Consecration, Epiklesis Or Both?

[Resurrexi]

*The texts of the prayers (in English) mentioned in the question are the following
Quam Oblationem: O God, deign to bless what we offer, and make it approved, effective, right, and wholly pleasing in every way, that it may become for our good, the Body and Blood of Your dearly beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.

Qui Pridie: Who, the day before He suffered, took bread into His holy and venerable hands, and having raised His eyes to heaven to you, God, His Almighty Father, giving thanks to You, He blessed, it broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying: Take, all of you, and eat of this

The Words of Consecration: FOR THIS IS MY BODY.

[brendan1104]

The essential form for the Eucharist is:

[b]Hoc est enim Corpus Meum[/b] = (For) This is My Body.

There are differing opinions concerning the wine, most say: [b]Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis Mei[/b] = (for) this is (the Chalice) of My Blood.

[Apotheoun]

The liturgy of Addai and Mari, which is the oldest extant written liturgy in the Church (dating to the early 3rd century), does not contain the words of institution. but does contain an epiklesis; and interestingly back in January 2001 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the approval of Pope John Paul II, determined that it is a valid Eucharistic liturgy even without the words of institution being explicitly recited.

[friarMatt]

the whole Eucharistic prayer is consecratory

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='friarMatt' post='1372110' date='Aug 27 2007, 09:35 PM']the whole Eucharistic prayer is consecratory[/quote]
Although as an Eastern Christian I tend to focus upon the epiklesis; I basically agree with this comment, because the whole anaphora is consecratory.

[brendan1104]

Only the essential form which I gave above is neccessary to validly confect the Eucharist.

[friarMatt]

[quote name='brendan1104' post='1372267' date='Aug 28 2007, 06:52 AM']Only the essential form which I gave above is neccessary to validly confect the Eucharist.[/quote]


Than how do you account for the Anaphora of Addai and Mari where their is no institution narrative?

[Resurrexi]

The following is taken from pages 293-394 of [i]Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma[/i] by Dr. Ludwig Ott with the imprimatur of Conelius Ep. Corgagiensis et Ap. Adm. Rosensis:

2. Form
The form of the Eucharist consists of Christ’s Words of institution, uttered at the Consecration. (Sent. certa.)

While the Greek-Orthodox Church wrongly placed the power of transmutation either on the Epiclesis alone, following the narrative of the institution or in the connection of the words of institution with the Epiclesis (Confessio orth. I 107), the Catholic Church adheres firmly to the view that the priest consummates the transubstantiation solely by the uttering of the words of institution. The Decretum pro Armenis teaches with St. Thomas: “The words of the Saviour which He used when He made (confecit) this sacrament are the form of the sacrament: the priest then speaking (these words) in the person of Christ effects (conficit) this sacrament.” D 698. The Council of Trent teaches that, according to the standing belief of the Church, “immediately after the consecration,” that is, after the uttering of the words of institution the true body and true blood of the Lord are present. D 876.
The words of institution demonstrate, at least with a high degree of probability, that at the Last Supper Jesus effected the transmutation by the words: “This is My Body,” “This is My Blood,” and not by a mere act of will, or by the blessing or thanksgiving as many theologians, notably of the early period of Scholasticism, for example Innocent III (De sacro altaris mysterio IV 6) assumed. According to the mandate of Christ: “Do this in commemoration of Me” the Church must similarly complete the consecration, as did Christ, by the words fo consecration.
The old Christian tradition teaches that Christ consecrated with the words of institution. Tertullian remarks: “He took bread... and made it into His Body by speaking: “This is my Body” (Adv. Marcionem IV 40). As far as the consecration effected by the Church is concerned, the Fathers ascribed this either to the whole prayer of thanksgiving which is contained in the narrative of the institution, or expressly to the words of institution. According to St. Justin, the consecration occurred “by the words of the prayer stemming from Him (=Christ)” (Apol. I 66). According to St. Irenaeus, the bread assumes “the invocation of God” or “the Word of God” and thereby becomes the Eucharist (Adv. Haer. IV 18, 5: V,2 3). According to Origen the bread, which is offered “with thanksgiving and prayer” becomes “through the prayer” the Body of Christ (C. Celsum VIII 33); the Eucharistic nourishment is sanctified “by God’s words and prayer (In Matth. comm. 11, 14). St. Ambrose, Ps.-Eusebius of Emesa, St. John Chrysostom expressly teach that the transmutation is effected by the words of institution of Christ. St. Ambrose explains: “The words of Christ complete therefore this Sacrament” (De sacr. IV 4, 14). St. John Chrysostom says: “The priest stands there and sets up the outward sign, while speaking these words; but the power and the grace of God. ‘This is my Body,’ he says. These words transmute the gifts” (De. proditione Judae hom. 1, 6). St. John of Damascus mentions both the words of institution and the Epiclesis (De fide orth. IV 13).
In agreement with Cardinal Bessarion, the words of Epiclesis are to be taken as referring, not to the time at which they are spoken, but to the time to which they are related. That which happens in one single moment in the consecration, is liturgically developed and explained in the subsequent words of the Epiclesis. The Epiclesis has no consecratory, but only a declaratory significance. The view of H. Schell that the Greeks consecrated by the Epiclesis alone, and the Latins by the words of institution alone, must be rejected, since the substance of the Sacraments is not within the disposition of the Church D 2147a.
To the objection that the words of institution in the Canon of the Mass refer to historical events, it is to be answered, that they acquire consecratory power by the intention of the priest. In the Roman Mass Canon the intention to change the elements is expressly uttered in the prayer “Quam oblationem,” which immediately precedes the narrative of the institution: ut nobis corpus et sanguis fiat dilectissimi Filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi (“the mutation Epiclesis of the Roman Mass”; Jungman).
Consecration per contactum. In the 9th century an untenable opinion emerged that the mixing of a consecrated element with a nonconsecrated element would effect the transmutation of the latter. Amalar of Metz observed with refrence to the Liturgy for Good Friday: Sanctificatur vinum non consecratum per sanctificatumpanem (the non-sanctified wine is sanctified by the sanctified bread) (De eccl. offic. I 15). This view was adopted in numerous liturgical and canonical works down well into the 12th century and it was sought to justify it on the principle: sacrum trahit ad se non sacrum (a sacred thing assimilates a non-sacred thing to itself.) It was rejected by the theologians and canonists from the middle of the 12th century onwards on the ground that Transubstantiation is effected by the words of institution alone. Cf. S. th. III 83, 2 ad 2.

[Resurrexi]

double post

Edited November 1, 2007 by StThomasMore

[CatholicCid]

Here is a bit from the actual Vatican document to aid in the discussion:

[quote][b]3. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari[/b]

The principal issue for the Catholic Church in agreeing to this request, related to the question of the validity of the Eucharist celebrated with the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, one of the three Anaphoras traditionally used by the Assyrian Church of the East. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari is notable because, from time immemorial, it has been used without a recitation of the Institution Narrative. [u]As the Catholic Church considers the words of the Eucharistic Institution a constitutive and therefore indispensable part of the Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer, a long and careful study was undertaken of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, from a historical, liturgical and theological perspective, at the end of which the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith on January 17th, 2001 concluded that this Anaphora can be considered valid. H.H. Pope John Paul II has approved this decision. This conclusion rests on three major arguments.[/u]

In the first place, [u]the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is one of the most ancient Anaphoras, dating back to the time of the very early Church; it was composed and used with the clear intention of celebrating the Eucharist in full continuity with the Last Supper and according to the intention of the Church; its validity was never officially contested[/u], neither in the Christian East nor in the Christian West.

Secondly, the Catholic Church recognises the Assyrian Church of the East as a true particular Church, built upon orthodox faith and apostolic succession. [u]The Assyrian Church of the East has also preserved full Eucharistic faith in the presence of our Lord under the species of bread and wine and in the sacrificial character of the Eucharist[/u]. In the Assyrian Church of the East, though not in full communion with the Catholic Church, are thus to be found "true sacraments, and above all, by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist" (U.R., n. 15). Secondly, the Catholic Church recognises the Assyrian Church of the East as a true particular Church, built upon orthodox faith and apostolic succession. The Assyrian Church of the East has also preserved full Eucharistic faith in the presence of our Lord under the species of bread and wine and in the sacrificial character of the Eucharist. In the Assyrian Church of the East, though not in full communion with the Catholic Church, are thus to be found "true sacraments, and above all, by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist" (U.R., n. 15).

[u]Finally, the words of Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in a coherent narrative way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession.[/u][/quote]

All underline emphasis mine.

[Resurrexi]

I don't see how that changed anything. It basically says that the Anaphora is only valid because the words "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood" are contained within it...

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1412823' date='Nov 1 2007, 04:21 PM']I don't see how that changed anything. It basically says that the Anaphora is only valid because the words "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood" are contained within it...[/quote]
No, those words are not contained within the ancient anaphora used by the Assyrian Church, because there is no explicit institution narrative.

[url="http://www.cired.org/liturgy/apostles.html"]The Anaphora of Addai and Mari[/url]

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1412922' date='Nov 1 2007, 08:25 PM']No, those words are not contained within the ancient anaphora used by the Assyrian Church, because there is no explicit institution narrative.

[url="http://www.cired.org/liturgy/apostles.html"]The Anaphora of Addai and Mari[/url][/quote]

Yes they are.

If you do a search of the words, you will find the words "This," "is," "My," "Body," and "Blood" in it.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1412923' date='Nov 1 2007, 07:28 PM']Yes they are.

If you do a search of the words, you will find the words "This," "is," "My," "Body," and "Blood" in it.[/quote]
LOL, you're and idiot.

[Apotheoun]

There is no institution narrative, and there does not need to be one.