Whether it is a Latin term does not signify (certainly Jimmy knows this term as you yourself do), i.e., I was reminding him who the priest represents during the consecration, i.e., the words spoken are Christ’s words, and so they are not “magical” they are divine.
It appears you have completely misunderstood. Jimmy and MorEphrem are not saying that the Institution Narrative is magic. They are cautioning against the excesses of the Latin preoccupation with the “moment of consecration” that has a danger of turning the narrative into magic words.
Yes. Quite what I said early on in this thread, [post=11266474]here[/post]:
and [post=11267183]here[/post]:
I know you don’t, and furthermore I’m not trying to impose any such language on anyone, however, since, he was speaking with regard to the Latin rite, then it’s not impolite of me to point out as I did that our priests are acting “in persona christi.” I still state that his response was a little irreverent, and I was responding to a specific post, not all.
The filioque and the epiclesis are important questions of course, but there are others including the papal questions and the recognition of each other’s saints. For example, there is St. Josaphat who is highly regarded by many Greek Catholics, but E. Orthodox have an entirely different negative view of him. As for the epiclesis, there is something similar to an epiclesis in the Roman Catholic Masses, so I don’t think it would be an insolvable issue that would prevent reunion.
As Denho said, Jimmy and I were simply warning against a mechanical mentality of doing X procures Y - even divine words can be treated like magic. If the Institution Narrative by its very self was the consecratory factor in the Latin Eucharistic Prayer than, in theory, a priest could probably [validly and illicitly] pray these words over a host and it would become the Body of Christ. This is, however, not the case. It is rather that at that point in the Latin liturgy, since preface (Father), Epiclesis (Spirit) and Institution Narrative (Son) are present, a valid consecration has been achieved. Again, this is not my opinion but I consulted with a Latin canon lawyer.
The event you described could not happen, at least in the Eastern Orthodox Church, because the Epiklesis is prayed after the Words of Institution.
Also, in Eastern Catholic churches, at least of the Constantinopolitan tradition, the epiclesis occurs after the Institution Narrative.
In his commentary on the Divine Liturgy, St. Nicholas Cabasilas states that the prayer in the Roman Canon asking God to receive the offerings on His Altar in Heaven qualifies as an Epiklesis.
During the Divine Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts the Priests drops a piece of the Preconsecrated gifts which are the consecrated bread upon which the consecrated wine was dropped with the spoon into the unconsecrated wine. The mixture of the consecrated bread and wine with the unconsecrated wine consecrates the wine.
I have heard this before and I have heard another Eastern Orthodox school of thought that the wine does not become consecrated and for this reason infants are not receive the Presanctified Gifts. Have you heard of this? I know both sides have been debated on a certain Orthodox forum.
You are correct. The Russian rubrics state that the person who will consume the gifts after the Liturgy, should not drink from the chalice during Communion. However, the Antiochian rubrics state that the clergy are to take Communion as usual. There is a book published by St. Vladimir’s Press, I believe that it is Evening Worship in the Orthodox Church by Nicholas Uspensky. He argues that the Russian practice is a Latinization that came in through the works of Peter Mogila. The idea that the mixture of the consecrated wine in the presanctified gifts consecrates the wine in the chalice makes sense, because when we use multiple chalices, the wine in only one chalice is actually consecrated, just as the Lamb not the particles on the diskos is consecrated. Before Communion a little wine from the consecrated chalice is poured into the chalices that will be used for Communion, the idea being that the mixture of the consecrated wine with the unconsecrated wine consecrates the uncosecrated wine.
Makes sense, Father. Thanks for sharing.
It reminds me of St Paul’s saying, “A little leaven leavens the whole lump.” Of course he was speaking on another topic but it sounds like the same principle. 
It is just like Holy Water. When I am out blessing houses and only have a little Holy Water in my sprinkler, I add more water to the already blessed water. The unblessed water is blessed by being mixed with the blessed water.Makes sense, Father. Thanks for sharing.
You are correct. It is in Evening Worship in the Orthodox Church. Uspensky provides a good deal of evidence that the original and correct belief is that the wine is consecrated by contact with the preconsecrated Lamb.