The Consecration?

[Pro_Domina]

Pro Domina,

Regarding your comment that it was obvious that you were talking about a real priest, this is only true if “Divine Right” refers to those who have been ordained. If it does I am ignorant of the fact. The term “Divine Right” has been little used in the discussions I have had with others as well as in my readings. The only thing that is even coming to mind is connected to Kings, Queens, Emperors, etc. An explanation of why it was obvious you were talking about a real priest would be more helpful and appreciated than simply calling me a square, which was completely unnecessary.

Concerning the issue of this thread, I agree with bpbasilphx and Isa Almisry. The Words of Institution and the Epiclesis are two parts of one prayer. I think that Crucifixion/Resurrection is a good analogy: the Crucifixion and Resurrection together constitute one saving act, there is no Resurrection without the Crucifixion and the Crucifixion is devoid of meaning and efficacy without the Resurrection.

In Christ through Mary

Divine Right seems not to be used as much in English.

They use Divine Law more. In Latin it is iure divino

It means instituted by God by His own Right as being God.

God institutes that only men can be ordained by iure divino, therefore man cannot interfere, not even the Church.

 

[8eofilos]

8eofilos,

Very interesting. I like the practice of standing on Sunday as a sign of the Resurrection, however, I am not by any means opposed to kneeling or doing some other sign of reverence and humility at the Consecration. At the Ruthenian Church I go to we do not kneel, but at the Ruthenian Church that I went to in West Virginia we did kneel. I also went to a Greek Orthodox Church in West Virginia, but I unfortunately am not able to remember whether we kneeled or not.

I would be interested in finding out about the practice of standing and kneeling throughout the history of the Byzantine Church. Anyone know?

In Christ through Mary

There is no issue on how we should be in front of our Father. Yes we don’t kneel on Sundays but that one moment where we invoke His powers as if we are almost demanding, without of course the ordering to God we believe so much that is truly happens every Sunday. I would say that it is “The Faith” we have in Him that He will not let us down but then again what is the proper way to address yourself to the Father? When John the beloved Apostle saw Jesus during the Revelation in Patmos he fell down as if he was dead… Jesus is the Son! Imagine what we should do for the Father! The One that we can not see unless through Jesus Christ. Again I am not degrading Jesus to second in command… He is equal as The Holy Spirit is. But He came to life and He died as we do and He defeated the devil through His passion and Crucifixion and and Resurrection. Remember what He said to Moses… No one can see My Face because he will seize to exist… The Father never changed and will never for ever and ever. He is perfect and Holy and there is no reason for Him to change. It would be blasphemy for us to change Him in our Bible or in any teaching. Jesus did not come as He said to change or to end the Old Testament but to fulfill(not as a completion) and verify the prophesies. Now for the word fulfill as the English translation I disagree but once again it is the poorest language. Jesus say’s actually " πληρωσω τας γραφας" which in better words I would translate it like this… I came to verify what was said by prophets and my Father. In other words putting an end to the waiting of the Messiah. Now the New Covenant with God is in Era till His second coming and not as Messiah as many say but as the Judge! You may say what that has to do with the consecration, but it does. Everything is connected with each other. That is what makes the Bible True and shows us the Wisdom of Him Who Wrote It… God our Father…

 

[DixitDominus]

The Ecumenical Council of Florence taught: “Forma huius sacramenti sunt verba Salvatoris, quibus hoc confecit sacramentum; sacerdos enim in persona Christi loquens hoc conficit sacramentum. Nam ipsorum verborum virtute substantia panis in corpus Christi, et substantia vini in sanguinem convertuntur: ita tamen, quod totus Christus continetur sub specie panis et totus sub specie vini. Sub qualibet quoque parte hostiae consecratae et vini consecrati, separatione facta, totus est Christus.” (D-S 1321) That is, “The words of the Savior, by which He instituted this sacrament, are the form of this sacrament; for the priest speaking in the person of Christ effects this sacrament. For by the power of the very words the substance of the bread is changed into the body of Christ, and the substance of the wine into the blood; yet in such a way that Christ is contained entire under the species of bread, and entire under the species of wine.”

The consecration obviously has nothing to do with the epiklesis.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

8eofilos,

Very interesting. I like the practice of standing on Sunday as a sign of the Resurrection, however, I am not by any means opposed to kneeling or doing some other sign of reverence and humility at the Consecration. At the Ruthenian Church I go to we do not kneel, but at the Ruthenian Church that I went to in West Virginia we did kneel. I also went to a Greek Orthodox Church in West Virginia, but I unfortunately am not able to remember whether we kneeled or not.

I would be interested in finding out about the practice of standing and kneeling throughout the history of the Byzantine Church. Anyone know?

In Christ through Mary

It helps to know that in the older Orthodox liturgical languages (Greek, Aramiac, Syriac, Arabic, etc) the word for Resurrection is from the stand root/stem as the word for “to stand.”

 

[Isa_Almisry]

My friend with no offense to you because I respect all Christians and people you yourself write down the 20 canon of the fathers and here is the original… “Ἐπειδή τινές εἰσιν ἐν τῇ Κυριακῇ γόνυ κλίνοντες, καὶ ἐν ταῖς τῆς Πεντηκοστῆς ἡμέραις· ὑπὲρ τοῦ πάντα ἐν πάσῃ παροικίᾳ ὁμοίως παραφυλάττεσθαι, ἑστῶτας ἔδοξε τῇ ἁγίᾳ συνόδῳ τὰς εὐχὰς ἀποδιδόναι τῷ Θεῷ.” The moment that the priest and people kneel is the most sacred moment of our Liturgy and it is not a prayer… It is a request, to God directly …the Father and not to Jesus without making it sound that it is someone below Jesus because they are One(Father and Son and Holy Spirit). We don’t kneel Sundays but to the Father directly with the request of this miracle that happens in every Liturgy we do kneel. Some churches don’t do this and some do, but I believe that we should kneel to the Father our God at all times that we request anything in any way. The Son Jesus Christ kneeled to His Father on earth during His prayers. I don’t think that the Fathers think that we are more worthy than Jesus not to kneel.
Not kneeling during the entire Liturgy and giving glory to God standing. Because if you translate this text it does not say pray to God standing but to give Him glorification standing…Glorification and prayer is not the same. I don’t know if you know Greek but that is what “Δοξα” means…Glory

You’ve come up with the first good argument I’ve heard for kneeling on Sunday. I’ll have to meditate on it. Although you are right about the glory, the Canon of the Sixth Council does seem not to admit an exception.

I never kneel on Sunday, except for Holy Cross. I do kneel, prostrate actually, at the consecration in non-Sunday DL.

Of course, outside of the days in question, we kneel and prostrate a lot.

 

[Pro_Domina]

I know pews are of protestant orgin, so when you say prostrate, I can assume you have no pews right?

Anyhow, why is it that you must look so far back at old cannons to know what to do?

Don’t the books tell you what to do?

I ask this because the way you speak gives me the impression that the eastern churches are all “mystics” with no organization.

I do not mean that offensively, but you saying that you have to look at the 6th cannon of the x council by St. y who lived in the year f gives that impression to a Latin rite Catholic who can simpy go to the Norms of the Roman Missal and know what to do.

 

[8eofilos]

It helps to know that in the older Orthodox liturgical languages (Greek, Aramiac, Syriac, Arabic, etc) the word for Resurrection is from the stand root/stem as the word for “to stand.”

Yes Isa, resurrect means stand up again… But again no where it says that I will stand up when I am talking direct to the Father… We are His servants and we should act as one. Again you are correct in what you say that we don’t kneel on Sundays when we Glorify Him but the moment of Consecration He is Miraculously transforming the Wine and Bread into Blood and Body of The Christ. The text that I gave you was in the ancient Greek text and not new. I myself have been lucky to learn ancient Greek. I am very glad though that you actually read the canon’s of the Holy Fathers…but again I tell you translation to english is poor. I would be glad to translate anything for you if you don’t know Greek or Ancient Greek. No offense to you, I respect you. But I would love to share my skills in ancient Greek with you( that is if you don’t know)

 

[Isa_Almisry]

There is no issue on how we should be in front of our Father. Yes we don’t kneel on Sundays but that one moment where we invoke His powers as if we are almost demanding, without of course the ordering to God we believe so much that is truly happens every Sunday. I would say that it is “The Faith” we have in Him that He will not let us down but then again what is the proper way to address yourself to the Father? When John the beloved Apostle saw Jesus during the Revelation in Patmos he fell down as if he was dead… Jesus is the Son! Imagine what we should do for the Father! The One that we can not see unless through Jesus Christ. Again I am not degrading Jesus to second in command… He is equal as The Holy Spirit is. But He came to life and He died as we do and He defeated the devil through His passion and Crucifixion and and Resurrection. Remember what He said to Moses… No one can see My Face because he will seize to exist… The Father never changed and will never for ever and ever. He is perfect and Holy and there is no reason for Him to change. It would be blasphemy for us to change Him in our Bible or in any teaching. Jesus did not come as He said to change or to end the Old Testament but to fulfill(not as a completion) and verify the prophesies. Now for the word fulfill as the English translation I disagree but once again it is the poorest language. Jesus say’s actually " πληρωσω τας γραφας" which in better words I would translate it like this… I came to verify what was said by prophets and my Father. In other words putting an end to the waiting of the Messiah. Now the New Covenant with God is in Era till His second coming and not as Messiah as many say but as the Judge! You may say what that has to do with the consecration, but it does. Everything is connected with each other. That is what makes the Bible True and shows us the Wisdom of Him Who Wrote It… God our Father…

Reading this I am reminded of the Kneeling Prayers, and the implication for the epiclesis. (for those who don’t know, we kneel a lot during Lent, and then not at all from Pascha to Pentacost, and then on the Vespers of Sunday Evening (i.e. the begining of Pentacost Monday) we have a series of prayers which are said on bended knee, asking for the gift of the Holy Spirit. The epiklesis is the Pentacostal part of the DL, when we ask that the Holy Spirit “come upon us, and upon these Gifts” to make us the Church as He did on Pentacost).

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The Ecumenical Council of Florence taught: “Forma huius sacramenti sunt verba Salvatoris, quibus hoc confecit sacramentum; sacerdos enim in persona Christi loquens hoc conficit sacramentum. Nam ipsorum verborum virtute substantia panis in corpus Christi, et substantia vini in sanguinem convertuntur: ita tamen, quod totus Christus continetur sub specie panis et totus sub specie vini. Sub qualibet quoque parte hostiae consecratae et vini consecrati, separatione facta, totus est Christus.” (D-S 1321) That is, “The words of the Savior, by which He instituted this sacrament, are the form of this sacrament; for the priest speaking in the person of Christ effects this sacrament. For by the power of the very words the substance of the bread is changed into the body of Christ, and the substance of the wine into the blood; yet in such a way that Christ is contained entire under the species of bread, and entire under the species of wine.”

The consecration obviously has nothing to do with the epiklesis.

I don’t know how those in the East who accept Florence looks on this.
EO theology, and as far as I know OO theology does not look on the priest as alter Christi nor in personam Christi. He is in personam episcopali, instead of the bishop. Hence the antimens. And hence the idea of the epiklesis having nothing to do with the consecration falls flat on our ecclesiology.

I am assuming that the parishes under the Vatican have antimens. What is their theology that provides the context for it?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I know pews are of protestant orgin, so when you say prostrate, I can assume you have no pews right?

No, we don’t. We used to: our parish building was Lutheran (our parish started as a Bible study at Wheaton College). We took them out a few years ago. We toyed with the idea of a giant bonfire but setttled for donating them to those who use them.

The EP called them “theatrical.” You sit and observe. Nave means ship. People want it to be a cargo ship, and just be carried along, but its a galley, and every one should be rowing with their prayers.

Anyhow, why is it that you must look so far back at old cannons to know what to do?

Pass not beyond the ancient bounds which thy Fathers have set. Proverbs 22:28.

Don’t the books tell you what to do?

What books?

I ask this because the way you speak gives me the impression that the eastern churches are all “mystics” with no organization.

We’re mystical, but we have an orgainzation.

I do not mean that offensively, but you saying that you have to look at the 6th cannon of the x council by St. y who lived in the year f gives that impression to a Latin rite Catholic who can simpy go to the Norms of the Roman Missal and know what to do.

Can I quote you? I’ve been told that we are wrong when we say the Latins have regulated everything.

I remember a Lutheran who came for a DL once told me afterward that they tried to figure out when we cross ourselves. He told me he couldn’t figure it out, and asked me when we do it. “When the Spirit moves us,” I replied.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Yes Isa, resurrect means stand up again… But again no where it says that I will stand up when I am talking direct to the Father… We are His servants and we should act as one. Again you are correct in what you say that we don’t kneel on Sundays when we Glorify Him but the moment of Consecration He is Miraculously transforming the Wine and Bread into Blood and Body of The Christ. The text that I gave you was in the ancient Greek text and not new. I myself have been lucky to learn ancient Greek. I am very glad though that you actually read the canon’s of the Holy Fathers…but again I tell you translation to english is poor. I would be glad to translate anything for you if you don’t know Greek or Ancient Greek. No offense to you, I respect you. But I would love to share my skills in ancient Greek with you( that is if you don’t know)

No offense taken. I wouldn’t mind going through the Greek (yes I can read it), but the resources in English are more readily on the internet, and of course most here can’t read the Greek. That being said, do you have a ready text of the canon of the Sixth Council?

 

[Pro_Domina]

Well, rules are good for what they are for.

Now the Eastern Church has a much more mystical vocation in relation to the West as a whole.

Some prayers go on for hours and hours.

That does not go in the Latin mentality, but both are of the Holy Spirit.

But what you can quote me on is that many, mostly American, westerners think more of the rules than what the rules are made to perfect. It is extreemly pharisiacal.

I mean I had someone say in some post that, when I said the if the intention is to consecrate there is consecration, that it is not only intention but that it has to be a validly ordained priest.

I mean I called the person square because that is what it was, being square.

Rules are handrails to sanctity, not sanctity.

 

[Allyson]

But what you can quote me on is that many, mostly American, westerners think more of the rules than what the rules are made to perfect. It is extreemly pharisiacal.

I must agree that this is very true of American Catholics (they tend towards Jansenism and even being Jansenist - and no I am not going into detail if anyone responds - it is an observation), but I don’t think Taboric Light was a reflection of this in the instance you site.

God Bless,
R.

 

[8eofilos]

You’ve come up with the first good argument I’ve heard for kneeling on Sunday. I’ll have to meditate on it. Although you are right about the glory, the Canon of the Sixth Council does seem not to admit an exception.

I never kneel on Sunday, except for Holy Cross. I do kneel, prostrate actually, at the consecration in non-Sunday DL.

Of course, outside of the days in question, we kneel and prostrate a lot.

Isa fellow Christian, I am not trying to be smart in any occasion. I myself for many years, was not fully familiar with the Bible and our Doctrines. Just what people and parents and priests and teachers would say. So the minute I opened myself the “Word of God” I understood what Jesus meant by saying “Search the Scriptures”. Yes, again you are right there is no exception but each word has its meaning. If I become more literal, in the same 20 canon…“ευχες” plural for “ευχη” means blessings-Good words to God in other words glorifying Him by saying Good things about Him( His miracles, because everything He did,does and will do is a miracle) Now prayer is not “ευχη” but “προσευχη”. So when I pray asking Him for His miracle in the consecration I would bow to Him. Let me give you another example…If I was not confessed and had a sin that I had to confess on that Sunday and did there in the Church in order to take communion wouldn’t I kneel and cry and beg for forgiveness through the priest so he could read me the confessional blessing? I cannot repent while standing! I need to humble myself and humiliate myself in order to truly confess to the Father.

 

[8eofilos]

I know pews are of protestant orgin, so when you say prostrate, I can assume you have no pews right?

Anyhow, why is it that you must look so far back at old cannons to know what to do?

Don’t the books tell you what to do?

I ask this because the way you speak gives me the impression that the eastern churches are all “mystics” with no organization.

I do not mean that offensively, but you saying that you have to look at the 6th cannon of the x council by St. y who lived in the year f gives that impression to a Latin rite Catholic who can simpy go to the Norms of the Roman Missal and know what to do.

No there is no Mystism in Orthodoxy. But when someone claims something he should bring some argument with it and not just say it. So what is wrong at looking at the canons of the Fathers. People that tend to say things like that usually say " we love in the 20th century". Sorry do disappoint you but God does not change and He will be the same always because He is perfect. Now as a New Christian comes into the Church he needs to know the canons. Where else will he find these? On CNN? Of course not but in the Canons! Respect the Word of God because the Canons are too the Word of God!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

No there is no Mystism in Orthodoxy.

But when someone claims something he should bring some argument with it and not just say it. So what is wrong at looking at the canons of the Fathers. People that tend to say things like that usually say " we love in the 20th century". Sorry do disappoint you but God does not change and He will be the same always because He is perfect. Now as a New Christian comes into the Church he needs to know the canons. Where else will he find these? On CNN? Of course not but in the Canons! Respect the Word of God because the Canons are too the Word of God!

I would have them learn the Definitions of the Councils before their canons.
I know the English translation of the Pedalion places the it after the Bible, but the Defiinitions (the Creed for instance) takes precedence over the Pedalion.

 

[Marc_Aupiais]

Off topic?

lets summarize, feel free to add, if I misread, or miswrote.

in short, in the west, by the rules, which cause the truth, in that they must be adhered to (and trent is quite explicit on the issue with words like anathema), in the west, the bread ceases to be and is the living body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus, at the moment of crucifixion (this part is me, not my reading).

in the east, it happens, but the exact time is not set out in doctrine, as there are additional statements (from what I read).

A new thread for other questions?
p.s. the rules are there because we are dealing with THE LIVING GOD, and we need them.

God be with us all.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

The Ecumenical Council of Florence taught: “Forma huius sacramenti sunt verba Salvatoris, quibus hoc confecit sacramentum; sacerdos enim in persona Christi loquens hoc conficit sacramentum. Nam ipsorum verborum virtute substantia panis in corpus Christi, et substantia vini in sanguinem convertuntur: ita tamen, quod totus Christus continetur sub specie panis et totus sub specie vini. Sub qualibet quoque parte hostiae consecratae et vini consecrati, separatione facta, totus est Christus.” (D-S 1321) That is, “The words of the Savior, by which He instituted this sacrament, are the form of this sacrament; for the priest speaking in the person of Christ effects this sacrament. For by the power of the very words the substance of the bread is changed into the body of Christ, and the substance of the wine into the blood; yet in such a way that Christ is contained entire under the species of bread, and entire under the species of wine.”

The consecration obviously has nothing to do with the epiklesis.

Was this not written regarding the liturgy of the western church?

That was my original question, whether the time of the consecration is different in the eastern and western churches (words of institution vs epiklesis). I’m Latin rite Catholic. We accept that the eastern churches in union with Rome have valid sacraments AND that the Orthodox churches do also,

Do the eastern churches also include the words of institution in the DL? Are they before or after the epiklesis?

Your posting indicates that Rome has spoken, that transubstantiation takes place at the words of institution. However, has Rome really spoken for the eastern churches?? I suspect that may not have been the intent of the council’s proclamation. I would especially like for an eastern Catholic to give (name removed by moderator)ut on this.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

I don’t know how those in the East who accept Florence looks on this.
EO theology, and as far as I know OO theology does not look on the priest as alter Christi nor in personam Christi. He is in personam episcopali, instead of the bishop. Hence the antimens. And hence the idea of the epiklesis having nothing to do with the consecration falls flat on our ecclesiology.

I am assuming that the parishes under the Vatican have antimens. What is their theology that provides the context for it?

What are antimens?

And in both cases is it not God who acts, both through and/or because of the prayers and actions of the priest?

 

[jimmy]

As I understand it, the bread and wine change to Jesus’ body and blood during the words of institution in the mass and during the epiclesis in the divine liturgy. Is this accurate? I have no problem with accepting this, just want to know if I understand it correctly.

My Maronite/Syriac tradition says that the whole anaphora is consecratory. There is not one specific part of the prayer that determines it; the whole prayer is important.