www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Consecration - when is done?

When is the consecration done, in whole Anaphora, in the liturgy up to Epiclesis, or in the words of Last Supper?

My parish father (melkite) has expressed the orthodox view: finished the Epiclesis, we know the gifts have been consecrated. But it seems he even do not know that the latins have a different view, because said in the roman we know the consecration have occured when the final doxology finishes ("Through him, with him, in him...").

Dear Philippe,

If I had to answer, I would say at the words of consecration, simply because Trent has said so.

But I'd much rather not answer. It's unseemly, I think, to worry about such things. It happens. To look for the moment where the magic happens is to reduce the liturgy to a magic trick.

Here's the problem: if there is a magic moment of "validity," then the importance of everything else becomes relativized. Do we need the exorcisms, the spitting, the breathing on or the tonsure for the newly baptized? After all, it has nothing to do with the validity of the sacrament!

To think that way is, in my opinion, terrible. Whatever happens in the sacrament happens, and there is no need to pinpoint a moment.

In the West, the teaching that the priest's uttering the words "This is my body...This is my blood," effect the change goes back at least as far as St. Ambrose of Milan. In the East, the teaching that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ goes back at least as far as St. Cyril of Jerusalem. In recent years, Fr. Alexander Schmemann has suggested that the entire Divine Liturgy (including the Liturgy of the Catechumens) is consecratory. I believe that there have been some recent Roman Catholic theologians who have suggested that the entire Eucharistic prayer is consecratory.

I was told that in the West it is the consecration and in the East it is the Epiclesis. Which is it? Both/and or ether/or, could the Holy Spirit do it one way in the West and a different way in the East?

Dr. Eric:
I suppose that I prefer the suggestion made by some that the entire Eucharistic prayer is consecratory exactly because of the problem your question points out.

It is confusing to me as well, Ryan.

All of this strikes me as like wondering what exact moment constitutes the consummation of a marriage. Which isn't a bad image, since the Eucharist is the wedding feast of the Lamb.

Athanasius the L, my thinking in this is shaped by Schmemann. I suppose, if absolutely pushed by some pressing need, I would say at the words of consecration, but I have a hard time figuring out what the need is to pinpoint the moment.

My suspicion is that the emphasis on pinpointing a moment grew out of the medieval context in which so many of the faithful understood very little of the Latin language. In this context, they spent much of the liturgy in private prayers. However, at the point of consecration, they would cease their private devotions and turn their attention to the altar. This is my suspicion, and I certainly don't know this to be a matter of fact. It's just my best guess.
Ryan

From an Eastern Perspective...the epiclisis...however, as I believe someone stated above we should not think of a "magic moment"...The words of consecration are vital as well...

here's an article from Robert Taft, SJ re the Anaphora of Addai and Mari:
Mass without the Consecration [americamagazine.org]

Dear Friends,

I once asked Fr. Meletius Solovey OSBM, this exact same question (he wrote a number of liturgical works throughout his life of scholarly study).

He told me that "We cannot know exactly WHEN this miracle takes place, only that after the Eucharistic Canon there is no more bread and wine on the altar but the Most Holy and Precious Body and Blood of OLGS Jesus Christ."

The East has not pin-pointed a moment but believes the full Eucharistic Canon, where all Three Divine Persons are invoked, is what effects the Transmutation.

Alex

"We cannot know exactly WHEN this miracle takes place, only that after the Eucharistic Canon there is no more bread and wine on the altar but the Most Holy and Precious Body and Blood of OLGS Jesus Christ."

Father Meletius, as quoted above by Orthodox Catholic, is most certainly right. It seems to me that the key to understanding Fr. Meletius' view is to remember that the transubstantiation takes place outside time. The all-powerful, life-creating words of the Lord, the Anamnesis / offering, and the Epiclesis constitute a single, indivisible act, and each part contains the others.

This means that the typically Eastern teaching on the Epiclesis, and the typically Western teaching about the Verba Domini effecting the change (though Saint John Chrysostom also spoke in a similar manner), are both correct and mutually complimentary, both viewing the same Great Mystery from different angles.

Christ is Risen! Xpuctoc Bockpec!

Gabriel I like your expression that the change "takes place outside time."
Thanks for your post.

Dear Gabriel,

Excellent!

It seems that we get too caught up in arguments over "when" during the Canon the Change takes place, forgetting that it is done outside time.

One of our priests, trained in Rome, however, insists that the Words of Institution are when the Change takes place and that "if a bomb dropped on the church and people had to get out in a hurry they would be able to commune the True Mysteries of the Holy Eucharist even if the celebrating priest could not get to the Epiclesis."

?

Alex

I agree. According to the view I attempted to express, the Anamnesis and Epiclesis are already present when the Words of the Lord are spoken, but under normal circumstances (which would not be in the event of a bombing; God forbid!) they need to be proclaimed for the consecration. They are pronounced separately in time, but remain one indivisible act. Does this make sense to you?