I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Yes, as long as you say the whole prayer, what’s the issue?
- Status
A
Aramis
Guest
That’s the point of the theological fuzziness.Yes, as long as you say the whole prayer, what’s the issue?
Several latin theologians deemed that the transubstantiation in the latin mass occurs at the words of institution. Should the priest drop dead after the “This is My body.” then only the Body of Christ is present, but the deacon may distribute. (Note: This is a roman theologumenon not supported in current instructions! Current rubrics call for the completion of the liturgy.)
Whereas, in the Byzantine praxis, one must have both the invocation and the words of institution; should the priest die, mid liturgy, another must complete the liturgy; for the gifts state is technically indeterminate.
Also, the roman invocation precedes the words of institution.
The Byzantine invocation (epiclesis) follows them.
Roman theology is clear: at the words of Institution, the transubstantiation is completed.
Byzantne is less clear; the priest, at the institution narrative, the gifts are no longer just bread and wine, and hence “We offer to you, yours of your own”, but then ask for the holy spirit to come down and change them shortly after.
As I said, fuzzy, as in not in focus, not entirely clear
C
Claire_from_DE
Guest
So in answer to my question, it looks like transubstantiation takes place during the words of institution in the Roman church. In the Eastern churches it’s during a longer prayer which combines the words of institution and the epiclesis. And there is a rite in which the specific words of institution aren’t said but it is the epiclesis prayer (and the intention of the priest) which effect the change.
You all are so familiar with these rites and I just have an inkling of them. I’d like to go to DL but there’s not much opportunity where I live. I’m happy with the mass in my parish but I’d like to experience other ways of true worship too.
You all are so familiar with these rites and I just have an inkling of them. I’d like to go to DL but there’s not much opportunity where I live. I’m happy with the mass in my parish but I’d like to experience other ways of true worship too.
F
Formosus
Guest
The Latin liturgies (both extraordinary and ordinary) have a type of epiclesis somewhere in them, but both are before the institution narrative. So perhaps it might be accurate to say that a consecretion needs an epiclesis and an institution narrative or prayers that express those sentiments (Addai and Mari) in order to have a valid consecretion? Personally I have come to accept that the entire Eucharistic prayer is consecretory in some way and that it is splitting hairs to try and figure out when exactly the Mystery actually occurs.
C
Claire_from_DE
Guest
More (much more) than I needed to know but very interesting. Main point is that it’s totally unique and unlike any other form of conversion? I think the wood to iron analogy limps, but it is only an analogy." In a closer logical analysis of Transubstantiation, we find the first and fundamental notion to be that of conversion, which may be defined as “the transition of one thing into another in some aspect of being”. As is immediately evident, conversion (conversio) is something more than mere change (mutatio). Whereas in mere changes one of the two extremes may be expressed negatively, as, e.g., in the change of day and night, conversion requires two positive extremes, which are related to each other as thing to thing, and must have, besides, such an intimate connection with each other, that the last extreme (terminus ad quem) begins to be only as the first (terminus a quo) ceases to be, as, e.g., in the conversion of water into wine at Cana. A third element is usually required, known as the commune tertium, which, even after conversion has taken place, either physically or at least logically unites one extreme to the other; for in every true conversion the following condition must be fulfilled: “What was formerly A, is now B.” A very important question suggests itself as to whether the definition should further postulate the previous non-existence of the last extreme, for it seems strange that an existing terminus a quo, A, should be converted into an already existing terminus ad quem, B. If the act of conversion is not to become a mere process of substitution, as in sleight-of-hand performances, the terminus ad quem must unquestionably in some manner newly exist, just as the terminus a quo must in some manner really cease to exist. Yet as the disappearance of the latter is not attributable to annihilation properly so called, so there is no need of postulating creation, strictly so called, to explain the former’s coming into existence. The idea of conversion is amply realized if the following condition is fulfilled, viz., that a thing which already existed in substance, acquires an altogether new and previously non-existing mode of being. Thus in the resurrection of the dead, the dust of the human bodies will be truly converted into the bodies of the risen by their previously existing souls, just as at death they had been truly converted into corpses by the departure of the souls. This much as regards the general notion of conversion. Transubstantiation, however, is not a conversion simply so called, but a substantial conversion (conversio substantialis), inasmuch as one thing is substantially or essentially converted into another. Thus from the concept of Transubstantiation is excluded every sort of merely accidental conversion, whether it be purely natural (e.g. the metamorphosis of insects) or supernatural (e.g. the Transfiguration of Christ on Mount Tabor). Finally, Transubstantiation differs from every other substantial conversion in this, that only the substance is converted into another — the accidents remaining the same — just as would be the case if wood were miraculously converted into iron, the substance of the iron remaining hidden under the external appearance of the wood. " imprimatur et al
newadvent.org/cathen/05572c.htm
Ask more to get more.!!!
M
Marc_Aupiais
Guest
Thanks, it’s got the mark of being free from doctrinal and moral error, Catholic Encyclopedia, it explained it all. 
May also aid:
scripturelink.googlepages.com
scripturelink.googlepages.com/search
May also aid:
scripturelink.googlepages.com
scripturelink.googlepages.com/search
F
Fuerza
Guest
There is also an implicit epiclesis in the TLM Offertory:
“Come, Thou Sanctifier, almighty and eternal God,
and bless + this sacrifice prepared for the glory of Thy holy Name.”
There is also this prayer which appears in some form in the Roman Canon in both the TLM and NO:
O God, deign to + bless what we offer, and make it approved, + effective, + right, and wholly pleasing in every way, that it may become for our good, the Body + and Blood + of Your dearly beloved Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.
Although this one does not invoke the Holy Spirit directly by name, the intention is the same.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Agree. And actually it does invoke Him by name “God.”
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
I like the image of the “transubstantiation” of the dead to resurrected." In a closer logical analysis of Transubstantiation, we find the first and fundamental notion to be that of conversion, which may be defined as “the transition of one thing into another in some aspect of being”. As is immediately evident, conversion (conversio) is something more than mere change (mutatio). Whereas in mere changes one of the two extremes may be expressed negatively, as, e.g., in the change of day and night, conversion requires two positive extremes, which are related to each other as thing to thing, and must have, besides, such an intimate connection with each other, that the last extreme (terminus ad quem) begins to be only as the first (terminus a quo) ceases to be, as, e.g., in the conversion of water into wine at Cana. A third element is usually required, known as the commune tertium, which, even after conversion has taken place, either physically or at least logically unites one extreme to the other; for in every true conversion the following condition must be fulfilled: “What was formerly A, is now B.” A very important question suggests itself as to whether the definition should further postulate the previous non-existence of the last extreme, for it seems strange that an existing terminus a quo, A, should be converted into an already existing terminus ad quem, B. If the act of conversion is not to become a mere process of substitution, as in sleight-of-hand performances, the terminus ad quem must unquestionably in some manner newly exist, just as the terminus a quo must in some manner really cease to exist. Yet as the disappearance of the latter is not attributable to annihilation properly so called, so there is no need of postulating creation, strictly so called, to explain the former’s coming into existence. The idea of conversion is amply realized if the following condition is fulfilled, viz., that a thing which already existed in substance, acquires an altogether new and previously non-existing mode of being. Thus in the resurrection of the dead, the dust of the human bodies will be truly converted into the bodies of the risen by their previously existing souls, just as at death they had been truly converted into corpses by the departure of the souls. This much as regards the general notion of conversion. Transubstantiation, however, is not a conversion simply so called, but a substantial conversion (conversio substantialis), inasmuch as one thing is substantially or essentially converted into another. Thus from the concept of Transubstantiation is excluded every sort of merely accidental conversion, whether it be purely natural (e.g. the metamorphosis of insects) or supernatural (e.g. the Transfiguration of Christ on Mount Tabor). Finally, Transubstantiation differs from every other substantial conversion in this, that only the substance is converted into another — the accidents remaining the same — just as would be the case if wood were miraculously converted into iron, the substance of the iron remaining hidden under the external appearance of the wood. " imprimatur et al
newadvent.org/cathen/05572c.htm
Ask more to get more.!!!
M
Marc_Aupiais
Guest
I love that too, it is a great showing of the Cross, and that God always performs such truth, close your eyes in mass and realize you are surrounded by saints, the consecration unites living and death, and it’s form brings us to life, a conversion, yet, itself is unique, utterly unique, The Host is God, and God is the Lord of Hosts.
T
twf
Guest
All the standard Eucharistic Prayers of the current Ordinary Form of the Roman Mass do have an epiclesis of sorts, though before the words of Institution:
Eucharistic Prayer 1:
Eucharistic Prayer 1:
Eucharistic Prayer 2:
Eucharistic Prayer 3:
Eucharistic Prayer 4:
T
twb1621
Guest
The Epiclesis is the invoking of the Holy Spirit spoken by the priest after the words of Consecration.
8
8eofilos
Guest
You shouldn’t kneel when you are speaking to GOD? Is that what the Fathers say? I don’t think that you have understood correctly the Fathers. Read again carefully the Canon and you will understand. Even the Priest kneel during that moment? Who are we, not to kneel humbled when we are asking our Father something? There is no other way to Heaven and that is through Jesus and Jesus tells us that only the repenting and humble can do that. The Pharesies were the ones that were going up front and showing off. I don’t think that is what we should do. The exceptions in that is only during the 40 does before the Assention of the Christ. And that all is sumbolical. I don’t know what the word exactly is for the "μετανοια"that literally means repent which we do the sign (Cross) and we kneel down every time and is done by monks, priests and members of the Church.It sumbolizes are humility in front of the Father. And it shouldn’t remain sumbolic but should be done with actual humility.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
They are the words of Consecration.
F
Fuerza
Guest
Isa,
I’m glad to see that we can occasionally agree on something. Since both the NO and TLM contain some form of an epiclesis, why do you think that the Antiochian Church felt the need to add an extra one in the Western Rite?
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Let the Fathers speak for themselves;You shouldn’t kneel when you are speaking to GOD? Is that what the Fathers say? I don’t think that you have understood correctly the Fathers. Read again carefully the Canon and you will understand. Even the Priest kneel during that moment? Who are we, not to kneel humbled when we are asking our Father something? There is no other way to Heaven and that is through Jesus and Jesus tells us that only the repenting and humble can do that. The Pharesies were the ones that were going up front and showing off. I don’t think that is what we should do. The exceptions in that is only during the 40 does before the Assention of the Christ. And that all is sumbolical. I don’t know what the word exactly is for the "μετανοια"that literally means repent which we do the sign (Cross) and we kneel down every time and is done by monks, priests and members of the Church.It sumbolizes are humility in front of the Father. And it shouldn’t remain sumbolic but should be done with actual humility.
First Ecumenical Council
Canon XX.
Forasmuch as there are certain persons who kneel on the Lord’s Day and in the days of Pentecost, therefore, to the intent that all things may be uniformly observed everywhere (in every parish), it seems good to the holy Synod that prayer be made to God standing.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xxx.html
Sixth Ecumenical Council
Canon XC.
We have received from our divine Fathers the canon law that in honour of Christ’s resurrection, we are not to kneel on Sundays. Lest therefore we should ignore the fulness of this observance we make it plain to the faithful that after the priests have gone to the Altar for Vespers on Saturdays (according to the prevailing custom) no one shall kneel in prayer until the evening of Sunday, at which time after the entrance for compline, again with bended knees we offer our prayers to the Lord. For taking the night after the Sabbath, which was the forerunner of our Lord’s resurrection, we begin from it to sing in the spirit hymns to God, leading our feast out of darkness into light, and thus during an entire day and night, we celebrate the Resurrection
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.iii.xci.html
The last has the interesting comment attatched to it.
For many centuries this custom was preserved even in the Latin Church; and the custom of keeping feasts and whole days generally from evening to evening is believed to have been an Apostolic tradition, received by them from the Jews. At the end of the VIIIth Century the Synod of Frankfort declared in its xxj. canon, that “the Lord’s day should be kept from evening to evening.”
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Yes, it’s always a nice change of paste.
Psalm 132 (133):1Because it has become one of those wedge issues between the Orthodox and the Vatican. A majori difference between the WRO and the union agreements, and why they are not just “reverse uniates” as some have called them, is that they must explicitly show which side of the “wedge” they are on.
Yes, there is an implicit epiclesis in the Tridentine mass, but making it explicit makes sense, so as to remove all question.
Not that it’m my business, but the Words of Institution is a Latinization I think the Chaldeans should keep.
8
8eofilos
Guest
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
T
Taboric_Light
Guest
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
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
T
Taboric_Light
Guest
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
- Status