Consecration, Epiklesis Or Both?

[Resurrexi]

Not only is that rude, but it is incorrect:

[quote]So the words of the Institution are not absent in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, but explicitly mentioned in a dispersed way, from the beginning to the end, in the most important passages of the Anaphora. It is also clear that the passages cited above express the full conviction of commemorating the Lord’s paschal mystery, in the strong sense of making it present; that is, the intention to carry out in practice precisely what Christ established by his words and actions in instituting the Eucharist.[/quote]

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1412927' date='Nov 1 2007, 07:32 PM']Not only is that rude, but it is incorrect:[/quote]
The Vatican is not claiming that you can do a word search and find the words and then by putting them together like a puzzle make out an institution narrative; instead, what the CDF is saying is that the prayer, when taken as a whole has the purpose of consecrating the elements.

I stand by my earlier comment, you are an idiot if you think that the Vatican is doing theology by "word searching" a text.

Edited November 2, 2007 by Apotheoun

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1412926' date='Nov 1 2007, 08:32 PM']There is no institution narrative, and there does not need to be one.[/quote]

Yes there does.

The Council of Trent anathematized anyone who did not believe that at the Words of Consecration Transubstantiation occurs.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1412932' date='Nov 1 2007, 07:37 PM']Yes there does.

The Council of Trent anathematized anyone who did not believe that at the Words of Consecration Transubstantiation occurs.[/quote]
I disagree.

[Resurrexi]

886 Can. 4. If anyone says that after the completion of the consecration that the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is not in the marvelous sacrament of the Eucharist, but only in use, while it is taken, not however before or after, and that in the hosts or consecrated particles, which are reserved or remain after communion, the true body of the Lord does not remain: let him be anathema [cf. n. 876 ].

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1412938' date='Nov 1 2007, 07:42 PM']886 Can. 4. If anyone says that after the completion of the consecration that the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is not in the marvelous sacrament of the Eucharist, but only in use, while it is taken, not however before or after, and that in the hosts or consecrated particles, which are reserved or remain after communion, the true body of the Lord does not remain: let him be anathema [cf. n. 876 ].[/quote]
I believe that the body and blood of Christ are present on the altar after the prayer of consecration, i.e., the epiklesis.

[Resurrexi]

Do you honestly think the Fathers of the Council of Trent meant the Epilkesis when they decreed that canon?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1412947' date='Nov 1 2007, 07:52 PM']Do you honestly think the Fathers of the Council of Trent meant the Epilkesis when they decreed that canon?[/quote]
I do not believe that the Council of Trent is ecumenical; instead, I hold that it is a particular synod of the Latin Church.

[Resurrexi]

So the fact that the Council itself called itself "the holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent lawfully assembled in the Holy Spirit" countless times and the fact that in the profession of faith for the Maronites (D 1459 - 1473) Trent is numbered among the Ecumenical Councils means nothing?

Edited November 2, 2007 by StThomasMore

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1412969' date='Nov 1 2007, 08:05 PM']So the fact that the Council itself called itself "the holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent lawfully assembled in the Holy Spirit" countless times and the fact that in the profession of faith for the Maronites (D 1459 - 1473) Trent is numbered among the Ecumenical Councils means nothing?[/quote]
The Roman Catholic Church and thirteen Orthodox Churches just issued the "Ravenna Document" (13 Oct. 2007), which explicitly states that ". . . an ecumenical council is not an 'institution' whose frequency can be regulated by canons; it is rather an 'event', a [i]kairos[/i] inspired by the Holy Spirit who guides the Church so as to engender within it the institutions which it needs and which respond to its nature. This harmony between the Church and the councils is so profound that, [b]even after the break between East and West which rendered impossible the holding of ecumenical councils in the strict sense of the term[/b], both Churches continued to hold councils whenever serious crises arose. These councils gathered together the bishops of local Churches in communion with the See of Rome or, although understood in a different way, with the See of Constantinople, respectively" [[i]Ravenna Document[/i], no. 39]. The Western synods are not binding upon Eastern Christians, and never will be binding upon them, praise God.

[Resurrexi]

Do you have any prove that this "Ravenna Document" was a magisterial document of the Church or that it was signed and/or explicitly approved by the Supreme Pontiff?

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1412938' date='Nov 1 2007, 08:42 PM']886 Can. 4. If anyone says that [b]after the completion of the consecration[/b] that the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is not in the marvelous sacrament of the Eucharist, but only in use, while it is taken, not however before or after, and that in the hosts or consecrated particles, which are reserved or remain after communion, the true body of the Lord does not remain: let him be anathema [cf. n. 876 ].[/quote]
This would seem to me to include a need for the whole prayer of Consecration.
In your quote, they do not seem to be referencing the words of Institution.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1412989' date='Nov 1 2007, 10:14 PM']The Roman Catholic Church and thirteen Orthodox Churches just issued the "Ravenna Document" (13 Oct. 2007), which explicitly states that ". . . an ecumenical council is not an 'institution' whose frequency can be regulated by canons; it is rather an 'event', a [i]kairos[/i] inspired by the Holy Spirit who guides the Church so as to engender within it the institutions which it needs and which respond to its nature. This harmony between the Church and the councils is so profound that, [b]even after the break between East and West which rendered impossible the holding of ecumenical councils in the strict sense of the term[/b], both Churches continued to hold councils whenever serious crises arose. These councils gathered together the bishops of local Churches in communion with the See of Rome or, although understood in a different way, with the See of Constantinople, respectively" [[i]Ravenna Document[/i], no. 39]. The Western synods are not binding upon Eastern Christians, and never will be binding upon them, praise God.[/quote]

I'm tredding in uncertain waters here, but isn't this talking about the Eastern Churches who are not in communion currently? That currently those councils are not binding on them, but if a Church were to come into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church, wouldn't the councils 'become' binding on them?
Basically where do you find the backing for your last claim "never will be binding"?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1413040' date='Nov 1 2007, 10:05 PM']This would seem to me to include a need for the whole prayer of Consecration.
In your quote, they do not seem to be referencing the words of Institution.[/quote]

Yes they do...

Let's look at who, where and when the Fathers of the Council of Trent were writing. They were mostly Roman Rite Bishops at an Ecumenical Council held in northern Italy in the sixteenth century. Almost all of them had said the Ancient Form of the Roman Rite since their ordinations. In the Ancient Use one of the most oblivious things is the fact that the Words of Institution consecrate. It is only during the Words of Institution that the lids of the ciboria are taken off that the hosts therein may be consecrated. It is only during the Words of Institution that the pall is taken off the chalice. Immediately after the Words of Institution the the priest genuflects and adores the Host (the rubrics themselves say that the priest adores the Host when he genuflects immediately after the Words of Institution), he then elevates It for adoration of the people, then genuflects again in adoration Christ's Body. The selfsame thing is done for the Words of Institution spoken over the Chalice. In altar missals and on altar cards the Words of Institution are written in all capital letters to signify the great solemnity with which they must be spoken because those words themselves consecrate.

Another interesting thing I would like to add is that in the Roman Rite there is no Epiklesis. There is only the prayer Quam Oblationem which does not ask God the Father send the Holy Ghost upon the bread and wine but merely beseeches God to make the oblation "blessed, approved, ratified, reasonable and acceptable that it may become for us the Body and Blood of Thy most dearly beloved Son our Lord Jesus Christ" without a mention of the Holy Ghost. The Roman Canon is not only one of the most ancient Anaphoræ of the Church, but also the only Anaphora which was used by the Successor of the Prince of the Apostles for centuries which proves that that the Epiklesis is not only not required for validity, but does most certainly not consecrate.

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1413060' date='Nov 1 2007, 10:52 PM']Yes they do...[/quote]

But where in the document does it specify the Words of Institution?


On a side note that got me wondering, if a Priest did not remove the ciboria, but had the intention to consecrate the hosts, would you consider the consecration valid?

Edited November 2, 2007 by CatholicCid