Ture. But the specific point is theologically fuzzy for byzantines, and is desried to remains so.
On the other side, the Western Rite Orthodox reunited to communion in Antioch (and the others I believe) have the epiclessis of the DL of St. John inserted, so that it is not “fuzzy.” The Orthodox Catholic Church has traditionally interpreted the prayer “Supplices Te Rogamus” as Rome’s epiclesis."
Cf:
newadvent.org/cathen/03255c.htm
Supplices te rogamus
This prayer is commonly believed to be the remnant of the Roman Epiklesis (Duchesne joins the preceding “Supra quæ” to it as making up the Invocation, “Origines”, 173). It seems certain that our liturgy, like all the others, once had an Epiklesis, and this would be its natural place. Even as late as the time of Pope Gelasius I (492-96) there seems to have still been one. He writes: “How shall the Heavenly Spirit, when He is invoked to consecrate the divine mystery, come, if the priest and he who prays Him to come is guilty of bad actions?” (Ep., vii; Thiel, Ep. Rom. Pont., I, 486: “si sacerdos, et qui eum adesse deprecatur”. By striking out the “et” we have a much plainer sentence: “If the priest who prays Him to come”.) Watterich (Konsekration(name removed by moderator)ent, 166), and Drews (Entstehungsgesch., 28) think that several of the Secrets in the Leonine Sacramentary (which does not contain the Canon) are really Epikleses, For instance: “Send, we pray Thee O Lord, thy Holy Spirit, who shall make these our present gifts into thy Sacrament for us”, etc. (ed. Feltoe, p. 74; XXX Mass for July). The chief reason for considering our prayer “Supplices te rogamus” as the fragment of an Epiklesis is its place in the Canon, which corresponds exactly to that of the Epiklesis (following the Anamnesis) in the Syrian Rite (Brightman, 54). But its form is hardly that of an Epiklesis. The first words of the preceding prayer, “Supra quæ propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris”, suggest the beginning of the Alexandrine Epiklesis: “Look down upon us and upon this bread and this wine” (Brightman, 134), and the last part (Sacrosanctum Filii tui Corpus et Sanguinem) have perhaps a vague resemblance; but certainly the chief thing, the Invocation of the Holy Ghost to change this bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is wanting. Moreover there is a prayer in the Alexandrine Liturgy which corresponds singularly to these two prayers (“Supra quæ” and “Supplices”): “the Sacrifices . . . of them that offer honour and glory to thy holy name receive upon thy reasonable altar in heaven . . . through the ministry of thy holy angels and archangels; like as Thou didst accept the gifts of righteous Abel and the sacrifice of our father Abraham”, etc. (Brightman, I, 170, 171; the Greek form, 129). And this is not an Epiklesis but an Offertory prayer, coming in the middle of the Intercession that with them fills up what we should call the Preface. On the other hand the end of the “Supplices te rogamus” (from “ut quotquot”) corresponds very closely to the end of both Eastern Epikleses. Antioch has here: “that it may become to all who partake of it” (quotquot ex hac Altaris participatione) “for a forgiveness of sins and for life everlasting” etc. (Brightman, 54); and at Alexandria the form is: “that it may become to all of us who partake of it (a source of) Faith”, etc. (ib., 134). It seems, then, that this prayer in our Canon is a combination of the second part of an Invocation (with the essential clause left out) and an old Offertory prayer. It has been suggested that the angel mentioned here is the Holy Ghost – an attempt to bring it more into line with the proper form of an Invocation. There is however no foundation for this assertion. We have seen that the Alexandrine form has the plural “thy holy angels”; so has the Latin form in “De Sacramentis”; “per manus angelorum tuorum” (IV, v). The reference is simply to an angel or to angels who assist at the throne of God and carry our prayers to Him (Tob., xii, 12, etc.). We have already seen that the order and arrangement of our Canon presents difficulties; this is a further case in point. As for the vanished Invocation itself, it will probably always remain a mystery what has become of it. Watterich (op. cit., p. 142) thinks that it was Gelasius himself who removed it from this place and put it before the words of Institution. And indeed the prayer “Quam oblationem” has a curious suggestion of an Invocation in its terms. On the other hand an Epiklesis before the words of Institution would be an anomaly unparalleled in any rite in the world. To come back to the rubrics, the celebrant has resumed the normal attitude of standing with uplifted hands after the “Unde et memores”, except that now the forefingers and thumbs remain joined; at the “Supplices te rogamus” he bows deeply over the altar – a ceremony obviously in accordance with the nature of its first words – resting his joined hands on it; and he stays so to the words" ex hac altaris participatione" at which he kisses the altar, rises, joins his hands, and makes the sign of the cross over the Host at “Corpus”, over the chalice at “Sanguinem”, and on himself at “omni benedictione” (while he crosses himself, the left hand is, as always in this case, laid on the breast). He joins his hands for “Per eumdem”, etc., and lifts them up for the next prayer. The next two prayers complete the Intercession, of which we have the greater part before the Consecration.
Other Latin rites besides Rome’s (e.g. Milan) always had an epiclesis.
The power to change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of our Lord is NOT solely based on intention. One must have valid orders. For one to be a satanic priest must they first be ordained in the Catholic (I’m using the word very broadly) Church?