) rather than the institution?Good subject.I’m curious as to why in the east the epiklesis is regarded as the time of transubstantiation (or since we’re discussing eastern thought, metastoicheiosis
Isn’t both needed? The Epiclesis preceeds the Institution Narrative in the Mass while in the Divine Liturgy, the Epiclesis is after.Good subject.
I am wondering how it is known that the Holy Spirit comes into the bread and wine during the words of institution.
Who decided that, and when ?
Latin theology generally agrees that the absolute minimum to consecrate is “This is my body” and “This is my blood.”
Pentecost. God the Father and God the Son sent God the Holy Spirit.
I think he meant how we know it is at the words of institution the Holy Spirit changes the elements, as opposed to during the epiklesis.
The latin invocation of the Holy Spirit is before the words of institution.
Actually, the Te igitur quoted above is not the consecration-epiclesis in the Roman Canon. The Quam oblationem is, though you are correct that it is before the Institution Narrative:
Ultimately the fact that God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, transforms ordinary bread (whether leavened or unleavened) and wine into the body and blood of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ is a great mystery and there is no knowing the exact moment of the transformation, nor how it takes place. All we know is that it does take place. Everything else is speculation. Or, as I’ve heard someone say before (perhaps Kyr Joseph Raya), “Everything else is philosophy.”What do we make of the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano when the Host became flesh at the moment of consecration?I will echo an above post that claims that generally in the Byzantine East a definitive moment of “transubstantiation” (not really an Eastern concept, but I’ll use it here simply to avoid derailing the thread) is not really defined. Again, it is the entire action of the Anaphora that is seen to transform the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood. I have heard some Orthodox say that “transubstantiation” occurs at the moment of the epiclesis, but this seems to be defined simply to oppose the Latin claims that it occurs at the Words of Institution. It’s also not an opinion that I’ve heard come from many Orthodox. Most of the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics that I’ve spoken to, or whose books I’ve read, have said that the transformation is affected by the entire action of the Anaphora. I’ve even heard that it is affected by the entire Liturgical action, and that’s why any changes to the Liturgy are taken so seriously.
This is just speculation, but I believe that we probably came to know this from the accounts of the Last Supper in the Gospels. Jesus simply says “This is my body…etc.” and then “This is my blood…etc.” After he says that he gives his flesh and blood to the disciples, so it’s reasonable to believe that it is at that moment that transubstantiation occurs.Good subject.
I am wondering how it is known that the Holy Spirit comes into the bread and wine during the words of institution.
Who decided that, and when ?
Thanks, but that is not the question.
First of all, such miracles fall under the category of private revelation, much like weeping icons, the stigmata, the “divine light”, Our Lady of Fatima, etc. As such nothing binding on the Faith is revealed there.
I believe it was defined at the Council of Trent, but I could be wrong.
That whole era of Roman Church history isn’t necessarily my favorite. I think that is exactly what I am getting at. If God has led the West to come to this understanding that He becomes present at the moment of consecration then that must be it in our Liturgy.First of all, such miracles fall under the category of private revelation, much like weeping icons, the stigmata, the “divine light”, Our Lady of Fatima, etc. As such nothing binding on the Faith is revealed there.
Secondly, it is a miracle that occurred within the context of a Latin mentality. Although “inculturation” often gets a bad rap these days (much like ecumenism), God himself does respect our cultures and our mindsets and He reaches out to us in ways that we can understand given our cultural situation. It is every bit conceivable, therefore, that a similar miracle could occur at the moment of the Epiclesis at a Byzantine Divine Liturgy (although Eucharistic miracles aren’t really emphasized in the Byzantine Churches because there is a different emphasis on the Eucharist than in the Latin Church). I’ve heard a story about a lay monk in the Early Church who, while carrying some bread intended for Liturgy from the market to the Church, recited the Epiclesis. Later, during the Liturgy, it was revealed to the priest that he could not consecrate the bread because it had already been consecrated (how this works I do not know, but so the story goes).
It’s noteworthy that there isn’t really much of an Epiclesis in either form of the Roman Mass. It would make sense, therefore, that the Words of Institution would be emphasized.
Remember also that we are talking about two totally different mindsets. Although the Faith is essentially the same, the approach is quite different, often to the point of seeming contradiction if one examines these things only on the surface. Although there are many exceptions, the “Roman genius” has always been to “say as much as possible in as few words as possible”, to boil things down to the bare minimum. Hence we now have in the Roman Church baptism by the pouring on of water three times instead of a triple-emersion in water. We also have the Words of Institution as being the minimum necessity to constitute a “valid” Mass, all else is seen as being sort of the “dressings”. This is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, when one looks at the huge missionary success in the West one can see how such a mentality has been of great benefit.
In the Byzantine East, however, the mentality has always been an emphasis on the poetic and symbolic, on expressing the great mysteries of the Faith through long hymns and intense celebrations filled with symbolic words, gestures, iconography, incense, processions, etc. For the Byzantine East, therefore, it is not simply the Words of Institution which transform the Eucharistic species, it is the entire liturgical action of which the Words of Institution are an essential part, just like the Epiclesis is an essential part. In reality, for the Byzantine mindset, one cannot think of the Words of Institution as being separate from the Epiclesis because it is through the power of the Holy Spirit that the Eucharistic Species are transformed in the first place, just as it is through the power of that same Spirit that Christ became incarnate and walked among us. In the Byzantine mind it is just as unthinkable for “transubstantiation” to take place without the Words of Institution as it is without the Epiclesis.
Again, we are talking about two very different mindsets. In essence we agree. But the way we go about agreeing with one another often appears to be by disagreement.
Again, ultimately it is a mystery and nothing has been defined.
We each have our own traditions, but we are not in contradiction. 
Oh, another side-note. There is actually an Oriental Anaphora, used by one of the Oriental Catholic Churches (and I think an Oriental Orthodox Church as well), which does not have the Words of Institution. I forget the title of it. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to help me out here.
But it is an Anaphora which Rome approved for continued use by this particular Church without making them add the Words of Institution. The Institution Narrative was said to be “implicit” in the prayers (much like the Epiclesis is said to be “implicit” in the Roman Canon). Again, it’s a difference in the traditions of particular Churches without constituting a contradiction. 
I think you mean the Anaphora of Ss Addai & Mari. The original recension (used by the ACoE) lacks and Institution Narrative. An Institution Narrative (the text of which is based on the one in the Roman Canon) was added by the Chaldeans at the time of union.Oh, another side-note. There is actually an Oriental Anaphora, used by one of the Oriental Catholic Churches (and I think an Oriental Orthodox Church as well), which does not have the Words of Institution. I forget the title of it. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to help me out here.
Has it since been removed in an attempt to “de-Latinize” the Chaldean Catholic Church? I ask because I remember for awhile there was a big to-do in Rome over the Anaphora sans the Institution Narrative. It was eventually approved. I believe both our current Pope and Fr. Robert Taft were involved in restoring the authentic Chaldean tradition.
