www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Consecretion?

I have wondered this for ahwile. Does the bread and wine transform into the Body and Blood at the Epiklesis in the Eastern liturgies, or is it at the words of Institution as it is viewed in the Latin theology?

The answer is: Yes!

Not a bad answer.

The whole of the anaphora is consecratory.

X. B!
C. I. X!

Remember in the Western Mass the Epiclesis come first followed by the words of Institution, in the East it is reversed. Neither is viewed kosher without the other so I presume it is whichever comes last according to the liturgical order. It isn�t an Eastern Western thing just what order is customary.

In the Extraordinary form of the Roman Mass there is no Epiclesis though Mykhayl, so does it have some sort of implicit one similar to how Addai and Mari has an implicit words of instituion?

Before the old Roman Canon, in the so-called "minor canon" of Offertory prayers, there's a pretty clear invocation of the Holy Spirit (Veni, Sanctificator):


And I think one could argue that the epiclesis is implied in the prayers Quam oblationem and Supplices te rogamus:

Ah ok, I never really thought of that as being an Epiklesis but that makes sense.

I read somewhere that the Supplices te rogamus in the Roman Canon is a vestigial form of the ancient epeklesis.

Kudos to Venite.

St Nicholas Cabasilas says so in his Commentary on the Divine Liturgy.

Fr David Straut

Father David is correct. But I would add that the search for an "exact moment" of the consecration (please note the spelling) is misplaced effort. The Eucharist is a Mystery, not a treatise.

Further, the traditional Anaphorae come to us from the early Church, naturally enough, so we normally treat them with reverence rather than presuming to judge them. To take an example from as recently as yesterday, the chant All Creation Rejoices in Thee, O Full of Grace . . . sung at the Divine Liturgy of Saint Basil ends with the words "glory to thee" addressed to the Holy Theotokos. Normally, the Church reserves "glory to Thee" for prayer to God Himself, and would not today compose a prayer addressing these words to the Holy Theotokos or to a Saint. But because this is a chant of venerable antiquity, hallowed by many centuries of use, no one proposes changing the text.

Fr. Serge

If I may add some small thing to this discussion, I remember the Prophet Elijah calling down fire from Heaven to consume his sacrifice. God allowed this man of faith to call on His Infinite Power to alter, miraculously, matter.

Is it not the same with the Holy Eucharist?

God gives His priests the power to call down from Heaven the Holy Spirit to change bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord and God and Savior, Jesus Christ. He does it through their priestly ordination and His Own Will.

When I attend the Liturgy I try to imagine what must be happening by the Anaphora. Maybe not as suddenly as in the specific Words of Institution, but by the end, Christ is there. I'm always amazed. People run all over the planet looking for miracles and the most wonderful miracle happens every Sunday in their local church. Yet if we could but see, the Divine Fire comes just as forcefully from on high to the Holy Table as it did for the prophet.

In Christ,

BOB

Thanks, Apotheoun!

I was trying to find the exact reference but didn't have the Commentary with me.

Another interesting idea, put forward by biblical scholar Margaret Barker (in her essay "Parousia and Liturgy"), is that the earliest epicleses were based on the "Maranatha", addressed not to the Holy Spirit but to the Son. Barker also has some interesting things to say in her work about Jesus being addressed as "The Great Angel."

She doesn't specifically mention the Roman Canon in that essay, but it occurs to me that her thesis might explain why the Roman Canon has an ascending epiclesis beseeching the Father to send his "holy Angel" (Jesus?) to carry the oblations before his "Altar on high." Just a crazy idea of mine, which I can't really substantiate at this point (without having done any real research) ...

This idea bothers me somewhat, since I know that Jehovah's Witnesses consider that Jesus is now known as Michael the Archangel, in heaven. I believe that I have their doctrine correct in that regard.

John K