Words of institution epiclesis and idolatry

[sakares2]

If the Roman Church is wrong about the Species becoming the body and blood of Christ at the words of institution, isn’t she guilty of over 500 years of utter and explicit idolatry in asking the faithful to kneel and worship the host before Christ becomes present?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

If the Roman Church is wrong about the Species becoming the body and blood of Christ at the words of institution, isn’t she guilty of over 500 years of utter and explicit idolatry in asking the faithful to kneel and worship the host before Christ becomes present?

No has the Roman Church is not wrong.

The requirement is for both the epiclesis and words of institution.

In the Byzantine Divine Liturgy the epiclesis comes after the words of institution. In the Roman Mass the epiclesis comes before the words of institution.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Actually,
while the words of Consecration AND the epiclesis are both crucial,
the ENTIRE MASS is, really, vitally necessary, from the first sign of the cross,
to the last “Go in Peace.”

The church has always seen it this way, and the eastern churches emphasize
this reality very vocally.

This is why you will never, in ANY Catholic, Eastern Catholic, or Orthodox church,
NEVER, ever see a priest merely walk in, walk up to the altar,
and say “This is my body, this is my blood” and then hand out communion.
In our modern hectic world that would make things really efficient and fast-paced,
but I guarantee you, it will NEVER happen.
The Mass is more than the Consecration, though that and the epiclesis are absolutely
and always, necessary, and you cannot have a true Mass without them, either.

 

[triumphguy]

If the Roman Church is wrong about the Species becoming the body and blood of Christ at the words of institution, isn’t she guilty of over 500 years of utter and explicit idolatry in asking the faithful to kneel and worship the host before Christ becomes present?

What if the Church is right…?

 

[Jeffgo]

Well, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, the consecration occurs at the Words of Institution. The Council of Florence, the reunion council held between the Catholic Church and numerous Eastern Churches, (both Eastern Orthodox and Oriental/non-Chalcedonian Orthodox) affirmed, in the Bull to the Armenians, that, “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.” The “Words of the Saviour” refer to the institution narrative.

If the Catholic Church is wrong about this, then yeah, we would be guilty of idolatry if we adored the Host in a liturgy where the epiclesis occurs after the institution narrative (for example, the Byzantine Divine Liturgy). If the Catholic Church is right, then we’re adoring Christ, as he rightfully deserves, right when He becomes present.

 

[grandfather]

If the Roman Church is wrong about the Species becoming the body and blood of Christ at the words of institution, isn’t she guilty of over 500 years of utter and explicit idolatry in asking the faithful to kneel and worship the host before Christ becomes present?

Yes.

 

[Vico]

If the Roman Church is wrong about the Species becoming the body and blood of Christ at the words of institution, isn’t she guilty of over 500 years of utter and explicit idolatry in asking the faithful to kneel and worship the host before Christ becomes present?

That is logical. In the Divine Liturgies we have two prayers, those of the words of institution and the epiklesis. Christ is truly present at the words of institution yet the Holy Anaphora must be completed which occurs at the word “condemnation” * after the epiklesis. In the institution and epiklesis we have the words of Christ and the asking of the Father to send the Holy Spirit. These involve all three Divine Persons of the Most Holy Trinity (from the Divine Liturgy St. John Chrysostom), and recognize the Monarchy of the Father:

Take, eat, this is My Body which is broken for you for the forgiveness of sins.

Drink of this, all of you, this is My Blood of the New Covenant, which is poured out for you and for many, for the forgiveness of sins.

…

Remembering, therefore, this saving command, and all that was done in our behalf: the Cross, the Tomb, the Resurrection on the third day, the Ascension into heaven, the Sitting at the Right Hand, the Second and Glorious Coming Again. Offering You, Your own, from Your own, in behalf of all and for all. …

Moreover we offer to You this rational and unbloody sacrifice, and we implore, and pray, and entreat You, send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts here set forth.

• That to those who partake of them, they may be for the purification of the soul, for the forgiveness of sins, for the communion of Your Holy Spirit, for the fullness of the kingdom of heaven, for boldness before You, but not for judgment or condemnation

 

[po18guy]

If the Roman Church is wrong about the Species becoming the body and blood of Christ at the words of institution, isn’t she guilty of over 500 years of utter and explicit idolatry in asking the faithful to kneel and worship the host before Christ becomes present?

I note that you did not ask about “the Greek Church”, the “Ukrainian Church”, or even one of the various other Eastern Orthodox Churches. What do you think about them, who hold the same eucharistic beliefs, and have for nearly 2,000 years?

Why is only the evil “Roman Church” in your sights? Why, indeed…

 

[Nine_Two]

My (non-Catholic) thought would be that it is not idolatry.

If, for whatever reason, Christ was not truly present, you believe he is, and are therefore making the motions of worship to what you believe to be Christ. The act is then one of worship of Christ, regardless of the object you are directing yourself to.

If however you believe that it is just bread, then that would be idolatry.

 

[po18guy]

Yes.

Just as important, what does this say about those who reject Christ in the Holy Eucharist?

 

[Hokomai]

My (non-Catholic) thought would be that it is not idolatry.

If, for whatever reason, Christ was not truly present, you believe he is, and are therefore making the motions of worship to what you believe to be Christ. The act is then one of worship of Christ, regardless of the object you are directing yourself to.

If however you believe that it is just bread, then that would be idolatry.

Isn’t the essence of idolatry the worship of something thought to be a god, but is not? Why would someone worship something they did not think was a god? Are you confusing the act with the intent?

 

[Hokomai]

My (non-Catholic) thought would be that it is not idolatry.

If, for whatever reason, Christ was not truly present, you believe he is, and are therefore making the motions of worship to what you believe to be Christ. The act is then one of worship of Christ, regardless of the object you are directing yourself to.

If however you believe that it is just bread, then that would be idolatry.

Isn’t the essence of idolatry the worship of something thought to be a god, but is not? Why would someone worship something they did not think was a god? Are you confusing the act with the intent?

 

[po18guy]

Isn’t the essence of idolatry the worship of something thought to be a god, but is not? Why would someone worship something they did not think was a god? Are you confusing the act with the intent?

Turn it around: To make something into a god by your own desire.

 

[onthisrock]

My (non-Catholic) thought would be that it is not idolatry.

If, for whatever reason, Christ was not truly present, you believe he is, and are therefore making the motions of worship to what you believe to be Christ. The act is then one of worship of Christ, regardless of the object you are directing yourself to.

If however you believe that it is just bread, then that would be idolatry.

I like the way you said that! i was thinking along those lines but it wouldn’t come out onto paper…thank you!

 

[Hokomai]

Turn it around: To make something into a god by your own desire.

I know that by analogy Christians call the turning of any desire into a ‘god’ idolatry, but this is analogy. Actual idolatry consists of believing that a thing that is not a god is a god, and treating it as such. There are biblical claims of this happening (golden calf etc) but I have been unable to find many non-biblical examples of it.

 

[grandfather]

My (non-Catholic) thought would be that it is not idolatry.

If, for whatever reason, Christ was not truly present, you believe he is, and are therefore making the motions of worship to what you believe to be Christ. The act is then one of worship of Christ, regardless of the object you are directing yourself to.

If however you believe that it is just bread, then that would be idolatry.

The person’s personal faith does not make an idol not an idol.

Catherine of Sienna could recognize Christ in the Eucharist. Priests who did not believe this, skeptics, decided they would create a test to see if it were true. They brought her unconsecrated hosts and tried to deceive her. She asked them if they were trying to tempt her to commit idolatry.

The original poster’s question could be posed another way. Suppose the god you believe in is not god and you worship him or it. It would be false worship. Suppose Jesus did not rise from the dead, was not born of a virgin, and so on. Then all your religion is false.

Yes that is true, my religion would be false if what it claims as truth is not true.

Skeptics are skeptics, because they do not want to believe. Unlike you or I who have the gift of faith. There is no proof great enough to force a skeptic to believe.

The rich man died and was suffering great torment, because of how he lived. He cried out to Father Abraham to at least send Lazurus to warn his brothers to repent or they would also end up in great suffering. Jesus said even if someone were to rise from the dead they would not believe. They had the law and the prophets and refused to believe. He was saying that nothing, no matter how great a wonder done before their eyes would change them.

There have been countless Eucharistic miracles. The bread has turned to flesh numerous times. There are countless healings. One would have to be blind to not believe, seeing so many extraordinary events in every age. But it is a self inflicted blindness. They cover their eyes.

The question could also be posed yet another way. Suppose the Eucharist is what the Church and scripture claims it to be and you refuse to believe it. Jesus said unless a man eats my Body and drinks my Blood, he has no life in him. We are either all idolators, or the rest of the world that refuses to believe Jesus and do what He says is spiritually dead.

 

[sakares2]

Wow! what a bunch of replies. I do not know how to address individuals in the forums, so i will try to answer different comments in this post.

Someone mentioned why I mentioned only the Roman Church. The reason for this is that it is only in the Roman church that the faithful are obliged to kneel and worship after the words of institution. in the Byzantine churches, the faithful are not obliged to give divine worship to the host before the epiclesis which occurs after the words of institution. Someone can of course correct me if I am wrong on this point.

Someone else mentioned that in the Roman church the epiclesis comes before the words of institution, i assume what is meant is “come Sanctifier…bless these gifts…” or

“O God, we pray that You will make this offering altogether blessed, approved, confirmed, worthy of reason and Your acceptance, so it may become for us the Body and Blood of Your dearly beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.”

correct?

because there is also a prayer after the words of institution asking the Holy Spirit to bring the gifts to the altar on high, that is sometimes referred to as an epiclesis.

In my opinion I think that the prayers said before the words of institution are an epiclesis and not so much the phrase after the words of institution (although it is a beautiful prayer).

The concept of it not being idolatry if it is wrong is interesting as one poster pointed out, because the worship is of Christ. I suppose if we take an example of a blind man who thinks that dead tree is Jesus and get down and worships it as Jesus, can we really say this is idolatry? It is mistaken identity at worst, but idolatry?

Does anyone know if in the Roman rite the epiclesis always came before the words of institution?

 

[sakares2]

This is of course only my opinion, however as I see it, the Roman rite does indeed have an epiclesis and it occurs before the words of institution as refers to an event that will happen (i.e. so that they may become for us the body and blood of Christ). In the Byzantine churches the epiclesis comes after the words of institution and is I believe In the present tense, thus meaning “make them your body and blood at this moment in time.” It would seem to me that the Roman Church rather than asking the Spirit to transform the gift in the present tense asks the Spirit to transform the gifts at some future point. The point being referred to is at the words of institution. If we can ask the Spirit to transform the gifts together at the same time immediately, why can we not ask the Spirit to transform them at the time we recite the words of institution individually?

My point is that I think it is the Holy Spirit effecting the change and I don’t think that the Spirit as God is limited to only being able to transform the gifts at a certain time or with only certain specific words, but rather can do so in a manner that applies uniquely to each individual case. After all the Chaldeans do not even have Words of institution. If they were to add the prayer “send your Holy Spirit down to transform these gifts into your body and blood when we elevate them toward you.” Would there be any reason to doubt that at this point that they were transformed?

In the case of the Roman liturgy it is implicitly saying it its epiclesis

“O God, we pray that You will make this offering altogether blessed, approved, confirmed, worthy of reason and Your acceptance, so it may become for us the Body and Blood of Your dearly beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. when we recite the words of institution).”

It can be grated that there is no explicit mention of the Holy Spirit here, however God is in fact invoked and the Spirit was explicitly invoked in an earlier prayer:

“Come, Sanctifier, almighty, eternal God, and bless this sacrifice prepared for Your holy name.”

 

[grandfather]

This is of course only my opinion, however as I see it, the Roman rite does indeed have an epiclesis and it occurs before the words of institution as refers to an event that will happen (i.e. so that they may become for us the body and blood of Christ). In the Byzantine churches the epiclesis comes after the words of institution and is I believe In the present tense, thus meaning “make them your body and blood at this moment in time.” It would seem to me that the Roman Church rather than asking the Spirit to transform the gift in the present tense asks the Spirit to transform the gifts at some future point. The point being referred to is at the words of institution. If we can ask the Spirit to transform the gifts together at the same time immediately, why can we not ask the Spirit to transform them at the time we recite the words of institution individually?

My point is that I think it is the Holy Spirit effecting the change and I don’t think that the Spirit as God is limited to only being able to transform the gifts at a certain time or with only certain specific words, but rather can do so in a manner that applies uniquely to each individual case. After all the Chaldeans do not even have Words of institution. If they were to add the prayer “send your Holy Spirit down to transform these gifts into your body and blood when we elevate them toward you.” Would there be any reason to doubt that at this point that they were transformed?

In the case of the Roman liturgy it is implicitly saying it its epiclesis

“O God, we pray that You will make this offering altogether blessed, approved, confirmed, worthy of reason and Your acceptance, so it may become for us the Body and Blood of Your dearly beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. when we recite the words of institution).”

It can be grated that there is no explicit mention of the Holy Spirit here, however God is in fact invoked and the Spirit was explicitly invoked in an earlier prayer:

“Come, Sanctifier, almighty, eternal God, and bless this sacrifice prepared for Your holy name.”

I did not realize this thread was about straining gnats.

Suppose a group of Christian’s were in church and suddenly in the church appeared a group of angels who made themselves visible and audible singing hymns. Their message was that Jesus in the next couple of minutes would be arriving walking through the wall. If in anticipation the Christians knelt in expectation waiting for the Lord’s appearance in front of the wall and Jesus did appear. Would that be idolatry? Catholics know in faith the Lord will appear.

Further, Christians kneel to pray all the time. Protestants kneel and pray, because they believe the Holy Spirit will be present, or maybe it is a more reverent way to pray.

What I wonder is how or why people nit pick and gnat strain over such things, and what camels they are swallowing. The Church has another name for straining at gnats. It is called scrupulosity. Moderns call it obsessive compulsiveness. It is very difficult to overcome, because those afflicted think the things they are struggling with very crucial issues and can not be convinced otherwise. They find faults and things wrong where there are none and then pick at them until their souls bleed.

 

[sakares2]

Point well taken and received about the gnats, I agree with you and thank you for pointing that out. My only point of contention was that I though that perhaps there was the possibility of Idolatry, however on closer inspection as I tried to indicate in my last post I do not think that this is the case.