www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology The Consecration

Here I go, showing my ignorance again, but what Columcille said bothers me a bit.

I thought that a priest is an extension of his bishop, that he shares in the major order of the bishop. Not that the priest is an order unto itself.

Here is a question, a priest with no bishop, is he a priest at all? Can he function? With the view that the priest acts "in persona Christi" then the answer would be yes, no bishop is necessary for a priest to function.

For some reason this does not seem correct to me.

I have been told that every day I become more byzantine and less roman, is this just a case of that working here?

Sorry for all the quesitons today.

David

Dear David,

Columcille's points do represent a traditional Latin response to the Eastern emphasis on the Epiclesis.

It is absolutely true that Christ did not invoke the Spirit on the Bread and Wine at the Mystical Supper.

From the Eastern standpoint, the Institution narrative was something that was "Christ's" and something that occurred in history.

The Epiclesis is what effects BOTH the transmutation of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ AND comes down on us to give us the blessings of Communion of His Body and Blood.

This is why the first Divine Liturgy to be celebrated in the Church was done so by the Apostles on the Day of Pentecost, the Day of the Epiclesis on the Church.

This is why traditionally the Divine Liturgy is celebrated close to the time of Pentecost, nine in the morning.

This is also why the Assyrian Catholic Church of the East sometimes doesn't even BOTHER with the Words of Institution, and proceeds directly to the Epiclesis.

However, I think it would be wrong for Easterners to assume that every Western liturgy has ALWAYS HAD an epiclesis that somehow fell into disuse since the Schism.

My wife's grandfather wrote the book EPICLESIS and it would seem that some Western liturgies in fact NEVER had an epiclesis - that the entire Liturgy itself was the Epiclesis in fact.

In addition, the West has tended to always emphasize the Institutional Narrative, with the immediate Adoration of the Species following the Words of Christ.

This is why one can see the Epiclesis BEFORE the Words of Institution and NO Liturgies tend to have it prior to the Words of Christ as well.

"In Persona Christi" as the focus of the West and "Epiclesis" are both legitimate expressions of two Particular traditions of the one Body of Christ.

Alex

Indeed! And of course the Priest in the Roman Rite, sacramentally incarnating the eternal priesthood of Christ through Holy Orders, nevertheless celebrates the Mass in union with the Trinity, recalling creation and redemption and the action of the Holy Spirit Who not only effects the transubstantiation but forms the gathered people into the Body of Christ. The actions of the Son are always united with those of the Father and the Spirit.

Khrystyna

Dear Khrystyna,

Are you one of those who studied theology, got carried away with it and then realized you wouldn't be ordained for an obvious reason?

Excellent!

Alex

Alex,

I don't know if this is correct or not but I have heard the "change" in the Eucharist explained by Orthodox and Eastern Catholic clergy as being a "continuum" with the Words of Institution, the "Thine of Thine Own" and the Epiclesis all being part of the process of the "consecration" and not defining "when" the change takes place.

Dear Alex,

Yes, the things of God are truly one of my passions but thankfully in His wisdom the world is in no danger of me ever putting it into official practice!!

Khrystyna

I don't know how accurate is this, but I was told the term "institution narrative" was a term borrowed from Anglicans and Protestants and adopted in the 1970's, but that the correct term used by the Latin Church were the "words of the consacration". This is because the name "institution narrative" and its recitation said alloud, might lead people to understand that it's only a commemoration of the Last Supper and not the "magic words" that the priest, while acting in the person of Christ, confect the mystery according to the Lastin theology of the Eucharist. St Thomas, held that the absence or modification of these words invalidated the whole mystery. However, it is my understanding that this theology is no longer the official teaching of the Catholic Church. For example, recently, the Pope and Cardinal Ratzinger issued a docuent allowing Catholics to take communion in Asyrian (Nestorian) parishes, in spite of the absence of the words of the consacration, because the whole anaphora works as a consacratory formula in itself.

In the Orthodox Churches it is believed that it is the Epicklesis what confects the mystery, but fighting about this, in my opinion, has no sense, because the Byzantine Rite, and the Latin Rite both have Epiklesis and "words of the consacration". centuries ago, some Orthodox "legalists" held that the Latin Mass (the Tridentine Mass, at that time) was "invalid" because they had no epiklesis, but the great theologian of the Orthodox Church, St. Nicholas Cabasillias firmly proved that the Latin Mass had an "ascending" Epiklesis.

Greetings all,

Reader Remie, Prior the use of the term "Institutional Narrative" it was know as the "Memorial Prayer". The Epiclesis forms the core of each of the Roman Eucharistic Prayers , and they are most certainly spoken aloud.

The Actual point of consecration is still a matter of debate in the Roman Church. There are no definitive teachings on the subject.

The two schools of thought are
1. The Transubstantiation occurs during the Institutional Narrative, specifically when the priest says "This is my body" and "This is my blood" respectively.

2. The Transubstantiation occurs elsewhere (Epiclesis?), as it is 'absurd' that the Body and Blood are not Consecrated simultaneously.

Either way, the actual moment is a matter of Mystery in the Roman Church.

It certainly seems that the Holy Spirit has determined, in His Wisdom, that we are not to know the precise moment of Consecration, at least at this point in time.

In Christ,

Brendan

Dear Brian,

You are absolutely right.

The Canon itself is a continuum that contains an invocation to each Person of the Trinity.

And while the idea of "Moment of Consecration" is foreign to Orthodoxy, we know that after the final "Amen" of the Epiclesis is when there is no longer any bread or wine on the Altar, but the Body and Blood of OLGS Jesus Christ.

Old Believer bowing practice bears this out.

One is to make the Sign of the Cross and a bow with the Jesus Prayer after "This is My Body," and then again after "This is My Blood," and yet again after "Thine of Thine Own . . ."

Just prior to the prayer "It is truly meet," a full prostration to the floor is to be made and again after that prayer.

Alex

Dear Brendan "Scotus Eriugena,"

Welcome! Did you know there are two "Scotus Eriugenas?"

One is the Blessed John Duns Scotus Eriugena beatified by the Pope in recent years.

The other the Celtic theologian of the ninth century with a similar name, and who was venerated locally by the Celts.

Getting back to the topic . . .

The Novus Ordo places the Epiclesis at the beginning of the Words of Consecration rather than following them. Thus, the NO theologians have united East and West with respect to Eucharistic theology here, while, at the same time, maintaining the historic Western liturgical focus on the Words of Consecration by the priest "in Persona Christi."

The same can be said of the Tridentine Liturgy that likewise has an invocation to the Holy Spirit ahead of the Words of Consecration, if I am not mistaken.

Some Eastern theologians have said that the role of the priest in the West to act in the Person of Christ in this way has sometimes led to excessive "clericalism."

The role of the priest in the East is that of a humble minister who pronounces the Words of Consecration, but who then kneels and invokes the Holy Spirit to effect the actual change.

This is somewhat of a radical difference of Eucharistic perspective at work here and one that is based on the West's search for a point in the Eucharistic Canon that can be said to effect an "immediate Change of the elements." The East is content to see the Canon as a whole as the medium by which the Transmutation or Transubstantiation is effected.

In addition, the East sees the very beginning of the Divine Liturgy itself as a wider "consecratory context" for the Eucharist.

Alex

Hello:

Originally, yes. And I agree that this is the use of many Orthodox Churches.

Fr. Michael Moran of the Cathedral of St. Mary in Van Nuys ALWAYS says the Epiklesis out loud, and it is clearly highlighted by ALL CAPS in the Eparchy of Van Nuys Divine Liturgy pew booklets.

I know that this is a trend, especially among Byzantines in Communion with Rome.

I like the idea. In addition that I don't see why silent prayers MUST be kept silent (i.e. why is it not optional for the priest to chant them out loud), I think the Epiklesis is such a central part of the Divine Liturgy, that the people will only benefit if the words of the priest help us focus on what's "going on" at the altar, which is what should be "going on" in our hearts as well.

Shalom,
Memo.

Dear Alex,

Yes I am aware of both, I appreciate John Dun Scotus's work, especially on Augustinian thought. The 9th Century theologian was "Sedulius Scotus" or 'Siandal the Irishman' if you translate the Latin Not a bad poet.

I fully agree with you there are differences in though, my point was mostly to clarify the Roman position.

It had been presented that it was Roman teaching that the Consecration occurred during the Narrative. That is just a theory (albeit, a prevailing one).

A definitive answer had yet to come, and the Spirit, in His wisdom, chosen for it to remain a Mystery, even in Rome

Christ's Peace,

Brendan

Hello:

Yes and no. The order of the Presbyters is an order of its own right. Both presbyters and bishops partake of the same sacramental ministerial priesthood, the bishops in the fullness of this priesthood, and the presbyters as partial partakers under their bishops.

I think this is a very academic question. How can one be a priest without a bishop ordaining him?

Now, what if a bishop (or applicable law) forbids a priest to exercise his ministry? Well, then the priest is bound by the authority of his bishop (or of the applicable law). If the priest disregards this prohibition, then he is acting illicitly.

In the Roman side of the world, illicit is quite a different concept than invalid. Illicit sacraments are still valid sacraments.

I'd agree with my Eastern brethren that this Roman distinction is also rather academic, because illicit and invalid are both "wrong", and therefore, unsuitable to worship God and serve His people.

The distinction becomes necessary to support the Roman theology of "Once a priest, always a priest". I think this idea makes sense, since the sacrament is called "Holy Orders", with "Order" having a connotation of something permanent ("Ordo").

If a priest is suspended in the Roman Church, the suspension can later be revoked and the priest can continue his ministry.

In the Orthodox Church, if I understand correctly, priests cannot be suspended. The figure is that of a dismissal from the clerical state, which implies that in order to return to the priesthood, that priest should be re-ordained. Of course, economy can come to the rescue and allow the priests' return to work without any particular rite involved.

On a practical level, both situations would look pretty much the same.

I like the Roman approach in which the theory and the practice are closer and more transparently matched.

I really don't know how Byzantine Catholics deal with these differences, my guess is that, as usual, there would be some who favor the Orthodox view, and those who favor the Roman view.

Shalom,
Memo.

Greetings Memo,

The distinction has quite a bit to do with the 'Once a Priest, always a Priest'

If a Priest commits Mortal Sin, how does that effect his ordination, his place within Holy Orders.

The Roman answer is that the sin of the Priest in NOT reflected in the Eucharist. So a Priest in sin can offer the Eucharist and have it be valid.

Now take this further, what if the priest is in schism, or disobedient. The Mass is still valid, The Body and Blood of our Lord is present. But the Mass is not Licit.

Valid is a matter of Doctrine, Licit is a matter of Discipline.

With our Orthodox Brothers, there is schism between us. So from the RC perspective, theirs is a valid Mass. No Catholic can dispute that there is Jesus present in Body and Blood on the Holy Table. But it is not Licit for a Catholic to partake, except in great need (a matter of discipline).

The same is true for a Sedevacantist Mass. They are in schism with the Church, but they are still Priests.

For the case of Suspension, that is a matter of Obedience. A Priest is ordered by his Bishop not to perform as an Ordinary of Holy Orders. The priest still technically may, but would be in violation of his vows and would occur the sin of Disobedience. Again Valid, but not Licit.

I hope that clarifies the difference.

Pax Tecum,

Brendan

Added Note: Priestly Suspention differs from 'De Frocking' which is expulsion from the priesthood. That is a full suspension of the Clerical State and would require a specific rite to re-establish.

Thought this was an interesting discussion.