|
0 members (),
340
guests, and
125
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,525
Posts417,643
Members6,178
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 16
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 16 |
Last night as I was in study preparing for my Confirmation and First (legitamate) Communion later this evening (praise be to the Lord Jesus!! ), I came accross an interesting passage in the Catechism: In the institution narrative, the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ's body and blood, his sacrifice offered on the cross once for all. (CCC 1353) Now, I found this to be particularly contrary to the Liturgies of the Eastern Catholic Churches (who claim to be equal members of the Church). In the Eastern Rites, more specifically the Greco-Byzantine, it is strongly implied that the Institution Narrative does NOT cause immediate Transubstantiation (Metaousiosis) as opposed to what the Catechism clearly states. In fact, during the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, after the Institution Narrative the priest or bishop says the Epiklesis; during which, he asks the Father to "change this holy bread into the Body of Christ." Clearly in the Liturgy itself the Narrative does not bring a change. When I posed this question to many Latin Catholics, they took the position of the Byzantine Catholics, namely that the whole anaphora is ONE single prayer causing transubstantiation. HOWEVER, this appears to be in direct defiance of the clear teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (as shown above). I was very much puzzled when one Latin Catholic confidently said that the Church has never definitively defined the exact moment. Well according to the Catechism of 1994 SHE HAS defined the moment (at least from what I understand), much to the dismay of every Eastern Christian I'm sure. Yet things (SEEM) to get even more contradictory in the Church's teaching when She openly states that she accepts Liturgical traditions as being fully Catholic that don't see the Institution as immediately consecratory (the Liturgies of the Chaldean Catholic Church, for example, do not even have an Institution Narrative). So....I am stuck here. Any thoughts. (BTW, please pray for me that tonight I may worthily partake of the Sacred Mysteries of Christ! Thanks.  )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,690 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,690 Likes: 8 |
Dear KnightWolf,
This is not a contradiction if you see it like a process of perfection in faithful prayer. The Institution Narrative makes present the Body and Blood of Christ in our midst, while the Epiklesis perfects the Holy Mysteries and the people from God (the Holy Spirit) to God (the Father). The whole action is one because it is Trinitarian. The Latins have the Epiklesis first, followed by the Institution, God (Holy Spirit) perfects the Offering and the people which Christ offers to the Father.
That's the way I see it - perhaps others can be even more clear.
This view also makes the Liturgy of Mar Mari and Addai correct, since when taken as a whole, it lacks nothing.
God bless you as you prepare to receive the Mysteries!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Honestly, it is this type of controversy that makes me scratch my head and pray, "How long, O Lord? Maranatha! Come Lord Jesus!" The whole "moment of consecration" thing is not an issue, at least not anymore. Rome has spoken regarding the implicit nature of the Words of Institution in the Mari and Addai liturgy. It is really a "both/and" situation. The Words of Institution have no power on their own apart from the power of the Holy Spirit whether through an explicit or implicit Epiclesis before or after, just as the prayers of Epiclesis apart from any implicit or explicit Words of Institution are fruitless. If we take Holy Baptism as an example, the prayers of Epiclesis are made over the waters of the font, but the Mystery of Baptism is not fully realized until the words of Christ are prayed with the immersion. I suppose if someone was in extreme danger of dying, using just the "baptismal formula" would be sufficient. But extraordinary situations or minimalist concerns around sufficiency should not dictate our theology of either Baptism or the Eucharist. Another analogy familiar to the Syriac Fathers: the Annunciation. Yes, the Word took flesh in Mary's womb through the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. But that overshadowing was inseperable from Mary's word...her fiat: "Let it be done unto me according to your word." Do we separate the two and pit one against the other or simply distinguish in order to unite? Again, both/and - Words of Institution and Epiclesis. The Holy Gifts are reverenced before, in-between and after both. St. John Chrysosotom seems to say that the Words of Jesus effect the consecration, but clearly there is no intention of isolating these Sacred Words from the whole liturgy! It is similar to asking questions like: was the New Covenant established at the Incarnation, the Last Supper, the Cross, the Resurrection, the Ascension or Pentecost? The answer is unequivocably "Yes!" It's a whole "how many angels on the head of a pin" issue for me personally. At some point we just need to "fold the wings of the intellect and bow down to the mystery" as Catherine Dougherty once wrote. It is very "un-Eastern" IMHO to engage in debates on this issue, as has been done in the past. (This is not to slam your question, Knightwolf. It is more of a general observation.) Just my two shekels... Prayers for you, brother Knightwolf, as you celebrate and receive the Sacred Mysteries! Gordo PS: Some interesting quotes from Cardinal Kasper on this issue: http://catholicsensibility.wordpress.com/2005/10/13/112921426954960534/ This epicletic structure of the Eucharist is expressed at a very early stage in the call �Maranatha!� (Didache 10, 6; cf Rev 22, 20). Explicit epiclesis of the Spirit is found in the Traditio Apostolica of Hippolytus (4), while a consecratory effect is first attributed to it in the Mystagogical Catechesis of Cyril of Jerusalem (5, 6). The consecration epiclesis has to be distinguished from the communion epiclesis which asks for fruitful spiritual receiving of Holy Communion. While the latter has been preserved in a large number of post Communion prayers in the Roman liturgy, the consecration epiclesis is contained in the Roman canon only in a rudimentary fashion in the prayer Quam oblationem preceding the words of institution. In contrast, it is of fundamental importance in the Eastern liturgies, where the epiclesis follows the words of institution.
The differing development in the East and West has been the subject of many controversies. While the Western tradition has understood the words of institution as words of consecration since the time of Ambrose, Orthodox theology attributes the consecration to the epiclesis. This gave rise to a controversial debate concerning the precise moment of the consecration. In general terms, these discussions are now a thing of the past since the Eucharistic Prayer is a whole and, as a whole, possesses an epicletic nature. It was all the more important that an explicit epiclesis was re-introduced into the new Eucharistic prayers in the post-conciliar reform of the liturgy. �
The renewal of the epiclesis in the Eucharist is far more than the change of a rite. It says something about the nature of the Church and the sacraments. The sacraments are not simply an extension of the person and work of Jesus Christ in the sphere of the Church; the Church must, rather, ask for the Spirit so as to recall Jesus Christ and His saving work. The Church has, in overall terms, an epicletic structure. It does not �have� the Holy Spirit nor is the Holy Spirit at the disposal of the Church. However, it can and may ask for the coming of the Holy Spirit and can be certain that this plea will be heard.
What applies to the consecration epiclesis applies in a similar manner for the communion epiclesis, i.e., the plea for the Spirit to ensure the worthy and fruitful receiving of the sacrament of the Eucharist. This is found in many post-Communion prayers of the Eucharist. It adopts the teaching of the manducatio spiritualis, the spiritual communion of both the bodily and spiritual nourishment of the sacrament. Anyone remotely familiar with the Reformed doctrine of the Eucharist going back to Calvin will know about the ecumencial significance of that teaching. It is found in particular, in Augustine, in Thomas Aquinas, as well as in the Council of Trent and in the Catechismus Romanus. Ultimately, it goes back to the eucharistic discourse in John 6, 32-59. �It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh counts for nothing� (6, 63).
Last edited by ebed melech; 04/22/08 10:47 AM. Reason: spelling errors due to lack of sleep!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,180
Orthodox Christian Member
|
|
Orthodox Christian Member
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,180 |
Great explanation. Dear KnightWolf,
This is not a contradiction if you see it like a process of perfection in faithful prayer. The Institution Narrative makes present the Body and Blood of Christ in our midst, while the Epiklesis perfects the Holy Mysteries and the people from God (the Holy Spirit) to God (the Father). The whole action is one because it is Trinitarian. The Latins have the Epiklesis first, followed by the Institution, God (Holy Spirit) perfects the Offering and the people which Christ offers to the Father.
That's the way I see it - perhaps others can be even more clear.
This view also makes the Liturgy of Mar Mari and Addai correct, since when taken as a whole, it lacks nothing.
God bless you as you prepare to receive the Mysteries!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 16
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 16 |
Thanks for all the responses.
More are welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 21
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 21 |
I think the many point is to clarify that it is not the Priest who is turning the bread and wine into the Body and Blood but the holy spirit. The Holy Spirit is present in the power of the words and the action of Christ and that is what transforms the Body and Blood. "In the institution narrative, the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ's body and blood, his sacrifice offered on the cross once for all. (CCC 1353)" The priest says the prayer and invited the spirit in but it not the words that cause the transformation but the Holy Spirit. At least this is how I see it. The Latin Priestsdo a similar thing during the mass they pray over the bread and than say "take and eat, for this is my Body which will be given up to you" and the same with the wine this implies that that is the moment the bread and wine are changed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 16
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 16 |
Again thanks for all the great responses. I am still having a little trouble with this...
BUT, thanks for the prayers. I was fully Initiated through the sacraments of Confirmation and my first (legitamate) Holy Communion on April 22 (last month).
Praise be to Christ our God!
Please continue to pray for me brothers and sisters that I might continue to grow in the Lord.
Last edited by Knightwolf; 05/08/08 03:59 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,520 Likes: 10
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,520 Likes: 10 |
Yet things (SEEM) to get even more contradictory in the Church's teaching when She openly states that she accepts Liturgical traditions as being fully Catholic that don't see the Institution as immediately consecratory (the Liturgies of the Chaldean Catholic Church, for example, do not even have an Institution Narrative). A correction is needed. The Words of Institution are found in the anaphora used by the Chaldean Catholic Church. You can see by looking through the Reformed Chaldean Missal in English [ kaldu.org] It is the Assyrian Church of the East that does not have the Words of Institution in their anaphora.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,690 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,690 Likes: 8 |
Actually, some of the anaphora used by the ACoE do have the institution - I think it's mainly the Anaphora of Addai and Mari that omits this, but the both the ACoE and the Chaldean Church uses other anaphorae as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,520 Likes: 10
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,520 Likes: 10 |
Yes, in fact the Catholic Church encourages the Assyrian Church to include the Institution Narrative when there are Chaldean Catholics attending an Assyrian liturgy. The following quote is from the Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist
Between The Chaldean Church
and the Assyrian Church of the East: When Chaldean faithful are participating in an Assyrian celebration of the Holy Eucharist, the Assyrian minister is warmly invited to insert the words of the Institution in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, as allowed by the Holy Synod of the Assyrian Church of the East.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505 |
There was a time when the words of institution were "sub secrecto" in the Latin Church.
Stephanos I
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1 |
Stephanos,
That time is still now. You do know that Traditional Masses are celebrated daily by thousands of priests of the Latin Rite?
Alexis
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 84
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 84 |
It seems to me that the moment of consecration can only be identified by a careful analysis of the particular rite. For the Mass, the Council of Trent has given us the answer and it is hard to come to any other conclusion. The epiclesis (or what seems to be an epiclesis) precedes the words of institution. The Latins ask God to bless the offering so that it might become, etc. The Words of Institution follow. It is quite clear in the Mass that after the Words of Insitution the elements are adored as God.
In the Divine Liturgy it is equally clear that the consecration is completed at the epiclesis, which follows the Words of Institution. The moment of consecration, however, is not emphasized liturgically to the same degree as it is in the Mass.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1 |
The epiclesis (or what seems to be an epiclesis) precedes the words of institution. The Latins ask God to bless the offering so that it might become, etc. The Words of Institution follow. It is quite clear in the Mass that after the Words of Insitution the elements are adored as God. I disagree - some liturgical writers (such as the great Nicholas Cabisilas with whom I am in agreement) have placed the traditional Latin epicletic text equivalent at the Supplices te rogamus after the Words of Institution.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 510
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 510 |
X. B! (Christ is risen!)
C. I. X! (Glory to Jesus Christ)
What came first, the chicken or the egg? Again we are viewing two different viewpoints as if from one perspective. The West tries to pigeonholes thinking they will understand while the East accepts Mystery. If we debate when the change of flour, yeast, water and fermented grape juice should we not also recognize in the Byzantine Tradition we also call for the Holy Spirit to change us? �Father, we offer You this bloodless worship as befits our rational nature and we pray, beg and beseech You: send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts present here�. Rather than when, should we ask if we are not transformed are our gifts?
Will we analyze �blessings� next? When we bless the waters, if in the church is the water only in the tub blessed? If we go to the village stream is the entire stream sanctified? How about the waters in the clouds, pluming pipes and the seas the streams empty into? Our people (Slavs) didn�t analyze they simply accepted and expressed it by refraining from washing cloths the week after the Theophany blessing of the waters in respect. Is not the washerwoman�s theological understanding more tangible than academic debate?
A (UGCC) parish priests discontinued knelling and singing �TSARY NEBESNI� (Heavenly King) to open our Green Holidays. Why? Kneeling is a Latinization. If an organic expression of the people is, what is this analyzing here? Rather than debating how God works we might brainstorm how the tangible revelation of these Mysteries (Hunky evangelization) of the people, without aggravating them.
|
|
|
|
|
