Why the epiklesis rather than the institution?

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

See post 35. It was stated to be at the time of the words of instutution:

“Hoc est enim corpus meum” and “Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei…”.

Yes, in the Western Church.

In the Eastern we say the whole Anaphora is consecratory. That both the Epiclesis and the Words of Institution are needed. With us the Epiclesis comes after, in the West they come before.

 

[Vico]

Yes, in the Western Church.

In the Eastern we say the whole Anaphora is consecratory. That both the Epiclesis and the Words of Institution are needed. With us the Epiclesis comes after, in the West they come before.

Instututed and hallowed according to the Orthodox.

Chapter VI. of Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem (A.D. 1672) about the Mystery of the Offering:

“…which being instituted by the Substantial Word, and hallowed by the invocation of the Holy Spirit, is perfected by the presence of the thing signified, to wit, of the Body and Blood of Christ.”

catholicity.elcore.net/ConfessionOfDositheus.html

Also

The Lutheran doctrine is rejected, and the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation (μεταβολή, μετουσίωσις) is taught as strongly as words can make it; but it is disclaimed to give an explanation of the *mode *in which this mysterious and miraculous change of the elements takes place.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.v.vii.html

 

[Vico]

I have found it curious that an explicit epiklesis is inserted into the Western Orthodox Mass at the end of the canon, taken from the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, if “Supplices te rogamas…” is the Roman epiklesis, especially since doing so disturbs the historic tradition of the canon of St. Gregory.

*Missale Romanum (My Sunday Missal, *Confraternity of the Precious Blood, 1961)

Supplices te rogamus, omnipotens Deus: iube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublime altare tuum, in conspectu divinae maiestatis tuae: ut quotquot, ex hac altaris participatione sacrosanctum Filii tui, Corpus et Sanguinem sumpserimus, omni benedictione caelesti et gratia repleamur. Per eumdem Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.

Most humbly we implore Thee, almighty God, bid these our mystic offerings to be brought by the hands of Thy holy Angel unto Thy altar above, before the face of Thy divine majesty; that those of us who, by sharing in the Sacrifice of this altar, shall receive the most sacred Body and Blood of Thy Son, may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Hi Alex,

I don’t understand this last statement.

Do you mean to say that the work of the Holy Spirit is not paramount in other traditions and have to make up for a deficiency by making it clear through words?

Or do you possibly mean to say that the Church of the East over-emphasizes the work of the Holy Spirit?

Thank you for the much needed elucidation sir!

I meant “liturgically” (not in any other way, please believe me). In all the Eastern Churches, the work of the Holy Spirit is emphasized liturgically and so very strongly. Just as in Eastern Orthodoxy the Epiclesis is the high point of the Canon, so it is in the Assyrian-Chaldean tradition. I will shut up now . . .

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Friends,

Ultimately, the Epiclesis is not a point of contention between East and West so we shouldn’t make it so!

Both Churches agree on the Action of the Holy Spirit in the Eucharistic Canon and will express it differently. The West emphasized the Words of Institution while the East, as in the Assyrian tradition, will go so far as to leave the Words of Institution out.

There are Western liturgies with an Epiclesis.

It is also interesting that the Jesus Prayer is sometimes called the “Epiclesis of Jesus Christ.”

Alex

 

[Vico]

Dear Friends,

Ultimately, the Epiclesis is not a point of contention between East and West so we shouldn’t make it so!

Both Churches agree on the Action of the Holy Spirit in the Eucharistic Canon and will express it differently. The West emphasized the Words of Institution while the East, as in the Assyrian tradition, will go so far as to leave the Words of Institution out.

There are Western liturgies with an Epiclesis.

It is also interesting that the Jesus Prayer is sometimes called the “Epiclesis of Jesus Christ.”

Alex

The west and east based upon Church rather than upon tradition:

antiochian.org/node/22416

Orthodox Western Rite all add an epiklesis to all the liturgical uses according to the direction of the Holy Synod of 1904-1907. For some of the liturgies this is added from the Gothic:

English Book of Common Prayer 1907 ROCOR (English Book of Common Prayer)
DL of St. Tikhon 1928 (American Book of Common Prayer)
DL of St. Gregory (Missale Romanum)
DL of St. Gregory - Sarum Liturgy (British)
DL of St. Germanus (Gallican reconstruction for Serbian and Romanian and ROCOR)
DL of St. John the Divine (Celtic reconstruction for Moscow Patriarchate ROCOR)

 

[centurionguard]

Dear Friends,

Ultimately, the Epiclesis is not a point of contention between East and West so we shouldn’t make it so!

Both Churches agree on the Action of the Holy Spirit in the Eucharistic Canon and will express it differently. The West emphasized the Words of Institution while the East, as in the Assyrian tradition, will go so far as to leave the Words of Institution out.

There are Western liturgies with an Epiclesis.

It is also interesting that the Jesus Prayer is sometimes called the “Epiclesis of Jesus Christ.”

Alex

It is also interesting that the Jesus Prayer is sometimes called the “Epiclesis of Jesus Christ.”

I never knew this aspect about the Jesus Prayer but I do like the idea that it represents.

The Jesus Prayer (“IS”) after all a very powerful prayer.

Peace
Chris

 

[Alexander_Roman]

The west and east based upon Church rather than upon tradition:

antiochian.org/node/22416

Orthodox Western Rite all add an epiklesis to all the liturgical uses according to the direction of the Holy Synod of 1904-1907. For some of the liturgies this is added from the Gothic:

English Book of Common Prayer 1907 ROCOR (English Book of Common Prayer)
DL of St. Tikhon 1928 (American Book of Common Prayer)
DL of St. Gregory (Missale Romanum)
DL of St. Gregory - Sarum Liturgy (British)
DL of St. Germanus (Gallican reconstruction for Serbian and Romanian and ROCOR)
DL of St. John the Divine (Celtic reconstruction for Moscow Patriarchate ROCOR)

You are perfectly correct! And if a Western Liturgy never had an epiclesis, to somehow want to add one on is simply not the way to respect Western liturgical tradition.

BTW, is there an online version of the Divine Liturgy of St John the Divine (Celtic)?

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I never knew this aspect about the Jesus Prayer but I do like the idea that it represents.

The Jesus Prayer (“IS”) after all a very powerful prayer.

Peace
Chris

Amen! Whenever we pray it, we are inviting Christ’s Healing and Transforming Presence into our souls and lives.

Alex

 

[stephraim]

You are perfectly correct! And if a Western Liturgy never had an epiclesis, to somehow want to add one on is simply not the way to respect Western liturgical tradition.

Especially when the Roman Canon already has two epicleses, implicit though they are.

BTW, is there an online version of the Divine Liturgy of St John the Divine (Celtic)?

I have yet to find one. Sorry.

 

[Vico]

Especially when the Roman Canon already has two epicleses, implicit though they are…

Are you thinking of one in the offertory and one at the start of the canon?

 

[malphono]

Are you thinking of one in the offertory and one at the start of the canon?

I believe he’s thinking of the Quam oblationem and the Supplices te rogamus (the so-called “communion-epiklesis”). If one adds the Veni sanctificator, it’s three, two of which are pre-Institution Narrative.

 

[Vico]

You are perfectly correct! And if a Western Liturgy never had an epiclesis, to somehow want to add one on is simply not the way to respect Western liturgical tradition.

BTW, is there an online version of the Divine Liturgy of St John the Divine (Celtic)?

Alex

You probably want the The Sovereign Canon of Pope Gelasius in the Stowe/Lorrha Missal:

celticchristianity.org/library/stowe.pdf

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Thank you - forgot about that website!

They have the Celtic Office with its tremendous number of psalms and beautiful prayers/hymns!

They wear a green scapular of St Patrick (which I’ve not heard of before).

Great stuff.

Alex

 

[Vico]

I believe he’s thinking of the Quam oblationem and the Supplices te rogamus (the so-called “communion-epiklesis”). If one adds the Veni sanctificator, it’s three, two of which are pre-Institution Narrative.

Hmm. I guess I was not specific enough, I was thinking of the offertory before the canon in the extraordinary form:

*Veni sanctificator omnipotens aeterne Deus, et + benedic hoc sacrificium tuo sancto nomini praeparatum. *

Come, Thou Sanctifier, almighty and eternal God, and bless + this sacrifice prepared for the glory of Thy holy Name.

 

[stephraim]

I believe he’s thinking of the Quam oblationem and the Supplices te rogamus (the so-called “communion-epiklesis”). If one adds the Veni sanctificator, it’s three, two of which are pre-Institution Narrative.

Yes, that’s what I was thinking. Thank you. I also forgot the Veni sanctificator.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

From what I’ve read this occurred at the moment of consecration.

It could very well have been - this happened in 800 AD.

Eucharistic miracles tend to almost always occur as an expression of Divine anger at doubt or disrespect toward the Most Holy Eucharist.

The point of this miracle is nothing other than that same Divine displeasure at the doubt of the priest during the Mass.

Alex