Author Topic: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?  (Read 1656 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,594
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« on: April 20, 2018, 05:49:32 PM »
One of the minor disputes between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox is the necessity of the epiklesis as well as if the Bread and wine become the body and blood of our Lord at the words of the institution.

In the Western rite of the EO there is byzantinisation of the mass where an epiklesis is added to the words of the Roman canon (the oldest Eucharistic prayer in Christendom). The roman canon was most definitely consecratory and good enough in the days of St Victor, St Leo the great, St Hormisdas, St Agatho and St Gregory the Great. Why the need to add it as if the prayer was somehow lacking?

The words of the institution are what consecrate by the power of the Holy Spirit, not the epiklesis.
The author of the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom affirms this fact when he says:

"He [Christ] says: 'This is My Body.' This word changes the offering."
(Homily 1:6 On the Betrayal of Judas)

Further we know that the western church always held the words of the institution as the part where transubstantiation occcurs but even eastern fathers held this as evidenced above.  Another is St Gregory of Nyssa

”It is at once changed into the Body by means of the Word, as the Word itself said, 'This is My Body.'”

Further he says :

”That saying, 'This is my body', once uttered, from that time to the present day, and even until Christ's coming, makes the sacrifice complete at every table in the churches."


This seems to be a new phenomenon as even the Greeks acknowledged that the words of the institution consecrate at the Ecumenical Council of Florence. So why today is there particular insistence on this point? It seems to be simply a byzantinisation that has it’s roots in the same triumphalism that once plagued the latin tradition when encountering eastern churches and their venerable liturgies.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2018, 06:01:51 PM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2018, 06:29:38 PM »
I think it's mostly fear based. They don't want to "get it wrong" by accident, so they adopt the most rigorous position possible. Receiving all converts by baptism is another manifestation of the same spirit.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,594
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #2 on: April 20, 2018, 06:41:33 PM »
Sorry. The “futher he says” quote relates to St John Chrysostom not St Gregory of Nyssa.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2018, 06:42:12 PM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,998
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #3 on: April 20, 2018, 11:37:51 PM »
Have you ever read the text from the anaphora of St. John Chrysostom?

Also, can you please give some kind of citation for these homilies. Maybe a volume and page number in PG? The quotations are so short that it is hard to believe that they are being used in a sense congruent with their original context.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline MalpanaGiwargis

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 549
  • Māran etraḥam 'lay!
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #4 on: April 20, 2018, 11:51:43 PM »
For similar reasons that the Roman Church insisted that the Chaldeans coming into their communion add Roman-style "words of institution" to the Anaphora of Addai and Mari – to insist that the receiving Church's theology be reflected in the newcomer's liturgy. I personally think both additions are unnecessary, but I'm not sure that they do real violence to the services, either.
Woe is me, that I have read the commandments,
   and have become learned in the Scriptures,
and have been instructed in Your glories,
   and yet I have become occupied in shameful things!

(Giwargis Warda, On Compunction of Soul)

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,594
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #5 on: April 21, 2018, 02:24:42 AM »
For similar reasons that the Roman Church insisted that the Chaldeans coming into their communion add Roman-style "words of institution" to the Anaphora of Addai and Mari – to insist that the receiving Church's theology be reflected in the newcomer's liturgy. I personally think both additions are unnecessary, but I'm not sure that they do real violence to the services, either.

Well since the the words of the institution are consecratory it’s necessary for every liturgy to have them. Unlike the epiklesis. In fact during the whole last supper narrative there is no epeiklesis. The Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari in which the Words of Institution are not explictly spoken, is considered be valid. As the CDF said:

”the words of the institution of the Eucharist are in fact present in the anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in the form of a coherent narration and in a literal way but in a euchological and disseminated manner, that is to say they are integrated in the prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession which follow."

It however did not mandate and explicit institution narrative but encouraged it nonetheless. Don’t you think at the very least this could have been done in the western right parishes? A forced epiklesis seems a bit intrusive and hypocritical considering all the claims of latinisation flung at the Latin Church.

More importantly why did the EO change their view on what the consecratory moment on the liturgy?
« Last Edit: April 21, 2018, 02:25:45 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,594
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #6 on: April 21, 2018, 02:34:28 AM »
Have you ever read the text from the anaphora of St. John Chrysostom?

Also, can you please give some kind of citation for these homilies. Maybe a volume and page number in PG? The quotations are so short that it is hard to believe that they are being used in a sense congruent with their original context.

Homily on the Betrayal of Judas (De proditione Judae hom. 1/2, 6), PG 49:389-390

Here is a larger quotation:

”I have said all this so that no one will accuse Christ, saying: “Why did He not change Judas? Why did He not make him sensible and good?” How ought Judas to have been made good? By force or voluntarily? If by force, he would not have become better, for no one becomes good by force. But if, by his own deliberate choice, Judas had wanted to, then Christ would have used all means to amend his will and intent. But if he did not want to take the medicine, it is not the Physician Who is at fault but the one who evaded the treatment. Look at how much Christ did in order to win him over and save him: He taught him all wisdom by deeds and by words; He placed him above the demons; He prepared him to perform numerous miracles; He inspired fear in him with the threat of hell; He impelled him forward with the promise of the Kingdom; He continually censured his unspeakable plans, without making them public; He washed his feet along with the others and shared His table with him. He did not leave anything undone, either small or great, but Judas of his own free will remained uncorrected.

- But it is time then to approach that fearful table. Therefore, let us all approach with fitting discretion and sobriety. And let no one be Judas any longer; let no one be wicked; let no one possess venom, bearing one thing in his mouth and another in his mind. Christ is present, and He Who set in order that meal of old also sets this one in order now. For it is not a man who causes the elements that are set forth to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but Christ Himself, Who was crucified for our sake. Fulfilling the figure, the priest stands and utters the words. But the power and the grace belong to God. This is My Body, the priest says. These words transform the elements set forth; and just as the words "Increase and multiply and fill the earth" (Gen. 1:28) were said once, but throughout all time they give our nature the power to beget children, so also from that time until now and until His Coming, these words that were said once accomplish the perfect Sacrifice on each altar table in the churches.

Therefore, let no one hide festering sores within; let no one be filled with wickedness; let no one have venom in his thoughts, lest he partake unto condemnation. For truly it was after Judas had received the Holy Gifts that the devil fell upon him, out of contempt not for the Body of the Lord but for Judas, on account of his shamelessness — so that you understand that the devil especially falls upon and repeatedly attacks those who partake of the Holy Mysteries unworthily, as with Judas at that time. For honors benefit those who are worthy, but honors cast into greater torment those who enjoy them unworthily. I do not say these things to frighten you, but in order to warn you. Therefore, let no one be Judas; let no one that enters have the venom of wickedness. The sacrifice is spiritual food; and just as bodily food that enters a stomach having foul juices makes the illness even worse — not because of its own nature but because of the sickness of the stomach—so also does it usually happen with the spiritual Mysteries. For they also, when they enter a soul that is full of wickedness, ruin and destroy it even more—not on account of their own nature but on account of the sickness of the soul that receives them.”

HERE is a link to fuller excerpts with the link to the whole homily at the bottom.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2018, 02:40:45 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,594
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #7 on: April 21, 2018, 02:36:13 AM »
I think it's mostly fear based. They don't want to "get it wrong" by accident, so they adopt the most rigorous position possible. Receiving all converts by baptism is another manifestation of the same spirit.

I guess this is a fair explanation. I can see that  for sure however I think that only scratches the surface of the true roots of why they insist on an explicit epiklesis.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2018, 02:36:59 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Xavier

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 636
  • Immaculate Heart of Mary, Pray for US!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #8 on: April 21, 2018, 07:45:40 AM »
Yes, as when God said, Let there be Light, Light could not but obey and come into existence, so when Christ says, This is My Body, it is immediately and certainly changed into His holy body, on account of which we immediately give to the Sacred Host the worship of Latria. While some in the East have a slightly different perspective, I think we that nobody would deny that transubstantiation truly happens somewhere during the sacred liturgy and adore the Eucharistic Lord before they come to receive Him in Holy Communion. Yet the holy Fathers are clear about the power of those words, which the priest speaks in Persona Christi - they signify what they effect and they effect what they signify.

St. Ambrose says, "Perhaps you will say, "I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?" And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed ... The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: "This is My Body." Matthew 26:26 Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks." (On the Mysteries, 9:50, 54) http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm
"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,536
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #9 on: April 21, 2018, 12:32:08 PM »
One of the minor disputes

Minor?
You have just started, and yet already over your head in wrong.
between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox

as the Eastern Orthodox (and WRO) are the Catholics, you are even deeper in wrong.

is the necessity of the epiklesis as well as if the Bread and wine become the body and blood of our Lord at the words of the institution.

In the Western rite of the EO there is byzantinisation of the mass where an epiklesis is added to the words of the Roman canon (the oldest Eucharistic prayer in Christendom).

Wrong yet again. That distinction belongs to the Divine Liturgy of St. James the Brother of God of Jerusalem.
There is an epiclesis in the DL of St. Tikhon, as the Episcopalian rite it was taken from, the EPCUSA, got their orders from the Anglicans bishops of Scotland, who had taken the Epiclesis from St. James and insisted the Americans follow suit.

The "byzantinization" you speak of serves the same purpose that the commemoration of the sovereign of the Vatican does among those who submit to him, something NONE of their ancestors did: to signal to the other communicants that the DL is legit.

The roman canon was most definitely consecratory and good enough in the days of St Victor, St Leo the great, St Hormisdas, St Agatho and St Gregory the Great. Why the need to add it as if the prayer was somehow lacking?
because it was not lacking then, as even your "Catholic Encyclopedia" admits.

The words of the institution are what consecrate by the power of the Holy Spirit, not the epiklesis.
and now you dive even deeper into wrong.

The author of the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom affirms this fact when he says:

"He [Christ] says: 'This is My Body.' This word changes the offering."
(Homily 1:6 On the Betrayal of Judas)
finish the quote, and put it in context.

He [the priest] is not Christ.

Further we know that the western church always held the words of the institution as the part where transubstantiation occcurs but even eastern fathers held this as evidenced above.  Another is St Gregory of Nyssa

”It is at once changed into the Body by means of the Word, as the Word itself said, 'This is My Body.'”

Further he says :

”That saying, 'This is my body', once uttered, from that time to the present day, and even until Christ's coming, makes the sacrifice complete at every table in the churches."
conveniently with an incomplete "citation."

This seems to be a new phenomenon as even the Greeks acknowledged that the words of the institution consecrate at the Ecumenical Council of Florence.

You are still unaware that Florence is void.

Rather, it shows it was an issue, i.e. an OLD phenomenon, otherwise it would not have come up (how often are we challenged to produce Fathers to preach against some nonsense of the Vatican that ancient heretics had at least the good sense not to believe, and hence, no need for the Fathers to preach against). That the Vatican indulged in some of its good ol' fashioned Caesaropapism to cower some starving bishops to capitulate to its views does not change that.

So why today is there particular insistence on this point?

To keep the flock away from the heresy of the wolves on this point.

It seems to be simply a byzantinisation that has it’s roots in the same triumphalism that once plagued the latin tradition

once? you talk as if Vatican megalomania is a thing of the past...

when encountering eastern churches and their venerable liturgies.
we did not bring a sword with our insistence.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,536
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #10 on: April 21, 2018, 12:35:12 PM »
For similar reasons that the Roman Church insisted that the Chaldeans coming into their communion add Roman-style "words of institution" to the Anaphora of Addai and Mari – to insist that the receiving Church's theology be reflected in the newcomer's liturgy. I personally think both additions are unnecessary, but I'm not sure that they do real violence to the services, either.

Well since the the words of the institution are consecratory it’s necessary for every liturgy to have them. Unlike the epiklesis. In fact during the whole last supper narrative there is no epeiklesis. The Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari in which the Words of Institution are not explictly spoken, is considered be valid. As the CDF said:

”the words of the institution of the Eucharist are in fact present in the anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in the form of a coherent narration and in a literal way but in a euchological and disseminated manner, that is to say they are integrated in the prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession which follow."

It however did not mandate and explicit institution narrative but encouraged it nonetheless. Don’t you think at the very least this could have been done in the western right parishes? A forced epiklesis seems a bit intrusive and hypocritical considering all the claims of latinisation flung at the Latin Church.

More importantly why did the EO change their view on what the consecratory moment on the liturgy?
We did not.

You did.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,998
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #11 on: April 21, 2018, 12:43:47 PM »
Have you ever read the text from the anaphora of St. John Chrysostom?

Also, can you please give some kind of citation for these homilies. Maybe a volume and page number in PG? The quotations are so short that it is hard to believe that they are being used in a sense congruent with their original context.

Homily on the Betrayal of Judas (De proditione Judae hom. 1/2, 6), PG 49:389-390

Here is a larger quotation:

”I have said all this so that no one will accuse Christ, saying: “Why did He not change Judas? Why did He not make him sensible and good?” How ought Judas to have been made good? By force or voluntarily? If by force, he would not have become better, for no one becomes good by force. But if, by his own deliberate choice, Judas had wanted to, then Christ would have used all means to amend his will and intent. But if he did not want to take the medicine, it is not the Physician Who is at fault but the one who evaded the treatment. Look at how much Christ did in order to win him over and save him: He taught him all wisdom by deeds and by words; He placed him above the demons; He prepared him to perform numerous miracles; He inspired fear in him with the threat of hell; He impelled him forward with the promise of the Kingdom; He continually censured his unspeakable plans, without making them public; He washed his feet along with the others and shared His table with him. He did not leave anything undone, either small or great, but Judas of his own free will remained uncorrected.

- But it is time then to approach that fearful table. Therefore, let us all approach with fitting discretion and sobriety. And let no one be Judas any longer; let no one be wicked; let no one possess venom, bearing one thing in his mouth and another in his mind. Christ is present, and He Who set in order that meal of old also sets this one in order now. For it is not a man who causes the elements that are set forth to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but Christ Himself, Who was crucified for our sake. Fulfilling the figure, the priest stands and utters the words. But the power and the grace belong to God. This is My Body, the priest says. These words transform the elements set forth; and just as the words "Increase and multiply and fill the earth" (Gen. 1:28) were said once, but throughout all time they give our nature the power to beget children, so also from that time until now and until His Coming, these words that were said once accomplish the perfect Sacrifice on each altar table in the churches.

Therefore, let no one hide festering sores within; let no one be filled with wickedness; let no one have venom in his thoughts, lest he partake unto condemnation. For truly it was after Judas had received the Holy Gifts that the devil fell upon him, out of contempt not for the Body of the Lord but for Judas, on account of his shamelessness — so that you understand that the devil especially falls upon and repeatedly attacks those who partake of the Holy Mysteries unworthily, as with Judas at that time. For honors benefit those who are worthy, but honors cast into greater torment those who enjoy them unworthily. I do not say these things to frighten you, but in order to warn you. Therefore, let no one be Judas; let no one that enters have the venom of wickedness. The sacrifice is spiritual food; and just as bodily food that enters a stomach having foul juices makes the illness even worse — not because of its own nature but because of the sickness of the stomach—so also does it usually happen with the spiritual Mysteries. For they also, when they enter a soul that is full of wickedness, ruin and destroy it even more—not on account of their own nature but on account of the sickness of the soul that receives them.”

HERE is a link to fuller excerpts with the link to the whole homily at the bottom.

Thank you for the citation. To me, it appears that St. John argues that the transformation is effected for all time by the original words of institution as spoken by Jesus Himself (hence these words that were said once), just as the faculty of procreation is given to all creatures when God says, "Increase and multiply and fill the earth." It's not so clear that he means to say that this action by a priest alone is sufficient to change the elements, as you would be inclined to read the passage.

Now, I have a question for you, if it was truly believed that the words of institution alone were sufficient why is it that in the anaphorai of St. John Chrysostom and of St. James, the epiclesis asks that God will transform the gifts after the words of institution? Similarly, why does the Roman canon ask that God will command the gifts to be taken to His altar on high in the presence of His divine majesty? If the gifts have already been consecrated, then they are already at the altar on high.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2018, 12:58:33 PM by Cavaradossi »
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,536
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #12 on: April 21, 2018, 01:05:28 PM »
Have you ever read the text from the anaphora of St. John Chrysostom?

Also, can you please give some kind of citation for these homilies. Maybe a volume and page number in PG? The quotations are so short that it is hard to believe that they are being used in a sense congruent with their original context.

Homily on the Betrayal of Judas (De proditione Judae hom. 1/2, 6), PG 49:389-390

Here is a larger quotation:

”I have said all this so that no one will accuse Christ, saying: “Why did He not change Judas? Why did He not make him sensible and good?” How ought Judas to have been made good? By force or voluntarily? If by force, he would not have become better, for no one becomes good by force. But if, by his own deliberate choice, Judas had wanted to, then Christ would have used all means to amend his will and intent. But if he did not want to take the medicine, it is not the Physician Who is at fault but the one who evaded the treatment. Look at how much Christ did in order to win him over and save him: He taught him all wisdom by deeds and by words; He placed him above the demons; He prepared him to perform numerous miracles; He inspired fear in him with the threat of hell; He impelled him forward with the promise of the Kingdom; He continually censured his unspeakable plans, without making them public; He washed his feet along with the others and shared His table with him. He did not leave anything undone, either small or great, but Judas of his own free will remained uncorrected.

- But it is time then to approach that fearful table. Therefore, let us all approach with fitting discretion and sobriety. And let no one be Judas any longer; let no one be wicked; let no one possess venom, bearing one thing in his mouth and another in his mind. Christ is present, and He Who set in order that meal of old also sets this one in order now. For it is not a man who causes the elements that are set forth to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but Christ Himself, Who was crucified for our sake. Fulfilling the figure, the priest stands and utters the words. But the power and the grace belong to God. This is My Body, the priest says. These words transform the elements set forth; and just as the words "Increase and multiply and fill the earth" (Gen. 1:28) were said once, but throughout all time they give our nature the power to beget children, so also from that time until now and until His Coming, these words that were said once accomplish the perfect Sacrifice on each altar table in the churches.

Therefore, let no one hide festering sores within; let no one be filled with wickedness; let no one have venom in his thoughts, lest he partake unto condemnation. For truly it was after Judas had received the Holy Gifts that the devil fell upon him, out of contempt not for the Body of the Lord but for Judas, on account of his shamelessness — so that you understand that the devil especially falls upon and repeatedly attacks those who partake of the Holy Mysteries unworthily, as with Judas at that time. For honors benefit those who are worthy, but honors cast into greater torment those who enjoy them unworthily. I do not say these things to frighten you, but in order to warn you. Therefore, let no one be Judas; let no one that enters have the venom of wickedness. The sacrifice is spiritual food; and just as bodily food that enters a stomach having foul juices makes the illness even worse — not because of its own nature but because of the sickness of the stomach—so also does it usually happen with the spiritual Mysteries. For they also, when they enter a soul that is full of wickedness, ruin and destroy it even more—not on account of their own nature but on account of the sickness of the soul that receives them.”

HERE is a link to fuller excerpts with the link to the whole homily at the bottom.

Thank you for the citation. To me, it appears that St. John argues that the transformation is effected for all time by the original words of institution as spoken by Jesus Himself (hence these words that were said once), just as the faculty of procreation is given to all creatures when God says, "Increase and multiply and fill the earth." It's not so clear that he means to say that this action by a priest alone is sufficient to change the elements, as you would be inclined to read the passage.

Now, I have a question for you, if it was truly believed that the words of institution alone were sufficient why is it that in the anaphorai of St. John Chrysostom and of St. James, the epiclesis asks that God will transform the gifts after the words of institution? Similarly, why does the Roman canon ask that God will command the gifts to be taken to His altar on high in the presence of His divine majesty? If the gifts have already been consecrated, then they are already at the altar on high.
I recall asking my Lutheran pastor a question that bothered me: how could He say it was His Body when He was not yet crucified. He gave what is an orthodox (and Orthodox) answer, that He already was sacrificing Himself. It was not until I embraced Orthodoxy that that made sense.

Btw, it is not for naught that "“Hoc est enim corpus meum" give us "Hocus Pocus" (something the same pastor pointed out at a joint Lutheran-Vatican meeting). In Russia we have "filipokus" (a combination, via Scandinavia, with "filioque").
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #13 on: April 21, 2018, 01:15:49 PM »
It is not my position as a literal graceless slave of the passions who is without the Sacraments to correct someone who is, but I find some of your posts, ialmisry, to be not too conductive to productive discussion; including in a legitimate inquiry responses of "you're just a wolf" and "we're right you're wrong." The latter of which was repeated three times without convincing argumentation. Wandile himself seldom starts threads anyways nowadays.

While I personally think that the instantaneous change is a result of Casuitry and Extremely Rigid Scholasticism (which I define as the over scientificizing of religion, and trying to make logical something that is beyond comprehension), I still argue that the words Hocus Pocus are for naught, because they have their origin with the mentality of Cranmer, who dismissed the idea of the Eucharist to Catholic superstition and magic.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2018, 01:19:13 PM by LivenotoneviL »
I'm done.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #14 on: April 21, 2018, 01:21:09 PM »
Have you ever read the text from the anaphora of St. John Chrysostom?

Also, can you please give some kind of citation for these homilies. Maybe a volume and page number in PG? The quotations are so short that it is hard to believe that they are being used in a sense congruent with their original context.

Homily on the Betrayal of Judas (De proditione Judae hom. 1/2, 6), PG 49:389-390

Here is a larger quotation:

”I have said all this so that no one will accuse Christ, saying: “Why did He not change Judas? Why did He not make him sensible and good?” How ought Judas to have been made good? By force or voluntarily? If by force, he would not have become better, for no one becomes good by force. But if, by his own deliberate choice, Judas had wanted to, then Christ would have used all means to amend his will and intent. But if he did not want to take the medicine, it is not the Physician Who is at fault but the one who evaded the treatment. Look at how much Christ did in order to win him over and save him: He taught him all wisdom by deeds and by words; He placed him above the demons; He prepared him to perform numerous miracles; He inspired fear in him with the threat of hell; He impelled him forward with the promise of the Kingdom; He continually censured his unspeakable plans, without making them public; He washed his feet along with the others and shared His table with him. He did not leave anything undone, either small or great, but Judas of his own free will remained uncorrected.

- But it is time then to approach that fearful table. Therefore, let us all approach with fitting discretion and sobriety. And let no one be Judas any longer; let no one be wicked; let no one possess venom, bearing one thing in his mouth and another in his mind. Christ is present, and He Who set in order that meal of old also sets this one in order now. For it is not a man who causes the elements that are set forth to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but Christ Himself, Who was crucified for our sake. Fulfilling the figure, the priest stands and utters the words. But the power and the grace belong to God. This is My Body, the priest says. These words transform the elements set forth; and just as the words "Increase and multiply and fill the earth" (Gen. 1:28) were said once, but throughout all time they give our nature the power to beget children, so also from that time until now and until His Coming, these words that were said once accomplish the perfect Sacrifice on each altar table in the churches.

Therefore, let no one hide festering sores within; let no one be filled with wickedness; let no one have venom in his thoughts, lest he partake unto condemnation. For truly it was after Judas had received the Holy Gifts that the devil fell upon him, out of contempt not for the Body of the Lord but for Judas, on account of his shamelessness — so that you understand that the devil especially falls upon and repeatedly attacks those who partake of the Holy Mysteries unworthily, as with Judas at that time. For honors benefit those who are worthy, but honors cast into greater torment those who enjoy them unworthily. I do not say these things to frighten you, but in order to warn you. Therefore, let no one be Judas; let no one that enters have the venom of wickedness. The sacrifice is spiritual food; and just as bodily food that enters a stomach having foul juices makes the illness even worse — not because of its own nature but because of the sickness of the stomach—so also does it usually happen with the spiritual Mysteries. For they also, when they enter a soul that is full of wickedness, ruin and destroy it even more—not on account of their own nature but on account of the sickness of the soul that receives them.”

HERE is a link to fuller excerpts with the link to the whole homily at the bottom.

Thank you for the citation. To me, it appears that St. John argues that the transformation is effected for all time by the original words of institution as spoken by Jesus Himself (hence these words that were said once), just as the faculty of procreation is given to all creatures when God says, "Increase and multiply and fill the earth." It's not so clear that he means to say that this action by a priest alone is sufficient to change the elements, as you would be inclined to read the passage.

Now, I have a question for you, if it was truly believed that the words of institution alone were sufficient why is it that in the anaphorai of St. John Chrysostom and of St. James, the epiclesis asks that God will transform the gifts after the words of institution? Similarly, why does the Roman canon ask that God will command the gifts to be taken to His altar on high in the presence of His divine majesty? If the gifts have already been consecrated, then they are already at the altar on high.

I was considering bringing up that point myself - in the Roman Canon, there is still what looks like an Epiclesis.
I'm done.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,536
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #15 on: April 21, 2018, 03:31:52 PM »
It is not my position as a literal graceless slave of the passions who is without the Sacraments to correct someone who is, but I find some of your posts, ialmisry, to be not too conductive to productive discussion; including in a legitimate inquiry responses of "you're just a wolf" and "we're right you're wrong." The latter of which was repeated three times without convincing argumentation. Wandile himself seldom starts threads anyways nowadays.
Wandile, as most Vaticanistas, has a history of recycling points already dealt with. Case in point, the persistent habit of bringing up Florence as if it has any validity or authority, as he did here.
Given a history, one can repeat oneself just so many times.

While I personally think that the instantaneous change is a result of Casuitry and Extremely Rigid Scholasticism (which I define as the over scientificizing of religion, and trying to make logical something that is beyond comprehension), I still argue that the words Hocus Pocus are for naught, because they have their origin with the mentality of Cranmer, who dismissed the idea of the Eucharist to Catholic superstition and magic.
Protestantism is but the alter ego of the Vatican, in this case the idea that the priest has a "faculty" to "confect" the Eucharist, hence no need for the Holy Spirit to be invoked to get involved.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2018, 03:36:47 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,536
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #16 on: April 21, 2018, 03:52:03 PM »
btw, from a prior thread:
The modifications to the Tridentine Mass and the Book of Common Prayer to make them the DL Liturgies of SS. Gregory and Tikhon are not "byzantine" modifications, they (explicite epiclesis, deletion of references to merits of the saints, etc.) are Orthodox ones.

No, they are Byzantinizations.  If the Roman Mass ever had an explicit Epiclesis of the Eastern type, and there is no definitive proof it did, Pope St Gelasius likely removed it.  It is known that since Pope St. Gregory the Great the Holy Mass has been celebrated without an explicit Epiclesis, Byzantine or otherwise.  St. Nicholas Cabasilas, in the midst of the Hesychast battles, was able to see the venerable Roman Canon as sufficient without one, recognizing the Supplices te rogamus as an implicit Epiclesis; that those invovled with current Western Orthodox liturgics cannot is disturbing
If St. Nicholas saw the Roman canon as sufficient without one, he would have seen the need of recognizing Supplices te rogamus as one (as indeed, it is the remnants of the fuller one), now would he, Deacon?

Your confusion, of course, is coming from the Vatican:
Quote
The Catholic Church [i.e. Trent] has decided the question by making us kneel and adore the Holy Eucharist immediately after the words of Institution, and by letting her old Invocation practically disappear.
Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05502a.htm
Alas! This is just another example of error and heresy that crept into Rome that transformed it into the ecclesiatical community that left the communion of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church as it left the venerable Roman canon
Quote
It is certain that all the old liturgies contained such a prayer...Nor is there any doubt that the Western rites at one time contained similar invocations....The Roman Rite too at one time had an Epiklesis after the words of Institution. Pope Gelasius I (492-496) refers to it plainly: "Quomodo ad divini mysterii consecrationem coelestis Spiritus adveniet, si sacerdos...criminosis plenus actionibus reprobetur?" ("Epp. Fragm.", vii, in Thiel, "Epp. Rom. Pont.", I, 486). Watterich (Der Konsekrationsmoment im h. Abendmahl, 1896, pp. 133 sq.) brings other evidences of the old Roman Invocation. he (p. 166) and Drews (Entstehungsgesch. des Kanons, 1902, p. 28) think that several secrets in the Leonine Sacramentary were originally Invocations (see article CANON OF THE MASS). Of the essential clause left out — our prayer: "Supplices te rogamus" (Duchesne, op. cit., 173-5). It seems that an early insistence on the words of Institution as the form of Consecration (see, for instance, Pseudo-Ambrose, "De Mysteriis", IX, 52, and "De Sacramentis", IV, 4, 14-15, 23; St. Augustine, Sermon 227) led in the West to the neglect and mutilation of the Epiklesis.
leaving a deficient canon and an insufficient one were it not for the vestige "Supplices." It was not only the Orthodox in the East who noticed the problem:
Quote
in the West too (since the sixteenth century especially), this question aroused some not very important discussion. The Dominican Ambrose Catharinus (sixteenth century) thought that our Consecration takes place at an Epiklesis that precedes the recital of Christ's words. This Epiklesis he thinks to be the prayer "Quam oblationem." A few others (including Renaudot) more or less shared his opinion. Against these Hoppe (op. cit. infra) showed that in any case the Epiklesis always follows the words of Institution and that our "Quam Oblationem" cannot be considered one at all. He and others suggest a mitigated theory, according to which the Invocation (in our case the "Supplice te rogamus") belongs not to the essence of the sacrament, but in some way to its (accidental) integrity. John of Torquemada at the Council of Florence (Hardouin IX, 976), Francisco Suárez (De Sacram., disp. lviii, 3), Bellarmine (De Euch., iv, 14), Lugo (De Euch., disp. xi, 1) explain that the Invocation of the Holy Ghost is made rather that He may sanctify our reception of the Holy Eucharist. This is a theoretical explanation sought out to account for the fact of the Epiklesis, without giving up our insistence on the words of Institution as alone consecrating. Historically and according to the text of the old invocations they must rather be looked upon as dramatically postponed expressions of what happens at one moment.
Most dramatically and to the point, the Scottish church after the reformation saw the deficiency and wrote an explicite epiclesis into their liturgy, and when the newly formed Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States received ordination from Scotland (as the English bishops were prevented by law), Scotland gave it on the condition that PECUSA retain the epiclesis, which later became a source of pride to the delegation to St. Philaret of Moscow. That epiclesis of the rite of St. Tikhon would suffice for the rite of St. Gregory, were it not for the insistence of Ultramontanism that the Vatican's rites are perfect the way she dictates them.  The insertion of the epiclesis familiar to most Eastern Orthodox serves a necessary pastoral need, both to legitimize the WRO to any EO who would question it, and to signal to the WRO that they have left the heresy of the West for its venerable Orthodox Tradition.  Those who are invovled with current Western Orthodox liturgics know their business, unshaken Orthodox witness:
Quote
On the other hand Orthodox theologians all consider the Epiklesis as being at least an essential part of the Consecration. In this question they have two schools. Some, Peter Mogilas, for instance, consider the Epiklesis alone as consecrating (Kimmel, Monumenta fidei eccl. orient., Jena, 1850, I, 180), so that presumably the words of Institution might be left out without affecting the validity of the sacrament. But the greater number, and now apparently all, require the words of Institution too. They must be said, not merely historically, but as the first part of the essential form; they sow as it were the seed that comes forth and is perfected by the Epiklesis. Both elements, then, are essential. This is the theory defended by their theologians at the Council of Florence (1439). A deputation of Latins and Greeks was appointed then to discuss the question. The Greeks maintained that both forms are necessary, that Transubstantiation does not take place till the second one (the Epiklesis) is pronounced, and that the Latin "Supplices te rogamus" is a true Epiklesis having the same effect as theirs. On the other hand the Dominican John of Torquemada defended the Western position that the words of Institution alone and at once consecrate (Hardouin IX, 977 sqq.). The decree of the council eventually defined this "quod illa verba divina Salvatoris omnem virtutem transsubstantiationis habent," ibid.; see also the decree for the Armenians: "forma huius sacramenti sunt verba Salvatoris" in Denzinger, 10th ed., no. 698-old no. 593). Cardinal Bessarion afterwards wrote a book "De Sacramento Eucharistiæ et quibus verbis Christi corpus conficitur, 1462, in P.G., CLXI, 494-525), to whom Marcus Eugenicus of Ephesus answered in a treatise with a long title: "That not only by the sound of the Lord's words are the divine gifts sanctified, but (in addition) by the prayer after these and by the consecration of the priest in the strength of the Holy Ghost."

The official Euchologion of the Orthodox Church has a note after the words of Institution to explain that: "Since the demonstrative pronouns: This is my body, and again: This is my blood, do not refer to the Offerings that are present, but to those which Jesus, taking in His hands and blessing, gave to His Disciples; therefore those words of the Lord are repeated as a narrative [diegematikos], and consequently it is superfluous to show the Offerings (by an elevation) and indeed contrary to the right mind of the Eastern Church of Christ" (ed. Venice, 1898, p. 63). This would seem to imply that Christ's words have no part in the form of the sacrament. On the other hand Dositheus in the Synod of Jerusalem (1672) apparently requires both words of Institution and Epiklesis: "It [the Holy Eucharist] is instituted by the essential word [remati uparktiko, i.e. Christ's word] and sanctified by the invocation of the Holy Ghost" (Conf. Dosithei, in Kimmel, op. cit., I, 451), and this seems to be the common theory among the Orthodox in our time.
Why the modern WRO liturgists, now opertating in full safety, should abandon the position held by the Orthodox bishops being starved into submission at Florence, the Orthodox Met. Mogilas restoring a destroyed Church under the heel of the Polish king acting as the Vatican's agent, etc. i.e. when the Orthodox were being rendered powerless but yet holding tight to the Orthodox position-why the WRO liturgists working in freedom should abandon that position I will leave to you to explain.

I know that doesn't comport with your Byzantinization, but we don't do things the way the Vatican does. That is why we are Orthodox, and it is not, and why the WRO is not "reverse-uniatism" (if there is a more PC term, let me know: I've never heard the accusation of "reverse-eastern ritism" for instance).  The Orthodox confess what we believe and believe what we confess: you won't see any WRO parish were someone has gone through all the service books and wrote in "and the Son" :D
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,536
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #17 on: April 21, 2018, 03:58:57 PM »
and from a different angle (especially the last paragraph):
Quote
Time once again does not permit me to develop this theme, but I strongly believe there was a connection between early Orthodoxy in America and the Moravian, Methodist and Episcopal churches. The more contemporary phenomena of the Evangelical Orthodox Church actually has much deeper historical roots. The Moravians from their mid 15th century beginnings in the Czech lands until at least their arrival in America in the mid 18th century perceived themselves as an orphaned Eastern church. According to the New York Gazette of Jan 21, 1751, in petitioning the British authorities for permission to settle in America they presented a public writing from the chief Patriarch of the Greek Church, in 1740, acknowledging them to be descended from the Eastern Church.

In a similar vein the early Methodists looked east for ecclesiastical legitimacy. One of the reasons the young John Wesley was expelled from Savannah was for celebrating the liturgy of St John Chrysostom when it was not an authorized rite of the Church of England. A later 18th century American source says that Wesley, with the encouragement of his Moravian friends, travelled to Constantinople in the 1780’s and was ordained a Bishop by the Patriarch.

At the same time, the then dominant Anglican Church in America looked to the Church of Russia as its model in its achievement of its independence from Constantinople, when considering its own distinctiveness from the Church of England. Following independence from Britain the American Episcopal Church obtained its first resident Bishop in the person of Samuel Seabury of Connecticut. He was ordained Bishop in Scotland by Bishops of the non- juror tradition whose early 18th century antecedents had actively negotiated for acceptance as an Orthodox Church. Seabury brought to America forms of liturgical office based on the Scottish Book of Common Prayer. His Communion Office, published in New London in 1786, contains an explicit epiclesis or prayer for the descent of the Holy Spirit on the gifts after the words of institution, following the Orthodox tradition. This tendency of the Episcopal Church in America towards Orthodoxy came to a head in the 1860’s with the formation of the Russo-Greek Committee that actively sought union with the Orthodox East.
https://orthodoxhistory.org/2012/12/10/orthodoxy-in-america-an-interconnected-and-shared-history/
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #18 on: April 21, 2018, 04:30:59 PM »
It is not my position as a literal graceless slave of the passions who is without the Sacraments to correct someone who is, but I find some of your posts, ialmisry, to be not too conductive to productive discussion; including in a legitimate inquiry responses of "you're just a wolf" and "we're right you're wrong." The latter of which was repeated three times without convincing argumentation. Wandile himself seldom starts threads anyways nowadays.

Not necessarily an excuse for him, but I will point out that ialmisry and Wandile have been fighting like this on here for about six years now. So, it's not like he's just putting somebody on blast totally out of the blue with no context.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,536
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #19 on: April 21, 2018, 04:50:31 PM »
Yes, as when God said, Let there be Light, Light could not but obey and come into existence, so when Christ says, This is My Body, it is immediately and certainly changed into His holy body, on account of which we immediately give to the Sacred Host the worship of Latria. While some in the East have a slightly different perspective, I think we that nobody would deny that transubstantiation truly happens somewhere during the sacred liturgy and adore the Eucharistic Lord before they come to receive Him in Holy Communion. Yet the holy Fathers are clear about the power of those words, which the priest speaks in Persona Christi - they signify what they effect and they effect what they signify.

St. Ambrose says, "Perhaps you will say, "I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?" And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed ... The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: "This is My Body." Matthew 26:26 Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks." (On the Mysteries, 9:50, 54) http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm
If the priest-who is in persona episcopoli, not Christi-says "let there be light" what happens?

Nothing.

When the priest calls upon the Holy Spirit to illuminate the waters of baptism, for instance, what happens?

Everything.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #20 on: April 21, 2018, 05:22:10 PM »
Yes, as when God said, Let there be Light, Light could not but obey and come into existence, so when Christ says, This is My Body, it is immediately and certainly changed into His holy body, on account of which we immediately give to the Sacred Host the worship of Latria. While some in the East have a slightly different perspective, I think we that nobody would deny that transubstantiation truly happens somewhere during the sacred liturgy and adore the Eucharistic Lord before they come to receive Him in Holy Communion. Yet the holy Fathers are clear about the power of those words, which the priest speaks in Persona Christi - they signify what they effect and they effect what they signify.

St. Ambrose says, "Perhaps you will say, "I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?" And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed ... The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: "This is My Body." Matthew 26:26 Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks." (On the Mysteries, 9:50, 54) http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm
If the priest-who is in persona episcopoli, not Christi-says "let there be light" what happens?

Nothing.

When the priest calls upon the Holy Spirit to illuminate the waters of baptism, for instance, what happens?

Everything.

What about "anything you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven" or "if you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven?" I mean, I know St. Peter Mogila's Russian prayer of absolution is not uncontroversial, but it seems to at least be a legitimate option in modern Orthodox thought.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,536
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #21 on: April 21, 2018, 09:17:23 PM »
Yes, as when God said, Let there be Light, Light could not but obey and come into existence, so when Christ says, This is My Body, it is immediately and certainly changed into His holy body, on account of which we immediately give to the Sacred Host the worship of Latria. While some in the East have a slightly different perspective, I think we that nobody would deny that transubstantiation truly happens somewhere during the sacred liturgy and adore the Eucharistic Lord before they come to receive Him in Holy Communion. Yet the holy Fathers are clear about the power of those words, which the priest speaks in Persona Christi - they signify what they effect and they effect what they signify.

St. Ambrose says, "Perhaps you will say, "I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?" And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed ... The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: "This is My Body." Matthew 26:26 Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks." (On the Mysteries, 9:50, 54) http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm
If the priest-who is in persona episcopoli, not Christi-says "let there be light" what happens?

Nothing.

When the priest calls upon the Holy Spirit to illuminate the waters of baptism, for instance, what happens?

Everything.

What about "anything you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven" or "if you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven?" I mean, I know St. Peter Mogila's Russian prayer of absolution is not uncontroversial, but it seems to at least be a legitimate option in modern Orthodox thought.
Not the same thing, and no, that stretches "legitimate." Best to drop it and the theology it represents.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline MalpanaGiwargis

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 549
  • Māran etraḥam 'lay!
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #22 on: April 21, 2018, 10:41:57 PM »
For similar reasons that the Roman Church insisted that the Chaldeans coming into their communion add Roman-style "words of institution" to the Anaphora of Addai and Mari – to insist that the receiving Church's theology be reflected in the newcomer's liturgy. I personally think both additions are unnecessary, but I'm not sure that they do real violence to the services, either.

Well since the the words of the institution are consecratory it’s necessary for every liturgy to have them. Unlike the epiklesis. In fact during the whole last supper narrative there is no epeiklesis. The Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari in which the Words of Institution are not explictly spoken, is considered be valid. As the CDF said:

”the words of the institution of the Eucharist are in fact present in the anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in the form of a coherent narration and in a literal way but in a euchological and disseminated manner, that is to say they are integrated in the prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession which follow."

It however did not mandate and explicit institution narrative but encouraged it nonetheless. Don’t you think at the very least this could have been done in the western right parishes? A forced epiklesis seems a bit intrusive and hypocritical considering all the claims of latinisation flung at the Latin Church.

More importantly why did the EO change their view on what the consecratory moment on the liturgy?

It was not mandated at that time – it had been insisted upon when the Chaldeans came into communion with Rome, followed by centuries of Roman scholarship insisting the institution narrative had dropped out of the Anaphora of Saints Addai and Mari. Sounds a little like the claim that the Greeks dropped the Filioque!
Woe is me, that I have read the commandments,
   and have become learned in the Scriptures,
and have been instructed in Your glories,
   and yet I have become occupied in shameful things!

(Giwargis Warda, On Compunction of Soul)

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #23 on: April 22, 2018, 12:43:11 AM »
Yes, as when God said, Let there be Light, Light could not but obey and come into existence, so when Christ says, This is My Body, it is immediately and certainly changed into His holy body, on account of which we immediately give to the Sacred Host the worship of Latria. While some in the East have a slightly different perspective, I think we that nobody would deny that transubstantiation truly happens somewhere during the sacred liturgy and adore the Eucharistic Lord before they come to receive Him in Holy Communion. Yet the holy Fathers are clear about the power of those words, which the priest speaks in Persona Christi - they signify what they effect and they effect what they signify.

St. Ambrose says, "Perhaps you will say, "I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?" And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed ... The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: "This is My Body." Matthew 26:26 Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks." (On the Mysteries, 9:50, 54) http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm
If the priest-who is in persona episcopoli, not Christi-says "let there be light" what happens?

Nothing.

When the priest calls upon the Holy Spirit to illuminate the waters of baptism, for instance, what happens?

Everything.

What about "anything you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven" or "if you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven?" I mean, I know St. Peter Mogila's Russian prayer of absolution is not uncontroversial, but it seems to at least be a legitimate option in modern Orthodox thought.
Not the same thing,

It's not the exact same context, but doesn't it delineate a general principle, that priests are able to effect spiritual realities by imitating Christ (the priest declares that God has forgiven the penitent)? If so, why shouldn't the Words of Institution work the same way?



Well, it's not considered heretical, at the very least.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #24 on: April 22, 2018, 12:48:41 AM »
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,594
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #25 on: April 22, 2018, 04:38:04 AM »
Have you ever read the text from the anaphora of St. John Chrysostom?

Also, can you please give some kind of citation for these homilies. Maybe a volume and page number in PG? The quotations are so short that it is hard to believe that they are being used in a sense congruent with their original context.

Homily on the Betrayal of Judas (De proditione Judae hom. 1/2, 6), PG 49:389-390

Here is a larger quotation:

”I have said all this so that no one will accuse Christ, saying: “Why did He not change Judas? Why did He not make him sensible and good?” How ought Judas to have been made good? By force or voluntarily? If by force, he would not have become better, for no one becomes good by force. But if, by his own deliberate choice, Judas had wanted to, then Christ would have used all means to amend his will and intent. But if he did not want to take the medicine, it is not the Physician Who is at fault but the one who evaded the treatment. Look at how much Christ did in order to win him over and save him: He taught him all wisdom by deeds and by words; He placed him above the demons; He prepared him to perform numerous miracles; He inspired fear in him with the threat of hell; He impelled him forward with the promise of the Kingdom; He continually censured his unspeakable plans, without making them public; He washed his feet along with the others and shared His table with him. He did not leave anything undone, either small or great, but Judas of his own free will remained uncorrected.

- But it is time then to approach that fearful table. Therefore, let us all approach with fitting discretion and sobriety. And let no one be Judas any longer; let no one be wicked; let no one possess venom, bearing one thing in his mouth and another in his mind. Christ is present, and He Who set in order that meal of old also sets this one in order now. For it is not a man who causes the elements that are set forth to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but Christ Himself, Who was crucified for our sake. Fulfilling the figure, the priest stands and utters the words. But the power and the grace belong to God. This is My Body, the priest says. These words transform the elements set forth; and just as the words "Increase and multiply and fill the earth" (Gen. 1:28) were said once, but throughout all time they give our nature the power to beget children, so also from that time until now and until His Coming, these words that were said once accomplish the perfect Sacrifice on each altar table in the churches.

Therefore, let no one hide festering sores within; let no one be filled with wickedness; let no one have venom in his thoughts, lest he partake unto condemnation. For truly it was after Judas had received the Holy Gifts that the devil fell upon him, out of contempt not for the Body of the Lord but for Judas, on account of his shamelessness — so that you understand that the devil especially falls upon and repeatedly attacks those who partake of the Holy Mysteries unworthily, as with Judas at that time. For honors benefit those who are worthy, but honors cast into greater torment those who enjoy them unworthily. I do not say these things to frighten you, but in order to warn you. Therefore, let no one be Judas; let no one that enters have the venom of wickedness. The sacrifice is spiritual food; and just as bodily food that enters a stomach having foul juices makes the illness even worse — not because of its own nature but because of the sickness of the stomach—so also does it usually happen with the spiritual Mysteries. For they also, when they enter a soul that is full of wickedness, ruin and destroy it even more—not on account of their own nature but on account of the sickness of the soul that receives them.”

HERE is a link to fuller excerpts with the link to the whole homily at the bottom.

Thank you for the citation. To me, it appears that St. John argues that the transformation is effected for all time by the original words of institution as spoken by Jesus Himself (hence these words that were said once), just as the faculty of procreation is given to all creatures when God says, "Increase and multiply and fill the earth." It's not so clear that he means to say that this action by a priest alone is sufficient to change the elements, as you would be inclined to read the passage.

I respect your opinion but I cannot, in the pursuit of intellectual honesty, agree to such an explanation. It seems to betray the plain reading of the text. St John stipulates the power in the words  uttered by the priest (acting in persona Christi); “This is my body” obtain and perpetually have their consecratory power through the one utterance of them by Christ our Lord and God. That whenever the priest says them they transform the bread and wine into the body and blood of our Lord.

Quote
Now, I have a question for you, if it was truly believed that the words of institution alone were sufficient why is it that in the anaphorai of St. John Chrysostom and of St. James, the epiclesis asks that God will transform the gifts after the words of institution? Similarly, why does the Roman canon ask that God will command the gifts to be taken to His altar on high in the presence of His divine majesty? If the gifts have already been consecrated, then they are already at the altar on high.

This is actually a very easy question. Just read the Roman canon and the answer is there for you.

”On the day before he was to suffer, he took bread in his holy and honorable hands, and raising his eyes to heaven to you, O God, his almighty Father, he blessed it with a prayer of thanksgiving, broke the bread and gave it to his disciples, saying, ‘Take this, all of you and eat of it, for this is my body which will be given up for you.’

Likewise when supper was ended he took this glorious chalice in his holy and honorable hands; again he blessed it with a prayer of thanksgiving and gave the chalice to his disciples, saying, ‘Take this, all of you and drink from it, for this is the chalice of my blood, the blood of the new and eternal covenant which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins. Do this in memory of me.’

The mystery of faith …

And so, Lord God, we your ministers and your holy people celebrate the memorial of Christ your Son our Lord. We hold in memory his blessed passion, his resurrection from the dead and his glorious ascension into heaven. And from your gifts bestowed on us we offer to your glory and majesty the pure victim, the holy victim, the perfect victim: the holy bread of eternal life and the chalice of everlasting salvation.

In your goodness, look upon these things with a peaceful and kindly regard. Accept them as you graciously accepted the gifts of your righteous servant Abel, the sacrifice of our patriarch Abraham and the offering of your high priest Melchizedek, a holy sacrifice and spotless victim.

With deep reverence we ask you, almighty God: command that these gifts be carried by the hands of your holy angel to your altar on high in the sight of your divine majesty. And for all who will receive the most holy body and blood of your Son in this communion at the altar, let them be filled with all the blessings and gifts of heaven. (Through Christ our Lord, Amen.)

The bells ring (to indicate the consecration has happened) at the words of the institution and at once Catholics proclaim “my Lord and my God” under their breath at the moment of the the elevation of the host and the chalice and are kneeling in worship at this moment .

The words of the canon indicate the substance has changed hence the consecrated bread and wine are now addressed as the spotless sacrificial victim (Christ). The sacrifice has now been made but it must still be accepted for our sake. For the forgiveness of sins. For new life. To this end,  the priest then asks the angels to present  the sacrifice and place the sacrificial lamb of God before His altar to ask God the Father to accept this victim’s sacrificed body and blood as an attonement for our sins.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2018, 04:43:40 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,594
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #26 on: April 22, 2018, 04:45:26 AM »
For similar reasons that the Roman Church insisted that the Chaldeans coming into their communion add Roman-style "words of institution" to the Anaphora of Addai and Mari – to insist that the receiving Church's theology be reflected in the newcomer's liturgy. I personally think both additions are unnecessary, but I'm not sure that they do real violence to the services, either.

Well since the the words of the institution are consecratory it’s necessary for every liturgy to have them. Unlike the epiklesis. In fact during the whole last supper narrative there is no epeiklesis. The Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari in which the Words of Institution are not explictly spoken, is considered be valid. As the CDF said:

”the words of the institution of the Eucharist are in fact present in the anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in the form of a coherent narration and in a literal way but in a euchological and disseminated manner, that is to say they are integrated in the prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession which follow."

It however did not mandate and explicit institution narrative but encouraged it nonetheless. Don’t you think at the very least this could have been done in the western right parishes? A forced epiklesis seems a bit intrusive and hypocritical considering all the claims of latinisation flung at the Latin Church.

More importantly why did the EO change their view on what the consecratory moment on the liturgy?

It was not mandated at that time – it had been insisted upon when the Chaldeans came into communion with Rome, followed by centuries of Roman scholarship insisting the institution narrative had dropped out of the Anaphora of Saints Addai and Mari. Sounds a little like the claim that the Greeks dropped the Filioque!

This was due to the triumphalistic attitude I alluded to in most first post. It does not discard the institution narrative contained in the Chaldean canon.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,594
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #27 on: April 22, 2018, 04:49:08 AM »
Have you ever read the text from the anaphora of St. John Chrysostom?

Also, can you please give some kind of citation for these homilies. Maybe a volume and page number in PG? The quotations are so short that it is hard to believe that they are being used in a sense congruent with their original context.

Homily on the Betrayal of Judas (De proditione Judae hom. 1/2, 6), PG 49:389-390

Here is a larger quotation:

”I have said all this so that no one will accuse Christ, saying: “Why did He not change Judas? Why did He not make him sensible and good?” How ought Judas to have been made good? By force or voluntarily? If by force, he would not have become better, for no one becomes good by force. But if, by his own deliberate choice, Judas had wanted to, then Christ would have used all means to amend his will and intent. But if he did not want to take the medicine, it is not the Physician Who is at fault but the one who evaded the treatment. Look at how much Christ did in order to win him over and save him: He taught him all wisdom by deeds and by words; He placed him above the demons; He prepared him to perform numerous miracles; He inspired fear in him with the threat of hell; He impelled him forward with the promise of the Kingdom; He continually censured his unspeakable plans, without making them public; He washed his feet along with the others and shared His table with him. He did not leave anything undone, either small or great, but Judas of his own free will remained uncorrected.

- But it is time then to approach that fearful table. Therefore, let us all approach with fitting discretion and sobriety. And let no one be Judas any longer; let no one be wicked; let no one possess venom, bearing one thing in his mouth and another in his mind. Christ is present, and He Who set in order that meal of old also sets this one in order now. For it is not a man who causes the elements that are set forth to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but Christ Himself, Who was crucified for our sake. Fulfilling the figure, the priest stands and utters the words. But the power and the grace belong to God. This is My Body, the priest says. These words transform the elements set forth; and just as the words "Increase and multiply and fill the earth" (Gen. 1:28) were said once, but throughout all time they give our nature the power to beget children, so also from that time until now and until His Coming, these words that were said once accomplish the perfect Sacrifice on each altar table in the churches.

Therefore, let no one hide festering sores within; let no one be filled with wickedness; let no one have venom in his thoughts, lest he partake unto condemnation. For truly it was after Judas had received the Holy Gifts that the devil fell upon him, out of contempt not for the Body of the Lord but for Judas, on account of his shamelessness — so that you understand that the devil especially falls upon and repeatedly attacks those who partake of the Holy Mysteries unworthily, as with Judas at that time. For honors benefit those who are worthy, but honors cast into greater torment those who enjoy them unworthily. I do not say these things to frighten you, but in order to warn you. Therefore, let no one be Judas; let no one that enters have the venom of wickedness. The sacrifice is spiritual food; and just as bodily food that enters a stomach having foul juices makes the illness even worse — not because of its own nature but because of the sickness of the stomach—so also does it usually happen with the spiritual Mysteries. For they also, when they enter a soul that is full of wickedness, ruin and destroy it even more—not on account of their own nature but on account of the sickness of the soul that receives them.”

HERE is a link to fuller excerpts with the link to the whole homily at the bottom.

Thank you for the citation. To me, it appears that St. John argues that the transformation is effected for all time by the original words of institution as spoken by Jesus Himself (hence these words that were said once), just as the faculty of procreation is given to all creatures when God says, "Increase and multiply and fill the earth." It's not so clear that he means to say that this action by a priest alone is sufficient to change the elements, as you would be inclined to read the passage.

Now, I have a question for you, if it was truly believed that the words of institution alone were sufficient why is it that in the anaphorai of St. John Chrysostom and of St. James, the epiclesis asks that God will transform the gifts after the words of institution? Similarly, why does the Roman canon ask that God will command the gifts to be taken to His altar on high in the presence of His divine majesty? If the gifts have already been consecrated, then they are already at the altar on high.

I was considering bringing up that point myself - in the Roman Canon, there is still what looks like an Epiclesis.

It has an implicit epiklesis. However reading the Roman conon it is very evident when the consecration happens... at the words of the institution.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Justin Kolodziej

  • Goths and rivetheads are entering the Kingdom of God before me
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,215
  • Screwing up the Church since 2017
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ruins of Constantinople, Met. of Atlanta
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #28 on: April 22, 2018, 02:54:09 PM »
I'll probably disappoint my side, but on this I would concede Wandile's point, in that "Be pleased, O God, we pray, to bless, acknowledge, and approve this offering in every respect; make it spiritual and acceptable, so that it may become for us the Body and Blood of your most beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ." seems close enough to me.

Ironically, all the new Eucharistic Prayers in the current Roman Missal are more explicit, e.g. "Make holy, therefore, these gifts, we pray, by sending down your Spirit upon them like the dewfall, so that they may become for us the Body + and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ."

Still, this matter is on the bottom of my list of problems with Rome, even below the (now mostly vanished) Low Mass...but that's a different thread.
Too many theologists, not enough theologians.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,536
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #29 on: April 22, 2018, 05:44:00 PM »
Yes, as when God said, Let there be Light, Light could not but obey and come into existence, so when Christ says, This is My Body, it is immediately and certainly changed into His holy body, on account of which we immediately give to the Sacred Host the worship of Latria. While some in the East have a slightly different perspective, I think we that nobody would deny that transubstantiation truly happens somewhere during the sacred liturgy and adore the Eucharistic Lord before they come to receive Him in Holy Communion. Yet the holy Fathers are clear about the power of those words, which the priest speaks in Persona Christi - they signify what they effect and they effect what they signify.

St. Ambrose says, "Perhaps you will say, "I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?" And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed ... The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: "This is My Body." Matthew 26:26 Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks." (On the Mysteries, 9:50, 54) http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm
If the priest-who is in persona episcopoli, not Christi-says "let there be light" what happens?

Nothing.

When the priest calls upon the Holy Spirit to illuminate the waters of baptism, for instance, what happens?

Everything.

What about "anything you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven" or "if you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven?" I mean, I know St. Peter Mogila's Russian prayer of absolution is not uncontroversial, but it seems to at least be a legitimate option in modern Orthodox thought.
Not the same thing,

It's not the exact same context, but doesn't it delineate a general principle
No
that priests are able to effect spiritual realities by imitating Christ (the priest declares that God has forgiven the penitent)?
No.
If so
it's not.
why shouldn't the Words of Institution work the same way?
because it is not the same.


Well, it's not considered heretical, at the very least.
at the very least it can be, so consider it heretical to be on the safe side.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,536
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #30 on: April 22, 2018, 06:03:31 PM »
I'll probably disappoint my side, but on this I would concede Wandile's point, in that "Be pleased, O God, we pray, to bless, acknowledge, and approve this offering in every respect; make it spiritual and acceptable, so that it may become for us the Body and Blood of your most beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ." seems close enough to me.
That isn't the "point" Wandile is pushing. It being besides the point is what he is claiming.
Ironically, all the new Eucharistic Prayers in the current Roman Missal are more explicit, e.g. "Make holy, therefore, these gifts, we pray, by sending down your Spirit upon them like the dewfall, so that they may become for us the Body + and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ."
Evidently our point has been made.
Still, this matter is on the bottom of my list of problems with Rome, even below the (now mostly vanished) Low Mass...but that's a different thread.
you mean private mass? It is a related problem.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,536
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #31 on: April 22, 2018, 06:05:24 PM »
Have you ever read the text from the anaphora of St. John Chrysostom?

Also, can you please give some kind of citation for these homilies. Maybe a volume and page number in PG? The quotations are so short that it is hard to believe that they are being used in a sense congruent with their original context.

Homily on the Betrayal of Judas (De proditione Judae hom. 1/2, 6), PG 49:389-390

Here is a larger quotation:

”I have said all this so that no one will accuse Christ, saying: “Why did He not change Judas? Why did He not make him sensible and good?” How ought Judas to have been made good? By force or voluntarily? If by force, he would not have become better, for no one becomes good by force. But if, by his own deliberate choice, Judas had wanted to, then Christ would have used all means to amend his will and intent. But if he did not want to take the medicine, it is not the Physician Who is at fault but the one who evaded the treatment. Look at how much Christ did in order to win him over and save him: He taught him all wisdom by deeds and by words; He placed him above the demons; He prepared him to perform numerous miracles; He inspired fear in him with the threat of hell; He impelled him forward with the promise of the Kingdom; He continually censured his unspeakable plans, without making them public; He washed his feet along with the others and shared His table with him. He did not leave anything undone, either small or great, but Judas of his own free will remained uncorrected.

- But it is time then to approach that fearful table. Therefore, let us all approach with fitting discretion and sobriety. And let no one be Judas any longer; let no one be wicked; let no one possess venom, bearing one thing in his mouth and another in his mind. Christ is present, and He Who set in order that meal of old also sets this one in order now. For it is not a man who causes the elements that are set forth to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but Christ Himself, Who was crucified for our sake. Fulfilling the figure, the priest stands and utters the words. But the power and the grace belong to God. This is My Body, the priest says. These words transform the elements set forth; and just as the words "Increase and multiply and fill the earth" (Gen. 1:28) were said once, but throughout all time they give our nature the power to beget children, so also from that time until now and until His Coming, these words that were said once accomplish the perfect Sacrifice on each altar table in the churches.

Therefore, let no one hide festering sores within; let no one be filled with wickedness; let no one have venom in his thoughts, lest he partake unto condemnation. For truly it was after Judas had received the Holy Gifts that the devil fell upon him, out of contempt not for the Body of the Lord but for Judas, on account of his shamelessness — so that you understand that the devil especially falls upon and repeatedly attacks those who partake of the Holy Mysteries unworthily, as with Judas at that time. For honors benefit those who are worthy, but honors cast into greater torment those who enjoy them unworthily. I do not say these things to frighten you, but in order to warn you. Therefore, let no one be Judas; let no one that enters have the venom of wickedness. The sacrifice is spiritual food; and just as bodily food that enters a stomach having foul juices makes the illness even worse — not because of its own nature but because of the sickness of the stomach—so also does it usually happen with the spiritual Mysteries. For they also, when they enter a soul that is full of wickedness, ruin and destroy it even more—not on account of their own nature but on account of the sickness of the soul that receives them.”

HERE is a link to fuller excerpts with the link to the whole homily at the bottom.

Thank you for the citation. To me, it appears that St. John argues that the transformation is effected for all time by the original words of institution as spoken by Jesus Himself (hence these words that were said once), just as the faculty of procreation is given to all creatures when God says, "Increase and multiply and fill the earth." It's not so clear that he means to say that this action by a priest alone is sufficient to change the elements, as you would be inclined to read the passage.

Now, I have a question for you, if it was truly believed that the words of institution alone were sufficient why is it that in the anaphorai of St. John Chrysostom and of St. James, the epiclesis asks that God will transform the gifts after the words of institution? Similarly, why does the Roman canon ask that God will command the gifts to be taken to His altar on high in the presence of His divine majesty? If the gifts have already been consecrated, then they are already at the altar on high.

I was considering bringing up that point myself - in the Roman Canon, there is still what looks like an Epiclesis.

It has an implicit epiklesis. However reading the Roman conon it is very evident when the consecration happens... at the words of the institution.
you mean, where it is CLAIMED it happens.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,594
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #32 on: April 22, 2018, 06:10:58 PM »
Have you ever read the text from the anaphora of St. John Chrysostom?

Also, can you please give some kind of citation for these homilies. Maybe a volume and page number in PG? The quotations are so short that it is hard to believe that they are being used in a sense congruent with their original context.

Homily on the Betrayal of Judas (De proditione Judae hom. 1/2, 6), PG 49:389-390

Here is a larger quotation:

”I have said all this so that no one will accuse Christ, saying: “Why did He not change Judas? Why did He not make him sensible and good?” How ought Judas to have been made good? By force or voluntarily? If by force, he would not have become better, for no one becomes good by force. But if, by his own deliberate choice, Judas had wanted to, then Christ would have used all means to amend his will and intent. But if he did not want to take the medicine, it is not the Physician Who is at fault but the one who evaded the treatment. Look at how much Christ did in order to win him over and save him: He taught him all wisdom by deeds and by words; He placed him above the demons; He prepared him to perform numerous miracles; He inspired fear in him with the threat of hell; He impelled him forward with the promise of the Kingdom; He continually censured his unspeakable plans, without making them public; He washed his feet along with the others and shared His table with him. He did not leave anything undone, either small or great, but Judas of his own free will remained uncorrected.

- But it is time then to approach that fearful table. Therefore, let us all approach with fitting discretion and sobriety. And let no one be Judas any longer; let no one be wicked; let no one possess venom, bearing one thing in his mouth and another in his mind. Christ is present, and He Who set in order that meal of old also sets this one in order now. For it is not a man who causes the elements that are set forth to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but Christ Himself, Who was crucified for our sake. Fulfilling the figure, the priest stands and utters the words. But the power and the grace belong to God. This is My Body, the priest says. These words transform the elements set forth; and just as the words "Increase and multiply and fill the earth" (Gen. 1:28) were said once, but throughout all time they give our nature the power to beget children, so also from that time until now and until His Coming, these words that were said once accomplish the perfect Sacrifice on each altar table in the churches.

Therefore, let no one hide festering sores within; let no one be filled with wickedness; let no one have venom in his thoughts, lest he partake unto condemnation. For truly it was after Judas had received the Holy Gifts that the devil fell upon him, out of contempt not for the Body of the Lord but for Judas, on account of his shamelessness — so that you understand that the devil especially falls upon and repeatedly attacks those who partake of the Holy Mysteries unworthily, as with Judas at that time. For honors benefit those who are worthy, but honors cast into greater torment those who enjoy them unworthily. I do not say these things to frighten you, but in order to warn you. Therefore, let no one be Judas; let no one that enters have the venom of wickedness. The sacrifice is spiritual food; and just as bodily food that enters a stomach having foul juices makes the illness even worse — not because of its own nature but because of the sickness of the stomach—so also does it usually happen with the spiritual Mysteries. For they also, when they enter a soul that is full of wickedness, ruin and destroy it even more—not on account of their own nature but on account of the sickness of the soul that receives them.”

HERE is a link to fuller excerpts with the link to the whole homily at the bottom.

Thank you for the citation. To me, it appears that St. John argues that the transformation is effected for all time by the original words of institution as spoken by Jesus Himself (hence these words that were said once), just as the faculty of procreation is given to all creatures when God says, "Increase and multiply and fill the earth." It's not so clear that he means to say that this action by a priest alone is sufficient to change the elements, as you would be inclined to read the passage.

Now, I have a question for you, if it was truly believed that the words of institution alone were sufficient why is it that in the anaphorai of St. John Chrysostom and of St. James, the epiclesis asks that God will transform the gifts after the words of institution? Similarly, why does the Roman canon ask that God will command the gifts to be taken to His altar on high in the presence of His divine majesty? If the gifts have already been consecrated, then they are already at the altar on high.

I was considering bringing up that point myself - in the Roman Canon, there is still what looks like an Epiclesis.

It has an implicit epiklesis. However reading the Roman conon it is very evident when the consecration happens... at the words of the institution.
you mean, where it is CLAIMED it happens.

What’s the name of my communion?
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,536
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #33 on: April 22, 2018, 10:13:38 PM »
What’s the name of my communion?
I see this flag in every church of your ecclesiastical community.


that you  have a "communion" was a question at bar, wasn't it?
« Last Edit: April 22, 2018, 10:20:20 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Luke

  • Formerly Gamliel
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,636
  • "With great power comes a great electric bill."
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #34 on: April 22, 2018, 11:19:09 PM »
What I have learned is that the Western Church has it figured out exactly when the bread and wine turn into the body and blood.  The Eastern Church prays the Epiklesis, but it does not know exactly when the change takes place.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,594
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #35 on: April 23, 2018, 12:07:52 AM »
What’s the name of my communion?
I see this flag in every church of your ecclesiastical community.


that you  have a "communion" was a question at bar, wasn't it?

Lol well that’s not true.

What is the name of my CHURCH? My religious communion? And no Vatican is a city state...
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,998
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #36 on: April 23, 2018, 01:15:04 AM »
What’s the name of my communion?
I see this flag in every church of your ecclesiastical community.


that you  have a "communion" was a question at bar, wasn't it?

Lol well that’s not true.

What is the name of my CHURCH? My religious communion? And no Vatican is a city state...

It hardly matters how you self-identify in an age when a man can identify as a female egg-laying dragonkin.  ;D
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,594
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #37 on: April 23, 2018, 03:06:41 AM »
What’s the name of my communion?
I see this flag in every church of your ecclesiastical community.


that you  have a "communion" was a question at bar, wasn't it?

Lol well that’s not true.

What is the name of my CHURCH? My religious communion? And no Vatican is a city state...

It hardly matters how you self-identify in an age when a man can identify as a female egg-laying dragonkin.  ;D

Lol that’s funny ;D
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,687
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #38 on: April 23, 2018, 06:39:01 PM »
One of the minor disputes between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox is the necessity of the epiklesis as well as if the Bread and wine become the body and blood of our Lord at the words of the institution.

In the Western rite of the EO there is byzantinisation of the mass where an epiklesis is added to the words of the Roman canon (the oldest Eucharistic prayer in Christendom). The roman canon was most definitely consecratory and good enough in the days of St Victor, St Leo the great, St Hormisdas, St Agatho and St Gregory the Great. Why the need to add it as if the prayer was somehow lacking?

The words of the institution are what consecrate by the power of the Holy Spirit, not the epiklesis.
The author of the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom affirms this fact when he says:

"He [Christ] says: 'This is My Body.' This word changes the offering."
(Homily 1:6 On the Betrayal of Judas)

Further we know that the western church always held the words of the institution as the part where transubstantiation occcurs but even eastern fathers held this as evidenced above.  Another is St Gregory of Nyssa

”It is at once changed into the Body by means of the Word, as the Word itself said, 'This is My Body.'”

Further he says :

”That saying, 'This is my body', once uttered, from that time to the present day, and even until Christ's coming, makes the sacrifice complete at every table in the churches."


This seems to be a new phenomenon as even the Greeks acknowledged that the words of the institution consecrate at the Ecumenical Council of Florence. So why today is there particular insistence on this point? It seems to be simply a byzantinisation that has it’s roots in the same triumphalism that once plagued the latin tradition when encountering eastern churches and their venerable liturgies.

IOW, "Why do some Eastern Orthodox insist that a particular formula is necessary?  Only we can insist that a particular formula is necessary."

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,687
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #39 on: April 23, 2018, 06:42:59 PM »
The Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari in which the Words of Institution are not explictly spoken, is considered be valid. As the CDF said:

”the words of the institution of the Eucharist are in fact present in the anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in the form of a coherent narration and in a literal way but in a euchological and disseminated manner, that is to say they are integrated in the prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession which follow."

Was the meaning of "euchological and disseminated manner" ever clarified?  Because I've read that document as well as the anaphora of Addai and Mari and am not sure what they're getting at other than "Uh oh, how do we square this circle?". 

Offline RaphaCam

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,048
  • It is honourable to reveal the works of God
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: Why the insistence on an explicit epiklesis?
« Reply #40 on: April 23, 2018, 08:01:26 PM »
Changing one silent prayer from the canon is better than giving an extra argument to people who have weird oppositions to Western Rite Orthodoxy. /thread
"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

May the Blessed Light shine Forth