Shouldn't the biggest ecumenical concern be the epiclesis?

[MorEphrem]

I would to pose a question, not to seem like an antagonist, but it seems to me after reading through this thread that perhaps a bit of over-scrupulosity is involved in fearing idolatry: if man simply cannot not delineate the exact moment yet you’re paying homage to God, don’t you think that a truly merciful God would just accept your homage without offense? The entire point of an epiclesis is reflective of the Epiphany - it was known that Christ was man when the Holy Spirit descended upon Him and He was confirmed as the Beloved One. Is it not also in Latin reasoning that one is not committing a moral sin if they do not have the intent to do such an offense?

Relevantly, since I’m reading the Demonstrations on Faith by Aphrahat, he considers the Jews to have forsaken the first commandment when they willing defect to the cult of Baal. From that came their great offense. It wasn’t as if they thought Baal was the LORD, they made the distinction and willingly picked Baal over the LORD. That is idolatry. To pick something over God; this scenario is just your own insecurity weighing down on your faith.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

…this scenario is just your own insecurity weighing down on your faith.

THIS.

OP: Have you talked to your Spiritual Father or Confessor about this? I do not judge you in any way, it is good to ask questions. HOWEVER, one should not get hung up too much on the “HOW”…this is a mistake that is all too prevalent in the West. I speak from personal experience: When I was converting to Orthodoxy, my Spiritual Mother asked me point blank: Do YOU have to understand it for it to be real?

 

[dzheremi]

In particular to the Syriac Churches there is also the Rite of the Fraction which, while not consecratory in itself, is seen as the completion of the action. I believe it’s similar for the Copts.

Yes, we too have (many) Fraction prayers. We even adopted one from the Syriacs.

For a fairly detailed and interesting description of the Fraction in the Coptic tradition and how it relates to that of other churches, see this article by Fr. Gregory Tillett of the British Orthodox Church.

 

[Cavaradossi]

If an Eastern Christian were to attend Holy Mass in the Roman rite, he would be inclined to worship (what Latins consider) bread and wine for the 30 seconds or so that happens between the epiclesis and the Words of Institution. That is idolatry.

But an epiklesis without the words of institution would itself seem incomplete. It is not that the epiklesis itself has some sort of magical power, but rather it is the entire anaphora which effects the consecration of the elements. Taken outside of its traditional liturgical context and ordering (that is, that it traditionally comes after the words of institution), the epiklesis is not somehow in itself efficacious for consecrating the Eucharist (we would actually say this of all elements of the anaphora). The significance of the epiklesis is that it is the final prayer of the anaphora, the end of the liturgical process of turning unconsecrated bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, which is why we say that the consecration happens at that point.

Whereas if a Latin Christian were to attend an Eastern Divine Liturgy, he would be inclined to view the (what Eastern Christians consider to be the) Most Holy Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ to be bread and wine for the 30 seconds or so that happens between the epiclesis and the Words of Institution, whilst everybody around him is committing idolatry.

You have it backwards here, because in typical Eastern liturgies, the epiklesis comes after the words of institution. This is in fact the entire basis for the argument over when the consecration has finished. It would be nonsensical for there to be a prayer in the divine liturgy praying for the Holy Spirit to change the gifts into the precious body and blood of Christ if the consecration indeed happened at the words of institution.

An easy way to sweep this under the rug would be to say that the consecration occurs at different times in the rites, according to the intention of the celebrant. But that also seems quite troubling to me, since that turns a supernatural, sacramental power of the priesthood into a subjectivity; quite contrary to the ‘catholic’ spirit of there being One Body in Christ. Furthermore, that would also seem to suggest that both Latin and Eastern Christians should not object to the fact that separated Christians with invalid priesthoods, like the Anglicans and Methodists, are not committing idolatry despite the fact that they have no power to confect the Holy Eucharist.

I don’t see how a charge of idolatry could be sustained against Eastern Christians, because we do not consider the gifts to be consecrated until well after the words of institution, meaning that according to Latin theology, the gifts are already consecrated when we pray the epiklesis.

 

[Peter_J]

It is firmly canon in Latin theology that the consecration happens at the Words of Institution.

I guess you’ve hit on a pretty significant problem. That is to say, if you start with the assumption that “the consecration happens at the Words of Institution” (without any qualifiers, e.g. that it might depend on which liturgy you are talking about) then logically you are bound to have a problem with the, if you will, “post-Vatican II Church”.

 

[jimmy]

And of course I have to add a few more words. :yawn:

It’s interesting that I recently had a conversation with a very eminent Canon Lawyer (a JOCD who happens to be a close personal friend) about just this topic. In discussing the “bare minimum” concept (i.e, Preface, Institution, Epiklesis), he said “absolutely right! If I presented it just that way to the CDW even they’ll agree.”

The entire Scholastic idea of p(name removed by moderator)ointing one particular moment is what I’ve called in the past “magic words syndrome” and is something 100% alien to Oriental tradition. For us, the manifestation of the Real Presence is a completion. And there are some who hold that that very completion is only accomplished with the Rite of Fraction. It is there that we have the first (“minor”) elevation, and it after it that we have the second (“major”) elevation.

The magic word syndrome is basically how I have seen it as well. The pope says a word and it happens. It’s part of the general sacramental theology of the west. The priest says a couple specific words, and the Eucharist is consecrated, your sins are absolved, you are baptized, or etc. If slightly different words are used it is invalid. Everything else is superfluous.

 

[twf]

The magic word syndrome is basically how I have seen it as well. The pope says a word and it happens. It’s part of the general sacramental theology of the west. The priest says a couple specific words, and the Eucharist is consecrated, your sins are absolved, you are baptized, or etc. If slightly different words are used it is invalid. Everything else is superfluous.

The bolded portion is a bit harsh, don’t you think? Latin Church norms are still very clear that everything prescribed in the liturgical texts is expected and required when celebrating the sacraments, not just those essential elements that theology deems necessary for the sacrament to occur. A Latin priest who deliberately omitted the “superfluous” elements of the liturgy, to use your word, would be committing a very grave sin at the very least…

 

[malphono]

The bolded portion is a bit harsh, don’t you think? Latin Church norms are still very clear that everything prescribed in the liturgical texts is expected and required when celebrating the sacraments, not just those essential elements that theology deems necessary for the sacrament to occur. A Latin priest who deliberately omitted the “superfluous” elements of the liturgy, to use your word, would be committing a very grave sin at the very least…

I can’t speak for jimmy, but it seems to me that he’s using hyperbole for the sake of emphasis. And I don’t think it’s only directed toward the Latins. We have the exact same loosey-goosey sort of thing going on. It’s all the post-conciliar mindset. :banghead:

 

[jimmy]

The bolded portion is a bit harsh, don’t you think? Latin Church norms are still very clear that everything prescribed in the liturgical texts is expected and required when celebrating the sacraments, not just those essential elements that theology deems necessary for the sacrament to occur. A Latin priest who deliberately omitted the “superfluous” elements of the liturgy, to use your word, would be committing a very grave sin at the very least…

I am not sure what is so harsh about my last sentence. Superfluous means it is unnecessary or more than what is needed. A mass with just the institution narrative would be illicit, but still valid. So everything else is superfluous, even if the bishops currently require its use. What is necessary is reduced down to a single sentence, everything else is potentially expendable. The bishops could decide tomorrow ‘lets eliminate the gloria; lets eliminate the sanctus; lets eliminate the preface, it isn’t necessary.’ Then at that point it would be a grave sin to use the preface in the mass.

And I agree with malphono about it being part of the postconcilliar mindset. They have eliminated all ‘unnecessary repetitions’ and they could eliminate more if they so desired. They have determined the bare minimum necessary for a valid mass, baptism, confirmation, confession, and they are free to change everything else. It is all just 't’radition. We in the east have been doing it too though.

But my point in the last post was about the magical words. The priest says a few words and amazingly, everything is transformed by those few words. The presence of the people is superfluous, the faith of the priest is superfluous, etc. all that matters is the one sentence he said. Before he said it, all there was was bread. As soon as he said it, it became the body and blood of Christ. There is no room for the mystery.

 

[Peter_J]

EphelDuath (or anyone else who wants to supply an answer to this) before we go further, I think you give a precise quote (not a paraphrase), with source, for:

In Latin theology, the consecration occurs at the Words of Institution.

 

[Zekariya]

EphelDuath (or anyone else who wants to supply an answer to this) before we go further, I think you give a precise quote (not a paraphrase), with source, for:

The Catechism of the Council of Trent

*Form To Be Used In The Consecration Of The Bread
*
We are then taught by the holy Evangelists, Matthew and Luke, and also by the Apostle, that the form consists of these words: This is my body; for it is written: Whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to his disciples, and said: Take and eat, This is my body.

This form of consecration having been observed by Christ the Lord has been always used by the Catholic Church. The testimonies of the Fathers, the enumeration of which would be endless, and also the decree of the Council of Florence, which is well known and accessible to all, must here be omitted, especially as the knowledge which they convey may be obtained from these words of the Saviour: Do this for a commemoration of me. For what the Lord enjoined was not only what He had done, but also what he had said; and especially is this true, since the words were uttered not only to signify, but also to accomplish.

That these words constitute the form is easily proved from reason also. The form is that which signifies what is accomplished in this Sacrament; but as the preceding words signify and declare what takes place in the Eucharist, that is, the conversion of the bread into the true body of our Lord, it therefore follows that these very words constitute the form. In this sense may be understood the words of the Evangelist: He blessed; for they seem equivalent to this: Taking bread, he blessed it, saying: “This is my body”.

*Not All The Words Used Are Essential
*
Although in the Evangelist the words, Take and eat, precede the words (This is my body), they evidently express the use only, not the consecration, of the matter. Wherefore, while they are not necessary to the consecration of the Sacrament, they are by all means to be pronounced by the priest, as is also the conjunction for in the consecration of the body and blood. But they are not necessary to the validity of the Sacrament, otherwise it would follow that, if this Sacrament were not to be administered to anyone, it should not, or indeed could not, be consecrated; whereas, no one can lawfully doubt that the priest, by pronouncing the words of our Lord according to the institution and practice of the Church, truly consecrates the proper matter of the bread, even though it should afterwards never be administered.

*Form To Be Used In The Consecration Of The Wine
*
With regard lo the consecration of the wine, which is the other element of this Sacrament, the priest, for the reason we have already assigned, ought of necessity to be well acquainted with, and well understand its form. We are then firmly to believe that it consists in the following words: This is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many, to the remission of sins. Of these words the greater part are taken from Scripture; but some have been preserved in the Church from Apostolic tradition.

Thus the words, this is the chalice, are found in St. Luke and in the Apostle; but the words that immediately follow, of my blood, or my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for you and for many to the remission of sins, are found partly in St. Luke and partly in St. Matthew. But the words, eternal, and the mystery of faith, have been taught us by holy tradition, the interpreter and keeper of Catholic truth.

Concerning this form no one can doubt, if he here also attend to what has been already said about the form used in the consecration of the bread. The form to be used (in the consecration) of this element, evidently consists of those words which signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the blood of our Lord. since, therefore, the words already cited clearly declare this, it is plain that no other words constitute the form.

Source: cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tsacr-e.htm
St Thomas Aquinas teaches the same: newadvent.org/summa/4078.htm

 

[TimothyH]

The magic word syndrome is basically how I have seen it as well. The pope says a word and it happens. It’s part of the general sacramental theology of the west. The priest says a couple specific words, and the Eucharist is consecrated, your sins are absolved, you are baptized, or etc. If slightly different words are used it is invalid. Everything else is superfluous.

Mechanization of the mysteries, the attempt to break down the mysteries down into definable, repeatable processes, has become a big problem here in the Western Church. It has led to some scrupulosity with regard to minute details of the liturgy and to some rigidity in our spirituality.

-Tim-

 

[frjohnmorris]

I’m so glad that Vatican 2 returned the epiklesis to the Latin Mass. It had been missing since the Council of Trent–so to an Orthodox Christian the Extraordinary form is invalid while the Ordinary Form would be. That is why Antiochian Orthodox parishes of the Western Rite tack on an epiklesis to validate the Liturgy of St. Tikhon (Anglican) and the Liturgy of St. Gregory (Roman).

Some Orthodox theologians say that the Bread & Wine actually become Jesus during the Preparation Liturgy (Proskomedia) before Matins and DL, so during the entire DL He is present in the Eucharist!

The idea that it occurs at the epiklesis dates to Metropolitan PETER in 17th century Russia, which incidentally, corresponds to the Council of Trent. Apparently no one decided to define when the change occurrs for 1600 years!

Before that most held the view of St. John of Damascus: “If you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it is through the Holy Spirit … we know nothing more than this, that the word of God is true, active, and omnipotent, but in its manner of operation unsearchable”.

I think that the statement in the modern Catholic Catechism states that the consecration takes place through both the words of Institution and the work of the Holy Spirit. To me that would seem to resolve the dispute.
It is not true that Orthodox consider the Tridentien Mass invalid. St. Nicholas Cabasillas wrote that the prayer at the end of the Roman Canon asking God to receive the offering born to the Altar in heaven by the angels (I forget the exact words), is a valid form of an epiklesis.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J
EphelDuath (or anyone else who wants to supply an answer to this) before we go further, I think you give a precise quote (not a paraphrase), with source, for:

The Catechism of the Council of Trent

*Form To Be Used In The Consecration Of The Bread
*
We are then taught by the holy Evangelists, Matthew and Luke, and also by the Apostle, that the form consists of these words: This is my body; for it is written: Whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to his disciples, and said: Take and eat, This is my body.

This form of consecration having been observed by Christ the Lord has been always used by the Catholic Church. The testimonies of the Fathers, the enumeration of which would be endless, and also the decree of the Council of Florence, which is well known and accessible to all, must here be omitted, especially as the knowledge which they convey may be obtained from these words of the Saviour: Do this for a commemoration of me. For what the Lord enjoined was not only what He had done, but also what he had said; and especially is this true, since the words were uttered not only to signify, but also to accomplish.

That these words constitute the form is easily proved from reason also. The form is that which signifies what is accomplished in this Sacrament; but as the preceding words signify and declare what takes place in the Eucharist, that is, the conversion of the bread into the true body of our Lord, it therefore follows that these very words constitute the form. In this sense may be understood the words of the Evangelist: He blessed; for they seem equivalent to this: Taking bread, he blessed it, saying: “This is my body”.

*Not All The Words Used Are Essential
*
Although in the Evangelist the words, Take and eat, precede the words (This is my body), they evidently express the use only, not the consecration, of the matter. Wherefore, while they are not necessary to the consecration of the Sacrament, they are by all means to be pronounced by the priest, as is also the conjunction for in the consecration of the body and blood. But they are not necessary to the validity of the Sacrament, otherwise it would follow that, if this Sacrament were not to be administered to anyone, it should not, or indeed could not, be consecrated; whereas, no one can lawfully doubt that the priest, by pronouncing the words of our Lord according to the institution and practice of the Church, truly consecrates the proper matter of the bread, even though it should afterwards never be administered.

*Form To Be Used In The Consecration Of The Wine
*
With regard lo the consecration of the wine, which is the other element of this Sacrament, the priest, for the reason we have already assigned, ought of necessity to be well acquainted with, and well understand its form. We are then firmly to believe that it consists in the following words: This is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many, to the remission of sins. Of these words the greater part are taken from Scripture; but some have been preserved in the Church from Apostolic tradition.

Thus the words, this is the chalice, are found in St. Luke and in the Apostle; but the words that immediately follow, of my blood, or my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for you and for many to the remission of sins, are found partly in St. Luke and partly in St. Matthew. But the words, eternal, and the mystery of faith, have been taught us by holy tradition, the interpreter and keeper of Catholic truth.

Concerning this form no one can doubt, if he here also attend to what has been already said about the form used in the consecration of the bread. The form to be used (in the consecration) of this element, evidently consists of those words which signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the blood of our Lord. since, therefore, the words already cited clearly declare this, it is plain that no other words constitute the form.

Source: cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tsacr-e.htm
St Thomas Aquinas teaches the same: newadvent.org/summa/4078.htm

That’s Zekariya, that’s just what I mean: a direct quote, with a source. (I’ll leave it to EphelDuath to decide if he’s satisfied with that quote or if he wants to provide another.)

 

[Peter_J]

1. When necessity requires, Assyrian faithful are permitted to participate and to receive Holy Communion in a Chaldean celebration of the Holy Eucharist; in the same way, Chaldean faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, are permitted to participate and to receive Holy Communion in an Assyrian celebration of the Holy Eucharist.

1. In both cases, Assyrian and Chaldean ministers celebrate the Holy Eucharist according to the liturgical prescriptions and customs of their own tradition.

**3. When Chaldean faithful are participating in an Assyrian celebration of the Holy Eucharist, the Assyrian minister is warmly invited to insert the words of the Institution in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, as allowed by the Holy Synod of the Assyrian Church of the East.
**
4. The above considerations on the use of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari and the present guidelines for admission to the Eucharist, are intended exclusively in relation to the Eucharistic celebration and admission to the Eucharist of the faithful from the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East, in view of the pastoral necessity and ecumenical context mentioned above.

(emphasis added)

• Guidelines for admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East (July 20, 2001)

 

[frjohnmorris]

In the Byzantine tradition, once a Divine Liturgy is started it must be finished. If a priest dies in the middle of the Divine Liturgy, another priest must finish it even if it takes some time to get around to finishing it.

That correct. One the Divine Liturgy is begun, it must be finished. I one was serving with my Bishop. He became ill and told me to take over. A few minutes later, I looked up from the service book and saw him lying on the floor with the Altar servers trying to revive him. I went on with the Divine Liturgy. He has had treatment and is doing well.

Archpriest John Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

QUOTE Some Orthodox theologians say that the Bread & Wine actually become Jesus during the Preparation Liturgy (Proskomedia) before Matins and DL, so during the entire DL He is present in the Eucharist! END QUOTE

I am sure that is not true. Let me tell you why. There is a prayer at the end of the Proskomedia during which the Priest says, “Do thou thyself bless this Oblation…” The rubrics forbid the Priest to make the sign of the Cross over the gifts (bread and wine) at this point, to avoid the false conclusion that the Proskomedia consecrates the gifts. There is another rubric that forbids kneeling during the Great Entrance, because the gifts are not yet consecrated. However, the people kneel or make prostrations during the Great Entrance of the Divine Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts because the gifts were consecrated during the Divine Liturgy, the Sunday before the Presanctified Liturgy.

Archpriest John Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

But practically speaking the priest begins adoring the Holy Eucharist at the epiclesis, correct? To generally say that the consecration happens throughout the Anaphora, and not at a specific point, is consubstantiation, which has been anathamatized at the Council of Trent due to it being a talking point of Martin Luther. This actually makes ecumenical considerations of Holy Mass/Divine Liturgy even more troubling. END QUOTE

If one reads the text of the Anaphora of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, it is pretty evident that the consecration takes place at the Epiklesis because the Priest says;
Again we offer unto thee this reasonable and unbloody service, and beseech thee and pray thee and supplicate thee; send down thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts here spread forth
And make this bread the precious Body of Christ
And that which is in this cup the precious Blood of Christ.
Changing them by thy Holy Spirit. Amen. Amen. Amen.

Then the Priest censes the consecrated gifts nine times instead of the usual three times signifying that the Gifts are now consecrated.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

The Council of Trent says that the priest must say, “I absolve you from your sins,” for the absolution to occur. The Eastern priests don’t generally say those words (unless they are using a latinized text).

Here is the traditional Byzantine absolution formula:
“God it was who forgave David through Nathan the Prophet, when he confessed his sins, and Peter weeping bitterly for his denial, and the sinful woman in tears at his feet, and the Publican, and the Prodigal Son: May that same God forgive thee all things, through me a sinner, both in this present world, and in that which is to come, and set thee uncondemned before his dread Judgement Seat. And now, having no further care for the sins which thou hast declared, depart in peace.”

Yet, we do not argue about whether or not an absolution occurs. This is the same with the Consecration.

The full prayer of Absolution in the Byzantine Rite is
My spiritual child, who has confessed to my humble self, I, humble and a sinner, have not power on earth to forgive sins, but God alone; yet through the divinely spoken word which came to the Apostles after the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, saying: Whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted, and whosoever sins we retain, they are retained, we too are emboldened to say; Whatsoever thou hast said to my most humble self, and whatsoever thou hast not succeeded in saying, either through ignorance, or forgetfulness, Whatever it may be; God forgive thee in this present world, and in that which is to come.
Then the Priest says the absolution quoted above. “God it was who forgave David…”
The Priest never says, “I” do something in the Byzantine Rite. For example, when I Baptize someone, I do not say, “I Baptize you…” but instead, “The servant (handmaid or child) of God is Baptized…”
What we consider essential is the use of water, and the proper invocation of “The Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Even water is not absolutely necessary if no water can be found.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Brian_Kerzetski]

As I read through the posts, particularly those from our Western brothers, I think about the Great Schism and wonder if this is how the problems started. Clearly, there’s a lack of understanding of Eastern theology in the original question. Unfortunately, the question was presented in a way that appeared to suggest Eastern Christians are inferior due to their lack of conformity to Western practices. It needs to be realized that we are all professing the truth, even if we can’t see it the way others do.