Dear Gabriel,

This is an issue that has always given me theological hernias!

In the Ukrainian Catholic tradition, we have always had "Westerners" and "Easterners" who respectively defended the "moment of Consecration" as either after the Words of Institution or following the Epiclesis - in other words, the latter perspective would see that the Change has not occurred only AFTER the Epiclesis has been pronounced and the Eucharistic Canon has been completed with the threefold "Amen."

In the time of Met. Andrew Sheptytsky, Fr. Gabriel Kostelnyk (shot by an assasin and who is now being touted as a "martyr for Orthodoxy"), belonged to the latter group and clearly maintained that the Change cannot be said to have occurred until after the Epiclesis is pronounced.

So both perspectives seem to co-exist within the UGCC.

I agree that this Change occurs outside of time, but we mortals can only deal with time now and there is that ongoing struggle between EC factions on this and other issues (even including the three bar Cross - should the foot-rest be slanted or horizontal?)

The Orthodox Euchologions tend to print the Epiclesis in large, block letters and EC ones that we have do the same for the Words of Institution . . .

Alex

Dear Alex!

"This is an issue that has always given me theological hernias!"

Man, I'd hate to see what that looks like!

Kidding aside, I referred to Saint John Chrysostom as having taught that the Words of the Lord, spoken by the priest in the Divine Liturgy, bring about the Holy Mystery. Here is a quote from his Homily on the Treachery of Judas: "Christ is present. The One who prepared that [Holy Thursday] table is the very One who now prepares this table. For it is not man who makes the sacrificial gifts become the Body and Blood of Christ, but He that was crucified for us, Christ Himself. The priest stands there carrying out the action, but the power and the grace is of God. 'This is My Body' he [the priest] says. This statement transforms the gifts." (Emphasis mine).

Now, if we remember that the Words of the Lord are inseparable from the presence and action of the Holy Spirit as invoked in the Epiclesis, there should be no problem. To reiterate, the Verba, the Anamnesis, and the Epiclesis are spoken separately in time, but they constitute one inseparable action. This takes place outside time because this threefold action makes present the Sacrifice of Christ, which Saint Paul declares was "offered up in the eternal Spirit." (Heb. 9: 14) Eternal = outside time. But if the threefold action is truly one, then each part contains the others. Here is the reconciliation of the Eastern and Western views. When the Words of the Lord are spoken, they are spoken in the eternal Spirit who comes upon the gifts, and the once-for-all Sacrifice of Christ is present. Yes this happens temporally before the Spirit is expressly invoked, but have we never read, "Before they call, I will answer, saith the Lord" (Is. 65: 24)?

I hope this helps the hernia!

Dear Gabriel,

It's feeling alot better thank you!

It is interesting that the Epiclesis in the West (without mentioning liturgies that don't have it altogether) seems to be at the front of the Words of Institution.

For me, since the Epiclesis is inseparable etc. as you said, it is perhaps still better to see the entire Eucharistic Canon as being the "moment of Consecration" and to leave it at that. What you said, I believe, confirms that.

Now if you can resolve that matter of the slanted foot-rest on the Three Bar Cross . . .

Alex

What is so important about the "moment" of consecration? Do people worship with stopwatches, do they need to know the exact "moment" so they can pay attention, or what? This is not an act of "magic" but a sharing in the Lord's Supper.

Dear Bergschlawiner,

"Do people worship with stopwatches?"

Why didn't you tell me in advance that you were going to visit my parish - I would have taken you to lunch afterwards to get better acquainted!

Alex

The obvious answer is as soon as the words "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood" are pronounced as this is what the Oecumenical Council of Florence Decreed

Trent,

This becomes problematic as in Father Serge's example of the priest who got drunk and pronounced the words of Our Lord over a bread truck to which the bishop had to buy the truck and send it to a monastery for the monks to consume. (I won't write the Latin words of the Institution Narrative as I'm not a priest.)

Another problem... The Anaphora of Addai and Mari which is one of the oldest, if not the oldest (I'm open to correction) Liturgies in existence, doesn't even have the Institution Narrative. Yet the Church accepts it as valid and even considers the Eucharstic Change to happen even though the Our Lord's words were not pronounced.

1. These days neither the West nor the East likes to pinpoint an exact moment. To quote Neuner & Dupuis (a collection of doctrinal documents from c. 200 until 1960): "In recent years, a broader approach to sacramental efficacy has sought to reconcile the Western and Eastern traditions by attributing complementary sacramental value to the words of institution and to the epiclesis." (n. 1508).

2. Historically, the West saw the sacramental form consisting in the words of institution.

3. Historically, the East saw it as completed by the epiclesis. (Cf. Bishop Kallistos [Timothy] Ware 1964, The Orthodox Church, pp. 289f.)

Even as far back as the 1800s, the liturgical books that were used to train our Melkite priests--compiled by the professor of liturgy at the seminary in Jerusalem (Père Abel Couturier)--give instructions to the priest about what to do if the liturgy is interrupted by a flood, earthquake, fire, etc. They specify [translated into English]: "after the anaphora" and "before the anaphora"--they don't pinpoint any moment more specific.

The Melkite (Catholic) view is equivalent to the Eastern or Byzantine view expressed above: the consecration is not complete until the epiclesis. Cf. Bishop John Elya's response to a similar question (http://www.melkite.org/bishopQA.htm), where he says: "In our [i.e., Melkite] belief, the action is not complete until God the Father 'in the good pleasure of (His) bounty, makes (His) Holy Spirit come down upon us and upon the present gifts here offered and bless and sanctify them and reveal this bread to be truly the precious body of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, ...' (Liturgy of St. Basil). There is no magic moment or formula or word or syllable, which effects the presence of God and makes it complete; but the whole action makes God's presence effective and real."

The drunk priest would have needed to have the intention to consecrate the bread for transubstantiation to occur, and moreover the matter for the Eucharist is a certain type of bread that most bread companies don't sell.

The approval of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari was a decision that can be taken back at any time, and which I personally think should be.

Does it bother no one that Bishop Elya discountenances the definition of an Oecumenical Synod?

There most certainly IS a "formula...whcih effects the presence of God and makes it complete!" This is basic, BASIC Catholic teaching, belief in which is mandated, de fide, on the authority of at least one Oecumenical Council.

Good to hear someone affirm this.

The drunk priest would have needed to have the intention to consecrate the bread for transubstantiation to occur, and moreover the matter for the Eucharist is a certain type of bread that most bread companies don't sell.

The approval of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari was a decision that can be taken back at any time, and which I personally think should be.

How do we know that the priest didn't have the intention?

You can have your own opinion, but the recognition will not be undone. Both Rome, the Chaldean Catholic Church and the Church of the East have recognized the validity of the Liturgy of Addai and Mari and that it is one of the oldest (if not THE oldest) liturgies of the Church - (probably) even written and celebrated by the Apostles themselves. How and why would the Church want to disown herself?

The idea is similar to stating that the Church could mandate the Apostle's Creed to replace the Nicæan universally, even though Latin Church is the only one which recognizes and uses it - theoretically it could, but it would neither be worthwhile, theologically or historically accurate, nor would it make any sense.

Also, the Chaldean Church has just revised their Liturgy making it both historically/theologically more accurate and acceptable to both Catholics and the Church of the East - what are they going to say now.. "just kidding"?

Thank you Micheal - Rome has spoken, causa finita est.

By this line of thinking, if the "approval" of Addai and Mari can be can be taken back, so could the "approval" of the efficacy of the Tridentine Mass or any immemorial rite by this line of thinking. The efficacy of the sacraments and grace of a Church of apostolic origin are not in question here, as Rome has rightly stated and affirmed. Given the wartime situation and the essential unity of faith in the efficacy of the sacraments it was the logical conclusion.

If only Rome would now police her own liturgical house and others to remove such things as inclusive language, liturgical abuses, etc.

Also the quoted text from Florence above most certainly does not preclude other venerable and immemorial forms, which the council fathers of Florence did not intend to abrogate.