Why the epiklesis rather than the institution?

[malphono]

Has it since been removed in an attempt to “de-Latinize” the Chaldean Catholic Church?

No, it hasn’t been removed, although in the reformed (restored) text, it’s position was shifted slightly. To quote Mar Sarhad:

Regarding the Anaphora of Addai & Mari: the new ritual first restores the text of Addai & Mari to its original status; also it inserts the [Institution] Narrative into the third Gehanta according to the genuine structure of Mesopotamian Anaphora; then makes minor corrections of inconsistencies that are found in the previous tenure.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

No, it hasn’t been removed, although in the reformed (restored) text, it’s position was shifted slightly. To quote Mar Sarhad:

Hmmm. That’s interesting. I wonder why it has not been removed.

 

[malphono]

Hmmm. That’s interesting. I wonder why it has not been removed.

Well, I suppose one reason is because even though the Anaphora of Ss Addai & Mari lacks the Narrative, the concept is not necessarily alien to the Edessene (Mesopotamian) anaphoral structure. (See again the quote from Mar Sarhad.) Another reason could be that it was inserted at the time of union, and over the nearly five centuries since it has become a mark of self-identification for the Chaldeans.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Hmmm. That’s interesting. I wonder why it has not been removed.

Take a look at the posts of benedictus2 on this thread and you’ll have your answer.

 

[centurionguard]

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 ) rather than the institution?

newadvent.org/cathen/05502a.htm
The word Epiklesis means invocation, Petition for the active power of God or for the sending of the Holy Spirit at the Eucharist and the Blessing of the Baptismal water.

In the traditions of Alexandria and Rome there was an Epikliesis before the consecration (Quam oblationem), consecration-epikliesis); in those of Antioch-Syria of the 4th century, to which gradually all eastern rites became assimilated, there was one after the words of institution (“originally a communion-epikliesis), later becoming the consecration-epikliesis as well”). The dissident Eastern Orthodox wrongly ascribed the consecration of the offerings to this epikliesis, and not to the words of institution alone. The real essence of this explanation is that the Holy Spirit by whose power the Eucharist is celebrated, acts in his own special way in effecting the transubstantiation.

In Baptism: an epikliesis is at the blessing of the water for baptism found in Tertullian circa 220 AD; It occurs again in the blessing of the baptismal water in the Easter Vigil.

 

[ciero]

Isn’t both needed? The Epiclesis preceeds the Institution Narrative in the Mass while in the Divine Liturgy, the Epiclesis is after.

There is no “explicit” Epiclesis is the pre Vatican II mass.

 

[stephraim]

There is no “explicit” Epiclesis is the pre Vatican II mass.

The consecration-epiclesis is indeed implicit in the Roman Canon. The communion-epiclesis is much more explicit, though still not quite as explicit as Eastern epicleses.

 

[johnnykins]

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 ?

Chrysostom in his Homilies on the Treachery of Judas is a good place to start.

books.google.com/books?id=KPbi_nBITycC&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=Homily+on+the+Betrayal+of+Judas+chrisostom&source=bl&ots=EwZYhhO4st&sig=D2y4JJeGfu37fjWBQSsDybidEzI&hl=en&ei=s6taTY-oH5DBtger1Pj9Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

There is no “explicit” Epiclesis is the pre Vatican II mass.

Also the Roman Canon (Eucharistic prayer I which comes from the EF) in the OF has no explicit Epiclesis.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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.

For those with an instution narrative, then perhaps that is when it happens even if they are wont to define the moment as such.

Is there a dogmatic statement by the Church defining the exact moment the bread and wine are changed to the Body and Blood of Christ?

 

[Alexander_Roman]

What do we make of the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano when the Host became flesh at the moment of consecration?

Nothing at all since we don’t know when that miracle occurred during the Basilian priest’s Mass when he expressed doubt in the Eucharistic Change.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

The Christian East celebrates the action of the Holy Spirit in all of the life of the Church and especially the sacraments.

The priest takes on a more “passive” role as can be seen in the words for the Sacrament/Mystery of Baptism: “The Servant of God (name) is being baptized in the Name of . . . .”

The Words of Institution refer to the historical act of Institution by Christ. We repeat it today because He told us to and recite His Words. But then the Epiclesis calls down the Holy Spirit to make the Words of Institution “active” and to bless/inspire us to ensure that we receive the fullness of the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist.

We surely do not know when during the Eucharistic Canon the Change is made by God. But we surely DO know that after the last “amen” of the Epiclesis which closes the Canon, there is no more bread and wine on the altar.

In the Assyrian/Chaldean tradition, the work of the Holy Spirit is paramount which is why the absence of the Words of Institution altogether.

Alex

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Alex,

In the Assyrian/Chaldean tradition, the work of the Holy Spirit is paramount which is why the absence of the Words of Institution altogether.

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?

 

[stephraim]

It’s been a while since I’ve studied this, so forgive any errors and/or discrepancies in my statements.

If I recall correctly, Fortescue, Jungmann, et al. show that the earliest anaphoras in the West contained only the communion- epiclesis, that is, a prayer for the worthy reception of Holy Communion. The invocation of the Holy Spirit to confect the sacrament was a trend that began around the third/fourth century. The desire to link prayers to epicleses contained in the prayers over the baptismal water (that such contained epicleses is evident from Tertullian, Optatus, Jersome, Auguestine) contributed to the greater emphasis of a consecration-epiclesis within the anaphora. It’s clear from the treatise De Sacramentis which contains the ancestor of the Roman Canon, that both the consecration-epiclesis Quam oblationem (in a slightly more explicit form) and the communion-epiclesis Supplices te rogamus are present in the West. The (pseudo?) Hippolytan anaphora from about 150 years prior (if indeed it can be said to be truly Roman, or at least of Western influence) contained only the communion-epiclesis. The Didache (again, if it does indeed contain an early anaphora and not merely a prayer for use at an agape meal) also does not contain a consecration-epiclesis. I believe the Testamentum Domini and the Acts of John also do not contain a consecration-epiclesis.

The West is not without its own epicleses, however. In the 5th century Pope Gelasius mentions an epiclesis (though it’s possible he’s referring to the Supplices), so it seems that the Roman Rite had what it considered to be an epiclesis at that time. Some scholars even argue that several of the Super oblata prayers in the Veronese Sacramentary contained epicleses. The Gallican liturgy also had variable epicleses.

As to the question of when the West placed emphasis on the words of institution, it’s also around the 4th century, as can be seen from De Mysteriis and De Sacramentis, as well as Augustine.

 

[Vico]

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 ) rather than the institution?

The Orthodox consider that it must be explicit, as in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. For their Western rite, they add the explicit epiklesis from the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

Transubstantiation does not require the explicit epiklesis, according to the Catholic Church, as stated at the Council of Florence and reiterated at the Council of Trent and in the statement of Pope Pius X (1911):

“But the Catholic doctrine on the most holy Eucharist is not left intact when one resolutely teaches that it is possible to hold the opinion which maintains that, among the Greeks, the consecratory words do not produce their effect, unless that prayer which they call the epiclesis, has already been offered. For it is certain that the rights of the Church in no way make her competent to alter the substance of the sacrament in any respect …”

The Eucharistic Epiclesis: A Detailed History from the Patristic to thet Modern Era by John McKenna, p 89.

It was also stated recently that The Anaphora of Addai and Mari (Assyrian Church of the East) is notable because, from time immemorial, it has been used without a recitation of the Institution Narrative, yet it is valid (this decision made 2001 CDF, approved by Pope John Paul II). Note that they do use an epiklesis.

“The Catholic Church considers the words of the Institution as a constitutive part of the Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer. The Council of Florence stated “The form of this sacrament are the words of the Saviour with which he effected this sacrament. A priest speaking in the person of Christ effects this sacrament. For, in virtue of those words, the substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ and the substance of wine into his blood” (D.H. 1321). The same Council of Florence also characterised the words of the Institution as *“the form of words [forma verborum] which the holy Roman Church …] has always been wont to use [semper uti consuevit] in the consecration of the Lord’s body and blood” *(D.H. 1352), without prejudice to the possibility of some variation in their articulation by the Church.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/po…assira_en.html

(Cardinal) Metropolitan Bessarion of Nicea, 1439:

“And since we hear from all the holy doctors of the Church, especially from blessed John Chrysostom, who is very well known to us, that it it those words of the Lord which change and transubstantiate the bread and wine into the true body and blood of Christ and that those divine words of the Saviour contain all the power of transubstantiation, we ourselves, by necessity, follow this most holy doctor and his opinion.”

Then in 1442, in the Decree for the Jabcobites, the explicit “verba Salvatoris” is stated as “Hoc est enim corpus meum” and “Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei…”.

The quotes above are also from The Eucharistic Epiclesis: A Detailed History from the Patristic to thet Modern Era.

 

[jlhargus]

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 ) rather than the institution?

JL: My guess the priest who is the sacramental sign of Christ calls down the Holy Spirit in the epiklesis, whom in trun changes the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ at institution. Sort of as water and the words I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit calls the Holy Spirit to act thru the sign of water and words.

 

[jlhargus]

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.

JL: I read something about that some years ago I don’t know where. I seems to me it was an old Eucharistic prayer found somewhere that is not in use. I think the Church teaches, but not as dogma, the real presents is brought about not at any one instant but throughout the prayer. In times of persecution I think the institution is all that is necessary.

 

[benedictus2]

Nothing at all since we don’t know when that miracle occurred during the Basilian priest’s Mass when he expressed doubt in the Eucharistic Change.

Alex

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

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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

And then the question is, “what is the moment of consecration?”

 

[Vico]

And then the question is, “what is the moment of consecration?”

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…”.