www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The early churches weren't transubstantiationist

I would see that as an unreal question. We could ask how Catholics avoid idiolatry when they worship the Eucharist? Can we we sure they may not be worshipping the species and not only the substance?

Father, believe me, if village Catholics can distinguish between the species (usually known as the attributes) and the substance and if they can avoid the idolatry of worshipping the species, village Orthodox are capable of doing the same!

And your question must be asked of all the Christians of East and West of the first millennium who had not heard of transubstantiation? Pope Saint Gelasius, Saint Irenaeus, Saint John of Damascus, Saint Symeon the New Theologian... How were they not committed to idolatry? We know they were not and the Orthodox, who simply continue the first millennium traditions, are no more guilty of idolatry either.

That the Holy See has authorized celebration of the Liturgy of Addai and Mari without the Words of Institution, and allows communicatio in sacris between the Chaldean Catholic Church and the Church of the East (which, of course, also uses Addai and Mari), indicates that what the Church actually means is different from the way in which you have interpreted it.

In other words, as long as the words "this", "is" "my" and "body" are there, all is well. Right. Concede--Addai and Mari has no institution narrative, it has no epiclesis, but it does have a true, valid and efficacious Eucharist. In my yeshiva days, we called arguments of this sort "pilpul".

The Lineamenta was sent to the episcopal conferences, the Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris, the Departments of the Roman Curia and the Union of Superiors General, with the expressed request that they set aside time for reflection and prayer on the topic and respond to the questions which treated various pastoral aspects related to the Eucharist. Because of the means of social communication, this document received a wide distribution in the Church and the world. Under the guidance of the bishops, the entire People of God made significant contributions on the topic in preparation for the synodal assembly.

Responses to the Lineamenta and its Questions were sent to the General Secretariat by episcopal conferences, the Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris, the Departments of the Roman Curia and the Union of Superiors General. Observations also came from bishops, priests, men and women religious, theologians and the lay faithful. Both are contained in the Instrumentum laboris.

See

2004 Lineamenta

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/s..._20040528_lineamenta-xi-assembly_en.html

2005 Instrumentum Laboris

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/s..._20050707_instrlabor-xi-assembly_en.html

"Nos textos das liturgias orientais, como das liturgias ocidentais em seu conjunto e em sua verdadeira realidade, não podemos tirar uma conclusão sobre o momento preciso da transubstanciação, essa é muito mais realizada no conjunto da liturgia eucarística, que é toda transubstancial.

A Consagração se faz então ao logo de toda Liturgia, e mais especialmente em momentos mais importantes, que são as Palavras da Instituição e a invocação do Espírito Santo (Epiclèse). No VIII século, São João Damasceno, em "A Fé Ortodoxa" (4,13), remarcou que a modalidade da transubstanciação não é dependente de uma operação de pesquisa e busca intelectual.

Da mesma forma, no Documento de Munich (6 de julho de 1982), que emanou da Comissão Mista para o diálogo teológico entre a Igreja Católica e Igreja Ortodoxa, é dito (I, nº5c et nº6) que a celebração eucarística é toda inteiramente epiclética, e que ela é expressa de uma maneira mais intensa em certos momentos: "O Espírito transforma os dons sagrados em Corpo e Sangue de Cristo (metabolé), para que se complete o crescimento do Corpo que é a Igreja. Nesse sentido, a celebração inteira é uma epiclese, que se explicita com maior força em certos momentos (...) Na Eucaristia, a epiclese não é unicamente uma invocação para a transformação sacramental do pão e do vinho. Ela é também uma oração pelo efeito pleno da comunhão de todos ao mistério revelado pelo Filho (...)

O mistério eucarístico atinge seu termo na oração que reúne as palavras pelas quais a Palavra que se fez carne instituiu o sacramento e a epiclese na qual a Igreja renova pela fé, suplica ao Pai, pelo Filho, de enviar o Espírito para que, na única oblação do Filho Encarnado, tudo seja consumido na unidade".

Podemos portanto dizer que as Palavras da Instituição, com a Epiclese, fazem a Eucaristia"

E Sua Beatitude escreve ainda que o lugar da epiclese na liturgia romana é contrária à sucessão bíblica dos eventos da economia divina: o Pentecostes vem depois da Ressurreição, depois da Instituição da Eucaristia, e não antes. Enquanto as liturgias orientais são fiéis à sucessão bíblica dos eventos da economia da salvação: Palavras da Instituição, Anamnesis e Epiclese.

In the first centuries, before the consecration, an invocation was made with hands extended (epíclesi) to the Father to send the Holy Spirit to sanctify and transform the bread and wine into the Lord’s Body and Blood. The basis of such a prayer is found in the Lord’s words following the institution of this mystery: “When the Counsellor comes...he will bear witness to me” (Jn 15:26), “bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you” (Jn 14:25) and “will glorify me” (Jn 16:14). Because of the controversies concerning the divinity of the Holy Spirit between the fourth and fifth centuries, the prayer was placed after the consecration, as witnessed by some liturgical traditions. The majority of the anaphora prayers, however, keep it in its original place, as in the Roman Canon which invokes the Father to send the Spirit, “the power of his blessing.”[141]

In addition to altar coverings, the Byzantine Liturgy calls for the use of a sacred cloth depicting the deposition of the body of Christ from the cross. On this cloth rest the gifts which will become the Body and Blood of the Lord through an act representing the spotless passion of the Lord and his tomb.[128] To be worthy to offer these gifts for himself and for the sins of the people, the priest, after the “Great Entrance,” addresses a prayer of supplication to the Father. Sin (amartia) must be something foreign to him; even his most minor faults are serious, according to John Chrysostom: “not by their nature but by the dignity of the priest who dares to commit them.”[129] The incensation of the holy Gifts follows, a prefigurement of the descent of the Holy Spirit upon them[130] and the prayer of adoration which arises in Christ to the Father. The preparation and presentation of the Gifts, then, is not merely a moment of passage but an integrating, highly symbolic part of the Sacrifice.

The Holy Spirit and the eucharistic celebration

13. Against this backdrop [that the Spirit is present in all acts of Christ and in the Church, continuing His work] we can understand the decisive role played by the Holy Spirit in the eucharistic celebration, particularly with regard to transubstantiation. An awareness of this is clearly evident in the Fathers of the Church. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catecheses, states that we "call upon God in his mercy to send his Holy Spirit upon the offerings before us, to transform the bread into the body of Christ and the wine into the blood of Christ. Whatever the Holy Spirit touches is sanctified and completely transformed" (25). Saint John Chrysostom too notes that the priest invokes the Holy Spirit when he celebrates the sacrifice: (26) like Elijah, the minister calls down the Holy Spirit so that "as grace comes down upon the victim, the souls of all are thereby inflamed" (27). The spiritual life of the faithful can benefit greatly from a better appreciation of the richness of the anaphora: along with the words spoken by Christ at the Last Supper, it contains the epiclesis, the petition to the Father to send down the gift of the Spirit so that the bread and the wine will become the body and blood of Jesus Christ and that "the community as a whole will become ever more the body of Christ" (28). The Spirit invoked by the celebrant upon the gifts of bread and wine placed on the altar is the same Spirit who gathers the faithful "into one body" and makes of them a spiritual offering pleasing to the Father (29).

The faithful need to be enabled to appreciate that richness. Here the General Instruction of the Roman Missal can help, with its list of the basic elements of every Eucharistic Prayer: thanksgiving, acclamation, epiclesis, institution narrative and consecration, anamnesis, offering, intercessions and final doxology (146). In a particular way, eucharistic spirituality and theological reflection are enriched if we contemplate in the anaphora the profound unity between the invocation of the Holy Spirit and the institution narrative (147) whereby "the sacrifice is carried out which Christ himself instituted at the Last Supper" (148). Indeed, "the Church implores the power of the Holy Spirit that the gifts offered by human hands be consecrated, that is, become Christ's Body and Blood, and that the spotless Victim to be received in communion be for the salvation of those who will partake of it" (149).

Nothing says the Vatican can't use Talmudic methods. I've read the Liturgy of Addai and Mari. I've been present serving at the altar during its celebration. I know what is in it and what is not, and the Assyrians themselves will tell you their Anaphora does not have an institution narrative. Narrative implies continuity. Disjointed words do not constitute a narrative. If anything, the Vatican is guilty of bending over backwards to avoid offending the sensibilities of the poorly catechized who still believe that the Gifts are transformed by the words of institution, rather than by the anaphora as a whole.

And just now I went take a look about that aspect in the post-synodal exortation Sacramentum Charitatis. It explicits:


Quoting the General Instruction to the Roman Missal, it does interesting remarks:

Because, usually, it is.

I agree and everything you have quoted from the documents is true. However, when we get to the Vatican's bottom line on whether an epiclesis is necessary, the answer is NO!

HHere are his considerations I had typed in an occasion in Portuguese precisely about the epiclesis and consecration (I think who read Spanish won't have difficult - I am not with time to translate now):