Epiclesis or Words of Institution, how does that work?

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I’ll put a little disclaimer here; I don’t want to be ignorant of Eastern beliefs neither am I saying they are wrong, but I think I am a bit confused and maybe even misled about Transubstantiation happening during time from Words of Institution to Epiclesis. My basis for confusion is that Scripture does not mention Epiclesis happening during Last Supper- now yes, it might have been left out but if significance of Epiclesis was that big, I don’t find that likely. I know Eastern Catholics generally don’t, but Eastern Orthodox place far more value on Epiclesis even to the point where Western Rite Orthodox Liturgy needed to contain it too. Why is that though? What is theology behind that?

 

[po18guy]

I am wondering why anything has to be in scripture?

OK, did you miss the part where our Lord “said the blessing”?

Yeah.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Right, it’s mostly that Eastern Orthodox tend to base it around requirement of Epiclesis- I don’t want to imply Epiclesis is wrong or something like that, after all we are not Sola Scriptura Christians. I’m mostly saying that Epiclesis comes after Words of Institution in Byzantine Rite, and this sequence was mandated in Western Orthodox Rite. Part where our Lord “said the blessing” was before Words of Institution, or am I mistaken? I don’t quite understand belief that Epiclesis is mandatory in Western Rite, nor do I understand reason behind Epiclesis being end of Transubstantiation- probably because I don’t understand matter enough.

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

As I understand it (and Jimmy Akin addressed this recently on air), in the East, there’s really not much concern for saying that transubstantiation occurs at any precise moment. There’s an emphasis on epiclesis, but there’s no definitive “this is it” moment.

While I certainly understand our Western praxis of p(name removed by moderator)ointing every detail, I find something refreshing in simply saying the mystery unfolds in such a way that we don’t have to know or need to understand the minutiae to participate in it.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

As I understand it (and Jimmy Akin addressed this recently on air), in the East, there’s really not much concern for saying that transubstantiation occurs at any precise moment. There’s an emphasis on epiclesis, but there’s no definitive “this is it” moment.

Well, but why would then Orthodox Church insist on inclusion of Epiclesis after Words of Institution in Western Rite? I understand East does not p(name removed by moderator)oint exact moment, but by the time of Epiclesis there should be our Lord present, right?

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

I don’t know why the Orthodox insist on anything; I’m definitely not an expert on the Orthodox - in fact, I’m barely a novice when it comes to their theology. My point was simply more to your second sentence: no, from an Eastern perspective, I don’t think we can say with certainty that our Lord is present by the time of epiclesis. It’s the fact that both actions, epiclesis + words of institution are present that the Real Presence comes into being. We neither know when nor how. I don’t know why the epiclesis is insisted upon being second in sequence.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Fr. Robert Taft has a good article, talk, or book somewhere where he touches on this. The short summary is that the Western Canon (i.e. Eucharistic Prayers) is older than the Eastern (Byzantine) Eucharistic Prayers. It predates the Holy Spirit controversies that were settled at Constantinople I, and for this reason focuses on the Words of Institution. In the East, in order to emphasize and affirm both the deity and action of the Holy Spirit, the Epiclesis was expanded and became the central focus of the Eucharistic prayers.

We should bear in mind that, regardless of when or how it takes place, the transformation of ordinary bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is an action of the Trinity as a whole, not just one Person of the Trinity. What we can say with absolute certainty is that the transformation happens. But we can only theorize as to when exactly it happens. And ultimately the theorizing is not that important.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

In terms of whether or not our Lord is present after the Epiclesis, there’s some disagreement on that as well. Some Byzantine theologians theorize that it’s not until the zeon (hot water) is added to the wine (long after the Epiclesis and almost immediately before Communion) that Christ becomes present. Again, the only thing we really know with certainty is that by the time we go up to receive the Eucharist, Christ is present there. Until then, we simply behave as if He’s present out of reverence.

Bear in mind also that this is a strictly Byzantine argument. Although the Syriac traditions also have an explicit and highly developed Epiclesis, I’ve never heard a Syriac (or Coptic or Ethiopian) argument for when the moment of transformation actually takes place. My guess is that we would lean more toward the Byzantine understanding since we have Eucharistic Prayers that don’t even contain the Words of Institution (e.g. the Anaphora of Addai and Mari).

 

[Dovekin]

then the LORD God formed the man out of the dust of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Genesis 2:7

This is an imperfect analogy, but was Adam created when God formed his body, or when God breathed into him?

This is a narrative account that has to place things in a sequence. Is the sequence significant? Idk.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I see, thank you, that explained a lot to me. I knew about Anaphora of Addai and Mari, but my understanding was that implicit Words of Institution were functioning in same way explicit Words of Institution do.

This is an imperfect analogy, but was Adam created when God formed his body, or when God breathed into him?

Depends how you define “Adam”. Adam’s body was created when God formed it, Adam’s life when God breathed into him. It’s just that Epiclesis itself is not mentioned during Last Supper hence I found it a bit weird to be issue for Orthodoxy. I don’t disregard Epiclesis at all, I’m simply saying that insisting on it is something I do not understand and wanted to, as well as understanding significance of Epiclesis as whole.

 

[Vico]

In terms of whether or not our Lord is present after the Epiclesis, there’s some disagreement on that as well. Some Byzantine theologians theorize that it’s not until the zeon (hot water) is added to the wine (long after the Epiclesis and almost immediately before Communion) that Christ becomes present. Again, the only thing we really know with certainty is that by the time we go up to receive the Eucharist, Christ is present there. Until then, we simply behave as if He’s present out of reverence.

Bear in mind also that this is a strictly Byzantine argument. Although the Syriac traditions also have an explicit and highly developed Epiclesis, I’ve never heard a Syriac (or Coptic or Ethiopian) argument for when the moment of transformation actually takes place. My guess is that we would lean more toward the Byzantine understanding since we have Eucharistic Prayers that don’t even contain the Words of Institution (e.g. the Anaphora of Addai and Mari).

There are three profound bows in our Byzantine (Ruthenian) Divine Liturgy;

Celebrant: Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you for the remission of sins.
All make a profound bow.

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.
All make a profound bow.
…
The celebrant prays the Epiklesis, invoking the Holy Spirit upon the gifts and the faithful.
…
Deacon: Amen, amen, amen.
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 Spírít, the fullness of the heavenly kingdom, and confidence in you, not judgment or condemnation.
The clergy and faithful make a profound bow.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Do you attend a Byzantine-Ruthenian parish? I ask because the profound bows after the Words of Institution are something I’ve only encountered at Ruthenian parishes, and are widely known to be a Latinization.

I’ll double-check the Melkite liturgical texts to see if they say anything.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Looking at the Melkite liturgical texts, it appears that the laity are not expected to bow at all - although they’re welcome to as a sign of reverence. The priest(s) and deacon(s), however, make lesser bows (either an inclination of the head or bowing at the waist and touching the floor with an extended hand) after the Words of Institution, but only make a profound bow (i.e. getting on their hands and knees and touching their foreheads to the floor) after the Epiclesis.

In my experience the lay faithful only bow after the threefold Amen when the priest(s) and deacon(s) make a profound bow.

 

[Vico]

Looking at the Melkite liturgical texts, it appears that the laity are not expected to bow at all - although they’re welcome to as a sign of reverence. The priest(s) and deacon(s), however, make lesser bows (either an inclination of the head or bowing at the waist and touching the floor with an extended hand) after the Words of Institution, but only make a profound bow (i.e. getting on their hands and knees and touching their foreheads to the floor) after the Epiclesis.

In my experience the lay faithful only bow after the threefold Amen when the priest(s) and deacon(s) make a profound bow.

The Ruthenian profound bow used in the Sunday Divine Liturgy is bowing at the waist and touching the floor with an extended hand. I have never seen any variation of this in the Divine Liturgy on the weekdays. In my parish, most of the faithful are only doing the first two profound bows, but I do all three along with the clergy and as it is indicated in the promulgated liturgy from the Archeparchy.

The Ruthenian Divine Liturgies are based upon those from the time of 1453 of ** Metropolitan Isidore of Kiev and all Rus** which is like the Old Believers liturgies rather than the Russian. The Russian has the changes made by Patriarch of Moscow, Nikon, approved in 1656. Of course this is different than the Melkite. Really Rome identified four Byzantine recensions:

• Greek
• Common (Russian, Bulgarian, Serbian)
• Ruthenian (Ukrainian and Ruthenian)
• Romanian

In the Melkite version (Ad Experimentum) from 2009, that I have a copy of, the first two bows are made by the clergy after the words of institution, and the third bow is a profound body and is earlier than that of the Ruthenian yet after the Epiclesis “Amen, Amen, Amen. They both bow down to the floor.”

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

So basically we’ve succeeded only in p(name removed by moderator)ointing differences within the Byzantine tradition itself (differences between the Greek practice and the Slavic practice). This still doesn’t speak into when the Byzantine tradition p(name removed by moderator)oints the moment of of transformation.

The Byzantine-Ruthenian practice in the U.S. is at variance with the Rurthenian Recension proper since the revisions, edits, abridgments, and re-translations done around a decade ago resulting in the notorious “Green Book”.

 

[Vico]

So basically we’ve succeeded only in p(name removed by moderator)ointing differences within the Byzantine tradition itself (differences between the Greek practice and the Slavic practice). This still doesn’t speak into when the Byzantine tradition p(name removed by moderator)oints the moment of of transformation.

The Byzantine-Ruthenian practice in the U.S. is at variance with the Rurthenian Recension proper since the revisions, edits, abridgments, and re-translations done around a decade ago resulting in the notorious “Green Book”.

The Green Book is the sole liturgical text promulgated by the Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church Sui Iuris of Pittsburgh, USA. What is used in Europe is based upon their sui iuris church jurisdictions. Our pastor taught us that there is no point identified, but it is only complete at the end of the Anaphora. There is no dispute with Rome over the Roman Missal which have epiclesis forms both before and after the words of institution, nor over the approved dispersed version used by the Chaldean Catholic Church.

 

[dochawk]

As I understand it (and Jimmy Akin addressed this recently on air), in the East, there’s really not much concern for saying that transubstantiation occurs at any precise moment.

You’ve nailed it.

Give us a list of potential points, ask us which, and we’ll reply with “yes.” The timing just isn’t important.

Well, but why would then Orthodox Church insist on inclusion of Epiclesis after Words of Institution in Western Rite?

both are present in all byzantine anaphora. For that matter, the only ones I know of in which either are missing is the Roman Canon (EP I) which has no explicit anaphora, and the Liturgy of Addai and Mari, without explicit words of institution (and which also predates all byzantine and latin anaphora . . .)

It might be helpful to point out that the byzantine Theophany Water ritual, unlike that for Holy Water, also includes and explicit epiclesis. The water. is consecrated, rather than blessed.

I understand East does not p(name removed by moderator)oint exact moment, but by the time of Epiclesis there should be our Lord present, right?

By the time its over, I suppose. It’s also longer than the western equivalent, addressed separately to the bread and to the wine, and jointly.

Some Byzantine theologians theorize that it’s not until the zeon (hot water) is added to the wine (long after the Epiclesis and almost immediately before Communion) that Christ becomes present.

Hot blessed water, for the fervor of our prayers.f

It’s use is also not universal among byzantines; it originated in slavic areas where the wine freezing in thedrafty and un/poorly heated church was an issue. (But the Melchites also have this practice, in a climate where wine freezing is simply not an issue . . .)

I knew about Anaphora of Addai and Mari, but my understanding was that implicit Words of Institution were functioning in same way explicit Words of Institution do.

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

 

[dochawk]

In the Melkite version ( Ad Experimentum ) from 2009, that I have a copy of, the first two bows are made by the clergy after the words of institution, and the third bow is a profound body and is earlier than that of the Ruthenian yet after the Epiclesis “Amen, Amen, Amen. They both bow down to the floor. ”

The first time I encountered this was with a smoking censer in my hands

I was serving at the Melkite outreaches first liturgy, and prepared it after the words of institution . . .I had no idea that the prostration. was coming until Father began it . . . (“why is he backing up?”) . . . I hope to never perform a prostration in that manner again!

The Green Book is the sole liturgical text promulgated by the Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church Sui Iuris of Pittsburgh, USA.

No, there are two.

The green box is from the Cantor Institute, and has every setting, with plenty of “jump to page 72” after each version, many of which jumps were wrong (I used to use a pen to mark the errors for the next person).

There is a separate, much simpler, pamphlet without the musical settings.

They were promulgated at the same time, and at the same price. This was to encourage parishes to purchase the green book.

My parish finally said, “enough is enough” and ordered the pamphlets some time ago.

Correctness aside, the prior red book made it far easier to follow th liturgy, at least for a new attendee.

It had English on one side, and Slavonic on the facing page.

And page 10A taped in was a kick ( I think it was adding the third antiphon back in, or some such).

And many notes like, “if it is the local practice to . . . then . . .”

And last but not least, the Filioque in brackets

hawk

 

[babochka]

Cor_ad_Cor:

As I understand it (and Jimmy Akin addressed this recently on air), in the East, there’s really not much concern for saying that transubstantiation occurs at any precise moment. There’s an emphasis on epiclesis, but there’s no definitive “this is it” moment.

Well, but why would then Orthodox Church insist on inclusion of Epiclesis after Words of Institution in Western Rite? I understand East does not p(name removed by moderator)oint exact moment, but by the time of Epiclesis there should be our Lord present, right?

By the epiclesis? Do you mean by the end of it? Certainly not before it is completed. This is evident from the words of the prayer, which specifically ask for the Holy Spirit to make the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ. Because of this, it is clear that the change does not occur at the words of institution, otherwise the prayer of epiclesis would make no sense.

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, And make this bread the precious body of your Christ, and that which is in this chalice the precious blood of your Christ, changing them by your Holy Spirit, 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.

Of course, this wouldn’t apply to the Latin Rite because the words of the prayers have a different structure.

 

[Vico]

…

Sole text not publication. That was a quote from the front of the book. Our parish has both available for use. The former blue and also the red book was linear but did not have the music. No taped in page in the one I have, seems the options were always skipped. Some people liked singing Mother of God better than Theotokos used today.