www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Moment of Consecration

I always feel strange when I attend the local Greek Orthodox church and people don't really do anything special at what we Latin Catholics consider the Words of Consecration, but then at the Epiklesis they of course kneel, etc.

Is this really a point of contention between the two Churches?

It would seem to me to be so, since the Catholic Church has taught absolutely and definitively that the bread and wine are transformed at the Words of Consecration. And it would seem to be that the Eastern Orthodox at least implicitly believe that it is the Epiklesis which is, at least, an integral part of the Conescration.

Am I making too much of the distinction? As I said, as a Catholic it feels odd at the GO church because at the Words of Consecration I believe Christ is fully present and feel a desire to bow down and worship Him, while my Orthodox brethren are waiting for "their moment" to occur.

And isn't one in danger of worshipping bread and wine if the moment of Consecration isn't known? Or isn't one in danger of letting the Lord be presenta not worshipped?

Alexis

Alexis

I may not be Orthodox but I have always understood that we don't actually know exactly when the gifts become the Body and Blood of Christ. We just know they do and are 'happy' with that.

Remember - in the East we have Mysteries - and this term is accurate according to the way we think.

I'm no theologian and I'm sure that someone can explain this better than me

Dear Alexis,

This is something that many articles have been written about in Eastern Catholic circles that I'm familiar with.

In the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic vs. Orthodox worlds, this has been, until lately, a point of contention i.e. Catholics believe the Moment of Transmutation/Transubstantiation to be the Words of Consecration while Orthodox believe the same Moment occurs at the Epiclesis.

That is simplistically put for the sake of argument.

In UGCC pew-books, you will find the Words of Institution capitalized (with instructions to kneel at that time). In the "Easternized" parishes such as mine, people stand but there is no doubt that they are standing for the Words of Institution and the Epiclesis is a mystery that not all are aware of (at best, they would consider it to belong to the priest and has little or nothing to do with them).

Our priests, by and large, will explain that the Epiclesis is simply a liturgical action calling down the Holy Spirit on the Gifts on the altar that have already been consecrated at the Words of Institution. In other words, all Three Persons of the Holy Trinity are involved with the Transmutation of the bread and wine into the Most Pure Body and Blood of OLGS Jesus Christ, but that the Eucharistic Canon, with its Anamnesis, Words of Institution and Epiclesis, liturgically celebrate the actions of each Divine Person separately, even though what They do actually occurs at the Words of Institution.

In other words, a number of our priests would require a "moment in time" for the Transmutation of the bread and wine to occur and they feel that it must be the same as in the Latin Church, namely, at the Words of Institution.

The Orthodox Church's teaching (which should ideally also be that of the Eastern Catholic Churches as well - Fr. Fedoriw of our parish often wrote) differs from that of the Latin West in that no precise "moment in time" for the actual Consecration can be positively affirmed. In short, we do not know.

What we DO know (and Fr. Meletius Solovey OSBM who wrote a book on the Divine Liturgy did confirm that this is acceptable Catholic teaching as well) is that AFTER the Eucharistic Canon has been celebreated with the prayers of the Anamnesis, the Words of Insitution and the Epiclesis - after the Canon and the final "Amen" of the Epiclesis, we DO know that there is no longer any bread or wine on the altar, but the Most Pure and Most Holy Body and Blood of OLGS Jesus Christ.

After the Eucharistic Canon, we bow low and adore OLGS Jesus Christ in Holy Communion on the Altar.

So the difference between East and West is simply a matter of "time" in this respect - the East affirms that we cannot know "when" the Transmutation occurs - we may only affirm when the bread and wine are no longer such absolutely. All three "moments" of the Eucharistic Canon involving the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are necessary for the Transmutation to occur.

For the East, the Mystical Supper is something that occurred in time by Christ before He suffered for our salvation. It is only by the action of the Holy Spirit that what Christ did at the Supper in the presence of His Apostles comes into being for us today. In that sense, the action of the Holy Spirit in the Epiclesis is critically important (which is also why the Assyrian liturgy of Sts Addai and Mari doesn't even HAVE the Words of Institution to underscore that they were said by Christ 2,000 years ago and the Spirit's Action in the Eucharist is what is tantamount).

From the Eastern perspective as well, the Latin Mass has its Epiclesis, when it does have it, IN ADVANCE, of the Words of Institution.

As one Eastern Catholic priest explained to me, with the Epiclesis/Action of the Holy Spirit completed before the Words of Institution, this, from the Eastern point of view, truly does mean that when the Latin priest says, "This is My Body" that the Words become effective and the Sacrament is "confected" at THAT moment.

Also, in accordance with the rubrics of the Eastern Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church, we are to make a bow from the waste after the Words of Institution. We are to remain in worshipful awe during the Eucharistic Canon, as we are to do so throughout the entire Divine Liturgy, as God effects this great Miracle of His Love and Mercy. And the Lord is present to us from the very beginning of the Divine Liturgy and not only during the Eucharistic Canon - as if the rest of the Liturgy "did not matter."

The East's Eucharistic devotion is, in fact, much higher than that of the Western Churches, in my view - and I come from a very Latinized background.

Just as our Lord told His disciples to go on ahead a few days before and prepare for the Passover, He instructs us to spend a few days in advance to prepare for Holy Communion and our participation in the Divine Liturgy. In the East, this often means a week's worth of additional and focused prayer and penance. After confession, we are to do prostrations and light candles. There are Canons and Akathists, along with the recitation of as much of the Horologion the day before as we can. The Jesus Prayer, the Psalms, the special prayers for Holy Communion . . .

As we approach Holy Communion, we receive it with great reverence and bow to kiss the edge of the Chalice that symbolizes the Wounded Side of Christ. There is also the tradition to stand to one side and when the Priest moves towards the side altar, he touches the chalice to the heads of those who have communicated. Then there are the prayers after Communion and the prohibition against making prostrations for the remainder of that day.

(Sorry, but I don't go to NO Masses any more for fear of witnessing, once again, the spectre of people taking Communion in the hand and then walking right out of the Church as if the rest of the Mass didn't matter. The sight of that makes one weep!)

So whenever you are at an Eastern liturgy, feel free to cross yourself and bow after the Words of Institution. That is the prescribed rubric for that moment in the Eucharistic Canon.

Alex

The Epiklesis is essential to the consecration of the bread and wine, though in Orthodoxy we really don't spend too much time wrangling over such things. We do already venerate and esteem the bread and wine as they are brought around in procession. The bread and the wine is holy and to be venerated even prior to the consecration. Yet, we do not believe that the words of institution alone cause the change in the bread and wine. Whether this should be a point of contention between Orthodoxy and Rome I don't know. As long as we are not in union, I don't think it really matters.

Joe

Dear Alexis,

While it may not be the norm, practiced across the board, in my parish in NY, we kneel, pray and offer the AMENS together with the priest.

In Christ,
Alice

The "moment of consecration" is the Anaphora, not this or that phrase considered in isolation.

Fr. Serge

"While the people sing a hymn of thanksgiving and supplication, the priest prays the epiclesis. God the Father is invoked to send down the Holy Spirit in order to, according to the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, "...make this bread the precious Body of thy Christ... And that which is in this cup the precious Blood of thy Christ... Changing them by thy Holy Spirit."

Is this it Father Serge?

It is at this time that, in my church, we are kneeling and offering the 'Amens' at the end of each of these phrases which our priest reads aloud.

ALICE:

Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!

I believe that Father Serge is taking the view of many Orthodox and Eastern Catholic theologians when he says that the entire Anaphora accomplishes the Mystery. If I'm not mistaken--Father Serge?--this approach was at the heart of the question of whether the most commonly used Anaphora of the Church of the East actually accomplished the consecration because it does not include the words of Institution that we seem to use universally--"This is My Body . . ."

The Anaphora begins "With these blessed Powers, O Master Who lovest mankind, we also cry aloud and say . . ." It includes the anamnesis and the epliclesis, and ends with "And the mercies of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, be with all of you." The whole discussion of whether it should be taken aloud or silently revolves around this great prayer--longer in St. Basil's Divine Liturgy.

In Christ,

BOB

Speaking of the Anaphora and the Liturgy of Saint Basil, the "magic words" theory has had an unpleasant effect on many editions of the Liturgy of Saint Basil - one can notice by looking at the appropriate books that the words "changing them by Thy Holy Spirit" have sometimes been added to the Epiclesis, presumably because someone thought that these were the "essential words" of the Eucharist. I'm happy to add that the better editions (including those of the Old Rite and those published by the Holy See) do not do that.

Come to think of it, the whole controversy was rendered completely pointless and nugatory a few years ago when the Holy See gave formal recognition to the Anaphora of Saints Addai and Mari, the classic text of which does not include the Institution Narrative at all. Please don't faint.

Fr. Serge

Out of curiosity, are you referring to when the Priest says "this is my Body" and such (the Institution), or to when the Priest says "make this bread the precious Body" and such (the Epiclesus).

I just wasn't sure which point is being referred to, and I'm interested in the various practices of veneration during the Divine Liturgy.

Peace and God bless!

Dear Ghosty,

(I just love that name, and I think it is very cute, but I must admit that I tend to think of Casper instead of the Holy Spirit--*eek* sorry...)

To answer your question, it is at this point...the epiclesis. Forgive me, I am ignorant and don't know all the descriptive details of the Divine Liturgy:

"While the people sing a hymn of thanksgiving and supplication, the priest prays the epiclesis. God the Father is invoked to send down the Holy Spirit in order to, according to the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, "...make this bread the precious Body of thy Christ... And that which is in this cup the precious Blood of thy Christ... Changing them by thy Holy Spirit."

At this point we offer the 'amens' and are knelt.

Would this be considered the culmination of the mystical time of the miracle of the the transubstantiation of the Eucharist?

Sincerely,

Alice....
( who, along with many of my fellow parishioners, is just becoming more familiar with the details of the beautiful DL, because for the first time in decades we, cradle, American born, are hearing it and other services chanted clearly in our native English (in New York), as well as being taught by our priest, and thus, we are finally fully appreciating and absorbing it in a way that following in a book can never do. In Greece, children learn each detail of the DL as part of their school curriculum which includes religion.)

FATHER SERGE:

Father bless!!

You make an intersting point. In the Orthodox parishes that I have attended, when the Anaphora is taken aloud, these words have always been included in the Epiclesis. The Syrian Archdiocese' text also includes these words.

Would you be kind enough to elaborate?

Asking for your blessing and continued holy prayers,

BOB

Dear Bob,

Would you be kind enough to comment on what you thought of my post above?

Somehow I don't think it was so perfect to escape criticism as a whole.

Asking for your continued holy prayers,

Alex

ALEX:

I think your explanation serves to show the Latin stance, the Orthodox stance, and the way in which the UGCC--standing somehow in between--has individuals with somewhat mixed responses.

Though I am a Latin and believe all that the Latin Church teaches in this regard, I have also studied the Orthodox understanding and think that there is nothing that should be juxtaposed as "my way or the highway." When I come to this great Mystery, having spent my lifetime studying the many explanations of what the Lord is accomplishing, I have to say that it is bigger than I can wrap my poor head around. I admit to coming away exhausted trying to fathom in some puny, small way what this great Mystery is about. I have come to the place where I am comfortable with NOT understanding the whole thing and allowing God to lead me to what understanding my person is capable of--waiting to eternity to have it explained to me fully.

Somehow I think God must have a belly-laugh when He listens to our "scholarly" explanations of what it is He is doing in time and eternity for the salvation of us all. Hopefully, when we get to the Kingdom (by His Mercy) we'll get a chance to have Him explain his mirth at our attempts to define in detail what is the central act of creation: the center point of created time where it intersects with His eternal NOW.

I do believe that the Holy Spirit's descent on the Holy Gifts is mirrored in the Prophet Elijah's calling down fire from Heaven to consume the sacrifice. And while the Holy Spirit transforms the Holy Gifts, He is also sanctifying those present and all those who join us--those who have gone before us and those who will follow us and those in the Kingdom already. He pours Himself out on us as He pours Himself out on the Holy Gifts so that even those who stand without receiving the Good Lord derive a blessing. (It's only up to us to be either stone cold so that the blessing rolls off or dry sponges so that we soak it up.)

In Christ,

BOB

Dear BOB,

There is certainly no uniformity in what clergy and people believe in the UGCC and this has always presented a pastoral challenge.

Suffice it to say that each parish priest assumes that everyone believes as he does about the Epiclesis, Filioque and a whole host of other issues.

But everyone, and especially the Orthodox, seem to agree that to be Eastern Catholic means that "where the Orthodox faith differs from the Catholic position, the Eastern Catholics accept the latter" - period. It is a compelling argument made more complicated in the UGCC because of historic, public and sometimes very severe struggles between "Catholics" (who tow the Roman line) and, to mention a name used to title those who agree with the Orthodox teaching on Eucharistic transmutation, the "Extreme Epiclesists" (sic). This is how the famous Fr. Gabriel Kostelnyk, to give but one example, was called in his day.

That name was and is clearly pejorative. Fr. Archimandrite's erudite affirmation of the entire Anaphora being the "Moment of Consecration" is one that would be useful in any kind of polemical debate of this kind.

But in my Eparchy, if one talked about any of this, one would be received with everything from dull stares to angry looks (as an "Extreme Epiclesist").

My wife's grandfather, the Rev. Fr. Stepan Chabursky (+ memory eternal!) wrote a book entitled, "The Epiclesis" published by Logos Press.

He drew the conclusion at the end that he agreed with Goar who taught that the Divine Liturgy in our Church had a "Double Epiclesis" - the Words of Institution that actually effected what they indicated (he offered a direct quote from St John Chrysostom on the matter) and the Epiclesis that effects a real change in the recipients of Holy Communion. And he uses the term "Extreme Epiclesists" throughout.

I know he experienced not a little fear about what the repercussions would be, from the church authorities and the people in the know, if he said anything beyond this.

Sad but true.

As in all things, pastoral sensitivity in the pragmatic life of the parish is most important when trying to get a more Eastern perspective across.

This is more true in the UGCC than elsewhere since Latin traditions have taken on a special meaning in the 20th century political struggles in which the Church was invariably involved.

In the 17th century, on the other hand, when the Union of Brest was in its early stages, the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" (as they truly did call themselves then) did everything not to use the Filioque and otherwise stay clear of the very same Latinisms.

Alex