t take into account the Anaphora of Addai and Mari that has no explicit words of consecration. So again, we’re left to theorizing.
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
I don’t know if Pope Paul VI (he’s a saint now?) was familiar with the Anaphora you posted. I did see that there’s a section in Mysterium Fidei on the Eastern Churches.
- Status