The Epiclesis and the EF

[valoriuslobo]

I have this problem when I read something I hadn’t thought about before it really nags me. So a year ago, I read Rome and the Eastern Churches and it said one Orthodox objection is that the Tridentine liturgy doesn’t contain an explicit epiclesis. I didn’t know what this was, so I found out it was the invocation of the Holy Ghost to bless the proffered gifts. I looked in my missal and had a hard time finding, so I read online and they said the Come O Sanctifier and the Supplices prayers are an epiclesis. Obviously in the Novus Ordo this is quite explicit, but the EF it is implicit. Yet the problem I’ve been having is being nagged by doubts of the Tridentine epiclesis.

Is this a case where I’ve let schismatic objections get the best of me? What have liturgists said about the epiclesis?

 

[mattwcu]

I wouldn’t be nagged by the Orthodox objecting to the TLM not having an Epiclesis. It is a nice prayer but not necessary for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Did you know there are Orthodox that do not even have the words of institution in their liturgy? I believe it it the Armenians if I am not mistaken.

The Orthodox are all over the place with their doctrine, and that fact comes out pretty clearly once you start talking with them. Don’t forget they are separated from the Magisterium of the Church, so they do not possess the fullness of truth.

I just began reading a book by Dave Armstrong on comparing the Orthodox and Catholic beliefs. So far its pretty good.

 

[Joannm]

I wouldn’t be nagged by the Orthodox objecting to the TLM not having an Epiclesis. It is a nice prayer but not necessary for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Did you know there are Orthodox that do not even have the words of institution in their liturgy? I believe it it the Armenians if I am not mistaken.

The Orthodox are all over the place with their doctrine, and that fact comes out pretty clearly once you start talking with them. Don’t forget they are separated from the Magisterium of the Church, so they do not possess the fullness of truth.

I just began reading a book by Dave Armstrong on comparing the Orthodox and Catholic beliefs. So far its pretty good.

The epiclesis is a “nice prayer but not necessary?” By whose power do you believe the bread and wine are changed into Christ’s Body and Blood? The epiclesis is certainly necessary. As has been pointed out, it is explicit in the prayer in the Roman Canon but it is still there when the priest extends his hands over the bread and wine. The prayer is still there but the words Holy Spirit is not used. If you study the prayer you will find it present.

As far as the Institution Narrative not being used. Several years ago the Vatican stated that the lack of an Institution Narrative in the Anaphora of Adai and Mari, which is still used in one of the Eastern Catholic rites (it is either in Iran or Iraq) is perfectly valid.

As far as the Orthodox not possessing the fullness of truth I would not make so bold a statement. There is very little separating us from the Orthodox and their theology is very beautiful and more mystical than our own. We accept all their sacraments as valid.

 

[mattwcu]

The epiclesis is a “nice prayer but not necessary?” By whose power do you believe the bread and wine are changed into Christ’s Body and Blood? The epiclesis is certainly necessary. As has been pointed out, it is explicit in the prayer in the Roman Canon but it is still there when the priest extends his hands over the bread and wine. The prayer is still there but the words Holy Spirit is not used. If you study the prayer you will find it present.

Actually, it is implicit in the traditional Roman Canon, not explicit. The original poster was wondering about this very fact. It is good that it is implicitly present. But the accidents are not changed by virtue of this prayer as far as I know. They are changed at/by the words of institution by a priest standing in the place of Christ.

As far as the Institution Narrative not being used. Several years ago the Vatican stated that the lack of an Institution Narrative in the Anaphora of Adai and Mari, which is still used in one of the Eastern Catholic rites (it is either in Iran or Iraq) is perfectly valid.

Ok.

As far as the Orthodox not possessing the fullness of truth I would not make so bold a statement. There is very little separating us from the Orthodox and their theology is very beautiful and more mystical than our own. We accept all their sacraments as valid.

They don’t possess the fullness of truth. We know this and it is obvious. In fact, we believe that the Catholic Church is the only Church that possesses the “fullness of truth”. Here is one example:

We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema. (see Denziger §1839).
(Vatican Council, Sess. IV , Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, Chapter iv)

The Orthodox do not believe this, nor do they even view Vatican Council I as a valid Council. They do not possess the fullness of truth.

It is true that we are closer to them than other Christians. And I would say most of their sacraments are valid, the vast majority. But what about when they re-confirm people over and over again? I understand they can even withhold sins in confession if they don’t feel like talking about them right now (as long as it is not out of shame), they do not believe in mortal sins, and believe you can go to hell for very minor ones (we would say venial).

Somehow though, our Eastern Catholic brothers have made it work. I guess at some point it becomes a jurisdictional problem.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I wouldn’t be nagged by the Orthodox objecting to the TLM not having an Epiclesis. It is a nice prayer but not necessary for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Did you know there are Orthodox that do not even have the words of institution in their liturgy? I believe it it the Armenians if I am not mistaken.

The Orthodox are all over the place with their doctrine, and that fact comes out pretty clearly once you start talking with them. Don’t forget they are separated from the Magisterium of the Church, so they do not possess the fullness of truth.

I just began reading a book by Dave Armstrong on comparing the Orthodox and Catholic beliefs. So far its pretty good.

The Assyrian Church of the East uses the Anaphora of Addai and Mari which has a silent institution narrative. They are not in communion with the Eastern nor Oriental Orthodox.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The epiclesis is a “nice prayer but not necessary?” By whose power do you believe the bread and wine are changed into Christ’s Body and Blood? The epiclesis is certainly necessary. As has been pointed out, it is explicit in the prayer in the Roman Canon but it is still there when the priest extends his hands over the bread and wine. The prayer is still there but the words Holy Spirit is not used. If you study the prayer you will find it present.

As far as the Institution Narrative not being used. Several years ago the Vatican stated that the lack of an Institution Narrative in the Anaphora of Adai and Mari, which is still used in one of the Eastern Catholic rites (it is either in Iran or Iraq) is perfectly valid.

As far as the Orthodox not possessing the fullness of truth I would not make so bold a statement. There is very little separating us from the Orthodox and their theology is very beautiful and more mystical than our own. We accept all their sacraments as valid.

As you have noted, the Anaphora of Addai and Mari doesn’t have the words of institution, so the lack of an explicit Epiclesis in the EF may not be an issue if there is something in there even though its not explicit.

 

[Joannm]

The Assyrian Church of the East uses the Anaphora of Addai and Mari which has a silent institution narrative. They are not in communion with the Eastern nor Oriental Orthodox.

The Chaldean Church, which is in communion with Rome, uses the Anaphora of Addai and Mari.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Chaldean Church, which is in communion with Rome, uses the Anaphora of Addai and Mari.

Yes, but the post I replied to said “Orthodox”.

Also I know there has been a Liturgical change within the Chaldean Church recently where the institution narrative is now said aloud.

 

[malphono]

The Chaldean Church, which is in communion with Rome, uses the Anaphora of Addai and Mari.

Yes, it does. The question of the Anaphora of Ss Addai & Mari has come up regularly, and while I don’t wish to be redundant to other threads and posts, perhaps a few comments might be useful here as a frame of reference.

The original recension of the Anaphora of Ss Addai & Mari, as used by the ACoE, does indeed lack an Institution Narrative, and it was this recension that was the focus of the decision of the Holy Office. The determination was that the Institution is implicit within the Anaphora, and so the Anaphora as a whole unit is considered to be consecratory. The recension of the Anaphora of Ss Addai & Mari used by the Chaldean Church is nearly identical, but does have an Institution Narrative, that was added by Rome at the time of union in the late 16th century. Within the past few years, the Holy Synod of the Chaldean Church promulgated some liturgical restorations and it is interesting to note that it was decided, after much scholarly research, to retain the Institution Narrative in that Anaphora. So, it’s still there, although its position has been shifted a bit to what is considered a more appropriate place within the Anaphora.

By contrast, in the Roman Canon, the Institution Narrative is quite explicit. The Epiklesis is implicit and comes before the Institution Narrative rather than explicit coming after it (*1). While the other Roman Rite Eucharistic Prayers are perhaps a bit more explicit in wording, it is still positioned before the Institution Narrative and is of a different character than is Epiklesis in the various Eastern and Oriental liturgies. To my knowledge, the Epiklesis in the Roman Mass (*2) seem to have always been placed before the Institution Narrative and therefore has to be considered more implicit than explicit, irrespective of the text. That’s still the case, Novus Ordo and additional EPs notwithstanding. Not one of them is truly explicit in the Eastern/Oriental sense, either in text or placement.

*1: There was also a [thread=535966]thread[/thread] earlier this year in the EC forum concerning the Epiklesis that might be of some interest.

*2: This seems to be true in the Ambrosian and other Western Rites too, although apparently the Mozarabic Rite differs a bit: some say it has no epklesis at all while others say the prayer “post pridie” (after the Institution Narrative) is intended to be an implicit epiklesis.