Eucharistic Consecration by "Words of institution" - Early Latin witness

[Chris_McAvoy]

THE THEOLOGY OF EUCHARISTIC CONSECRATION: ROLE OF THE PRIEST IN CELTIC LITURGY

ts.mu.edu/content/40/40.2/40.2.6.pdf

This is a fascinating article.

It appears to support the belief that the “words of institution” have been considered the necessary and sufficient “sacramental form” for Eucharistic Consecration throughout the Latin speaking Churches from at least the 6th century.

I think someone here would fine it a good read.
However, the role of the Holy Spirit or epiclesis is also emphasized as important more often in the earlier time of the latin west as these quotes show:

The opening prayer of the Mass for Maundy Thursday in the Irish Sacramentary has these words: "Carrying out a saving effigy of the Lord’s immolation, which is transformed into a spiritual sacrifice by the offering of Christ ',25 The prayer is reproduced in the somewhat later Missale Gothicum, and it presents a developed theology of the Mass.

The immolation is carried out in effigy, not in the shedding of real blood, and this effigy is not mere play-acting, because the words of Christ and the act of Christ make it a spiritual sacrifice. That some thinking had taken place when the prayer was being composed may be judged from its later clause, which asks that Christ may bless the gifts that have been offered and that by the enlightening of the Holy Spirit a sweet odor may rise up as the angels carry it aloft. The fragment at Cambridge which contains some Christmas prayers from a mid-eighth-century Mass book has the same phrase about the sweet odor: "From these sacred offerings may a sweet odor rise up to Thee and upon them may copious blessings descend from Thee, that by the mystery of Thy working there may be to us a lawful Eucharist and true blood in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."26

This prayer followed the words of consecration.

The petition for a “legitimate Eucharist” that can be found in a number of these prayers did not arise out of regard for canon law; it was rather a theological desire that the words spoken by the priest should have the power of God behind them. This is expressed by a prayer from what seems to be a Breton liturgy. The codex itself is in the Ambrosiana at Milan, and its only hint of locality of provenance is a Mass for an unknown St. Hilduin. Now Gilduin was a Breton saint, and the consonants G and H can easily be interchanged in the Breton language. The prayer runs:

"Holy Lord, when Thou didst repudiate animal sacrifice, Thou didst desire that the rite of this spiritual sacrifice, prefigured by Melchisedech, committed by Thine only Son to the apostles and by them spread throughout the world, should prevail also for the eternal salvation of Thine own by its mystical holiness; pour forth Thy grace, Thy Spirit, and Thy power upon these blessed creatures, that their complete consecration may be wrought not by word or tongue of mortal but by inspiration from heaven, through Christ our Lord."27 What might be meant by “complete” consecration one can only conjecture; the priest speaks the words of Christ, and the Father accepts that action by the sending of the Spirit. A model of that type might satisfy. Alternatively, one might think that the words of Christ, spoken in his person by the priest, suffice for the sending of the Spirit; they are not mere words, but power and life.

That thinking needed to be clarified about the role of the Son and the Spirit at the consecration can be seen from the Mass of St. Germanus in the Missale Gallicanum vetus, where apost-pridie prayer (that followed immediately on the consecration) asked for the descent "of Thy holy Word, of the inestimable Spirit of Thy glory, of the ancient gift of Thy pardon."28 Though written down ca. 700, this prayer was composed long before that, in Merovingian Gaul, while the conviction that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father was growing more clear in Spain and spreading northwards. In the fifth Mone Mass there is an explicit statement that the Holy Spirit is "ex Patre et Filio mystica processione subsistens."29 That Trinitarian appropriations came in gradually to describe the work of consecration might be inferred from the prayer in the Stowe Missal (p. 7) which was sung three times at the half-uncovering of the chalice: “Veni, Domine sanctificator omnipotens, et benedic hoc sacrificium praeparatum Tibi. Amen.” This is the earliest form of the prayer which remained in the Roman Missal until 1970, and it is a prayer addressed to the Father, who is the recipient of the sacrifice.

Perhaps this article proves that the two ideas were historically complementary, not contradictory. ;D

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

Although it also states something more boldly polemical:

John Chrysostom held that the words of Christ used at the consecration were creative words, while he also held that it is the coming of the Spirit that makes bread become the Bread of Heaven.30 He also said that Christ as the new Moses has the Spirit consubstantial with himself, and, just as Moses struck the rock and drew forth streams of water, so Christ touches the spiritual table and causes to rise up streams of the Spirit. That is why the altar is in the middle, like a spring, so that the flock may gather round from all sides to enjoy the saving waters.31 A Latin version of this homily circulated in the West from ca. 750. The preoccupation of the Byzantine Greeks with the denial of the Filioque gave a wrong direction to their theology of the Mass, for, if the Spirit does not proceed from the Son, then Christ by his words cannot be thought to send the Spirit upon the offerings of bread and wine. Chrysostom felt no difficulty in saying that Christ sent the Spirit, like a second Moses, but after his day the Byzantines grew less willing to accept the fact.

I wonder what ideas anyone has on this. I think it’s quite interesting.

 

[5Loaves]

THE THEOLOGY OF EUCHARISTIC CONSECRATION: ROLE OF THE PRIEST IN CELTIC LITURGY

Perhaps this article proves that the two ideas were historically complementary, not contradictory. ;D

What was there a particular reason you had for posting this in the Eastern Catholicism section of the Forum? Could you say in a nutshell?

 

[Khalid]

Because Eastern Christians place much emphasis on the role of the epiclesis, and the Orthodox priests I have spoken with have gone so far as to say that the Words of Institution are insufficient to confect the eucharist (with one saying even that the entire thing must be said in Greek to be valid!).

 

[Cavaradossi]

Because Eastern Christians place much emphasis on the role of the epiclesis, and the Orthodox priests I have spoken with have gone so far as to say that the Words of Institution are insufficient to confect the eucharist (with one saying even that the entire thing must be said in Greek to be valid!).

Well, that priest was obviously wrong.

 

[Khalid]

One reason I added the exclamation point. Even I didn’t think it was true (he also insisted that prayers be in Greek to be truly pleasing to God). Nevertheless, Greeks seem to have a sort of racial/cultural superiority complex (because they had Plato?) as a race that is equaled only by the Jews. And I’m as much Greek as I am anything else, but some of the - do they call it phyletism? - is ridiculous. What is orthodox in Greece, is heresy in Bulgaria - because Bulgarians aren’t Hellenes.

As far as the epiclesis, every Orthodox priest I have ever spoken to has pointed out the retaining of the epiclesis or “proper” epiclesis in Orthodox practice as a necessity for confecting the eucharist vis a vis the Latin practice.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

As far as the epiclesis, every Orthodox priest I have ever spoken to has pointed out the retaining of the epiclesis or “proper” epiclesis in Orthodox practice as a necessity for confecting the eucharist vis a vis the Latin practice.

That sounds right to me, from the Eastern Catholic point of view. I have often been told that the Gifts become the Body and Blood of Christ at some point during the Anaphora, not necessarily when the so-called Words of Institution are recited (the Consecration). The Anaphora begins after the recitation of the Creed and ends with the Epiclesis and final commemorations, as I understand.

 

[ConstantineTG]

he also insisted that prayers be in Greek to be truly pleasing to God

Wow, a Greek Traddie, never knew they existed

I wonder what he thinks of Sts. Cyril and Methodius though.

 

[Cavaradossi]

It is worth pointing out that the Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari contains no explicit use of the words of institution. Criticize the Orthodox as one might for insisting that an epiclesis is necessary, but the Latins essentially played the same game with the words of institution and the Chaldean Catholics (inserting them into the anaphora for those in union with Rome) until the past decade or so, when the Vatican changed its mind.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Criticize the Orthodox as one might for insisting that an epiclesis is necessary …

Heaven forbid that one might think invoking the Holy Spirit over the Holy Gifts might be efficacious …

Good afternoon, dear brother!

 

[Cavaradossi]

Heaven forbid that one might think invoking the Holy Spirit over the Holy Gifts might be efficacious …

Good afternoon, dear brother!

You know, I find it interesting that the OF of the mass has three different eucharistic prayers which include an epiclesis (in addition to a fourth which is the Roman Canon). Evidently, those who drafted the new mass thought that it might be efficacious too.

Good afternoon to you too!

 

[Vico]

Although it also states something more boldly polemical: John Chrysostom held that the words of Christ used at the consecration were creative words, while he also held that it is the coming of the Spirit that makes bread become the Bread of Heaven.30 He also said that Christ as the new Moses has the Spirit consubstantial with himself, and, just as Moses struck the rock and drew forth streams of water, so Christ touches the spiritual table and causes to rise up streams of the Spirit. That is why the altar is in the middle, like a spring, so that the flock may gather round from all sides to enjoy the saving waters.31 A Latin version of this homily circulated in the West from ca. 750. The preoccupation of the Byzantine Greeks with the denial of the Filioque gave a wrong direction to their theology of the Mass, for, if the Spirit does not proceed from the Son, then Christ by his words cannot be thought to send the Spirit upon the offerings of bread and wine. Chrysostom felt no difficulty in saying that Christ sent the Spirit, like a second Moses, but after his day the Byzantines grew less willing to accept the fact.
I wonder what ideas anyone has on this. I think it’s quite interesting.

The quote above is from:

THE THEOLOGY OF EUCHARISTIC CONSECRATION: ROLE OF THE PRIEST IN CELTIC LITURGY (See page 341)
ts.mu.edu/content/searchArticles.html

Below is an excerpt from the (Byzantine) Anaphora of the Divine Litugy of St. John Chrysostom, all addressing God the Father. Notice “your Holy Spirit”, “body of your Christ”, “blood of your Christ”, and “by your Holy Spirit”.

CELEBRANT: 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.
The celebrant, concelebrants, and deacon bow three times.
The deacon then bows his head and, pointing with his orarion to the holy bread, says quietly:
DEACON: Reverend Father, bless the holy bread.
The celebrant makes the sign of the cross over the bread praying aloud:
CELEBRANT: + And make this bread the precious body of your Christ.
DEACON: Amen.
The deacon then points with his orarion to the chalice and says:
DEACON: Reverend Father, bless the holy chalice.
The celebrant makes the sign of the cross over the chalice, praying aloud:
CELEBRANT: + And that which is in this chalice the precious blood of your Christ.
DEACON: Amen.
The deacon then points with his orarion to both gifts and says:
DEACON: Reverend Father, bless both.
The celebrant makes the sign of the cross over both the bread and chalice, praying aloud:
CELEBRANT: + Changing them by your Holy Spirit.
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 Spirit, the fullness of the heavenly kingdom, and confidence in you, not judgment or condemnation.
*The celebrant, concelebrants, and deacon together make a profound bow.

 

[BertBlyleven]

You know, I find it interesting that the OF of the mass has three different eucharistic prayers which include an epiclesis (in addition to a fourth which is the Roman Canon). Evidently, those who drafted the new mass thought that it might be efficacious too.

Good afternoon to you too!

It is an epiclesis…but not in the Eastern sense. It happens before the words of institution, and is in the subjunctive mood (“may become”) and not active/imperative (“make”).

The Roman Canon implores God “to bless, approve, ratify, make worthy and acceptable; that it may become for us the Body and Blood of Thy most beloved Son Jesus Christ our Lord.”

The other epicleses implore [paraphrased] God to send down His Spirit that the offering may become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

I think you can run into some theological problems by saying one (three) does what the other doesn’t. If the Roman Canon does not have an “epiclesis”, then it seems very Latin-ish to claim that God’s Spirit by word, not God, must be addressed in an epiclesis and must be done in that way to consecrate.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

It is an epiclesis…but not in the Eastern sense. It happens before the words of institution, and is in the subjunctive mood (“may become”) and not active/imperative (“make”).

In the comparative text analysis on the USCCB website, an Epiclesis is identified that precedes the words of institution, as you have noted, but then there is a second Epiclesis identified, following the Anamnesis, as follows:

Epiclesis

PRESENT TEXT: May all of us who share in the body and blood of Christ be brought together in unity by the Holy Spirit.

NEW TEXT: Humbly we pray that, partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, we may be gathered into one by the Holy Spirit.

source: old.usccb.org/romanmissal/samples-priest-prayer2.shtml

Is this a second “epiclesis”, or perhaps the completion of the Epiclesis taken in two parts, before and after the consecration?

In some sense, does this structure not seems to emulate the Eastern mode fairly well not so much in terms of exactitude, but rather in that it implies that the entirety of the Anaphora is essential to the Transubstantiation, and not simply the Words of Institution?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I have a source from an Orthodox website regarding the development of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom from its conception to today. One part briefly touches on consecration and the conclusion there is that it seems the Church does have the authority to say which words are consecratory in the Liturgy.

I’ll dig up the link, its in an email sent by our priest about a year ago. I’ll post it when I find it.