Consecration, Epiklesis Or Both?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1413088' date='Nov 1 2007, 11:43 PM']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?[/quote]

Read post #8 on the previous page for a plethora of magisterial documents and citations from Early Church Fathers on the subject in a well written summary by a renowned mid-twentieth century theologian.

And according to Father Jone's [i]Moral Theology[/i], if I recall correctly, such a consecration would be valid if the priest intended to consecrate the hosts in the ciborium.

[CatholicCid]

I believe I actually stepped outside of my own beliefs on this subject a little after re-reading it, which is easy for me to do on online discussions.

Won't hurt to continue onward I suppose


[quote]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.[/quote]
Is this not what we are discussing?

[quote]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.[/quote]
To me, this seems to say that it should be looked as a whole.

I must add, I am very underread in this issue. I hope to read a book suggested by Raphael concerning similiar questions on the Eucharist, so right now I'm just drawing from the few documents provided.

Edited November 2, 2007 by CatholicCid

[rkwright]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1413107' date='Nov 2 2007, 01:37 AM']Is this not what we are discussing?
To me, this seems to say that it should be looked as a whole.

I must add, I am very underread in this issue. I hope to read a book suggested by Raphael concerning similiar questions on the Eucharist, so right now I'm just drawing from the few documents provided.[/quote]
The part you are quoting is saying that the belief that there are different timings depending on what rite you are, is to be rejected. The idea that for the Eastern Church's its at Epiklesis and for the Western its at Consecration should be rejected. At least thats how I read it.

STM you keep rehashing the obvious, but you really fail to answer the key objection here. There are no words of institution in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, yet this is a valid consecration.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1412923' date='Nov 1 2007, 08:28 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]

Don't you think that's just a little bit of a stretch for piecing together a consecration narrative?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1413114' date='Nov 2 2007, 01:09 AM']STM you keep rehashing the obvious, but you really fail to answer the key objection here. There are no words of institution in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, yet this is a valid consecration.[/quote]

If you'd really like to know my thoughts on the matter, I don't know if the Anaphora is valid. I doesn't seem that the document from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity was an authoritative document of the magisterium and therefore we are not bound by it, but if I am wrong, someone please correct me.


[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1413126' date='Nov 2 2007, 02:29 AM']Don't you think that's just a little bit of a stretch for piecing together a consecration narrative?[/quote]

Looking at what the Church teaches, it seems to be the only that the Anaphora could be valid.

[Resurrexi]

double post

Edited November 2, 2007 by StThomasMore

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1413240' date='Nov 2 2007, 12:32 PM']Looking at what the Church teaches, it seems to be the only that the Anaphora could be valid.[/quote]

I agree. That does seem to be the only explanation possible. I just don't see it as being nearly sufficient to square with doctrine. Man am I glad I don't have to try and come up with such funky explanations anymore to defend the indefensible.

Edited November 2, 2007 by goldenchild17

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1413342' date='Nov 2 2007, 05:54 PM']I agree. That does seem to be the only explanation possible. I just don't see it as being nearly sufficient to square with doctrine. Man am I glad I don't have to try and come up with such funky explanations anymore to defend the indefensible.[/quote]

It's not a terribly funky explanation. When I read the document in light of Tradition (the way all documents are meant to be read) it seems to be the interpretation I get.

[goldenchild17]

Can't say I agree (big surprise huh ), but I definitely respect the effort to explain things in an orthodox way. peace

[rkwright]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1413240' date='Nov 2 2007, 01:32 PM']Looking at what the Church teaches, it seems to be the only that the Anaphora could be valid.[/quote]

This doesn't seem right. If the only way the Anaphora could be valid is by stringing together words "This...is...my...Body..." then we would have consecrations going on throughout the mass. This idea, stringing together the words, totally kills any idea that the consecration occurs when the priest says "This is my Body" (one phrase) since you could string together the words and have a consecration at an earlier moment.

Also I should point out that the document you are quoting (btw I love that book and use it often) is not any more binding on a Catholic than the document from the Church regarding the Anaphora.

Edited November 3, 2007 by rkwright

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1413673' date='Nov 3 2007, 11:17 AM']This doesn't seem right. If the only way the Anaphora could be valid is by stringing together words "This...is...my...Body..." then we would have consecrations going on throughout the mass. This idea, stringing together the words, totally kills any idea that the consecration occurs when the priest says "This is my Body" (one phrase) since you could string together the words and have a consecration at an earlier moment.[/quote]
:nod:

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1413673' date='Nov 3 2007, 11:17 AM']This doesn't seem right. If the only way the Anaphora could be valid is by stringing together words "This...is...my...Body..." then we would have consecrations going on throughout the mass. This idea, stringing together the words, totally kills any idea that the consecration occurs when the priest says "This is my Body" (one phrase) since you could string together the words and have a consecration at an earlier moment.[/quote]

The Words of Institution only have consecratory power when a priest says them with the intention to consecrate. Therefore, when a priest reads the Epistle on Holy Thursday, he does not consecrate because he does not have the intention to do so. The same would apply with any time the words "This ... is ... My ... Body" or "This ... is ... My ... Blood" were strung together during the Mass: they would not consecrate unless the priest had the intention to make them consecrate.

On the other hand, the priest praying the Anaphora is praying it with the intention of consecrating the bread and wine, and therefore when the Words of Institution are strung together than cause transubstantiation to occur.

[quote name='rkwright' post='1413673' date='Nov 3 2007, 11:17 AM']Also I should point out that the document you are quoting (btw I love that book and use it often) is not any more binding on a Catholic than the document from the Church regarding the Anaphora.[/quote]

The book itself does not have any magisterial authority, but the documents it quotes do.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1413828' date='Nov 3 2007, 05:44 PM']On the other hand, the priest praying the Anaphora is praying it with the intention of consecrating the bread and wine, and therefore when the Words of Institution are strung together than cause transubstantiation to occur.[/quote]
There is no institution narrative in the anaphora of Addai and Mari, and there does not need to be one, because now – through the magic of Microsoft Word – a Latin traditionalist can simply search through a text and string together any phrase that he needs in order to safeguard his own narrow view of Catholic orthodoxy.

Based upon this new theological method (a.k.a., Microsoft Word theology), if a priest were to recite Shakespeare's play [i]Measure for Measure[/i] (Act II, Scene IV) in a prayerful manner, and with the intention of consecrating the bread and wine placed before him into the body and blood of Christ, a true and valid Eucharist would be celebrated, because the words of the institution narrative can be strung together from that text.

Ah, the [i]magic[/i] of Microsoft Word and its search function.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1413953' date='Nov 3 2007, 08:36 PM']There is no institution narrative in the anaphora of Addai and Mari, and there does not need to be one, because now – through the magic of Microsoft Word – a Latin traditionalist can simply search through a text and string together any phrase that he needs in order to safeguard his own narrow view of Catholic orthodoxy.

Based upon this new theological method (a.k.a., Microsoft Word theology), if a priest were to recite Shakespeare's play [i]Measure for Measure[/i] (Act II, Scene IV) in a prayerful manner, and with the intention of consecrating the bread and wine placed before him into the body and blood of Christ, a true and valid Eucharist would be celebrated, because the words of the institution narrative can be strung together from that text.

Ah, the [i]magic[/i] of Microsoft Word and its search function.[/quote]
I agree. The anaphora of Addai and Mari doesnt have the institution narrative yet still consecrates because of the intention, regardless of whether or not the words "this" "is" "my" and "body" are present somewhere in the prayers. They could be absent, yet the prayer could still be valid. This is a special case, obviously, and the Church has said that it is valid. Under normal circumstances, in all other rites, the words "this is my body" are required for consecration.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1413953' date='Nov 3 2007, 09:36 PM']There is no institution narrative in the anaphora of Addai and Mari, and there does not need to be one, because now – through the magic of Microsoft Word – a Latin traditionalist can simply search through a text and string together any phrase that he needs in order to safeguard his own narrow view of Catholic orthodoxy.

Based upon this new theological method (a.k.a., Microsoft Word theology), if a priest were to recite Shakespeare's play [i]Measure for Measure[/i] (Act II, Scene IV) in a prayerful manner, and with the intention of consecrating the bread and wine placed before him into the body and blood of Christ, a true and valid Eucharist would be celebrated, because the words of the institution narrative can be strung together from that text.

Ah, the [i]magic[/i] of Microsoft Word and its search function.[/quote]

The Words of Institution [i]do[/i] need to be present in an anaphora, The Document from the Pontifical Council itself says this:

[quote]The Catholic Church considers the words of the Institution as a constitutive part of the Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer. The Council of Florence stated “The form of this sacrament are the words of the Saviour with which he effected this sacrament. A priest speaking in the person of Christ effects this sacrament. For, in virtue of those words, the substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ and the substance of wine into his blood” (D.H. 1321). The same Council of Florence also characterised the words of the Institution as “the form of words [forma verborum] which the holy Roman Church […] has always been wont to use [semper uti consuevit] in the consecration of the Lord’s body and blood” (D.H. 1352), without prejudice to the possibility of some variation in their articulation by the Church.[/quote]

Also, the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is different from any random text in that the texts show that what is being celebrated is meant to be in continuity with the Last Supper, moreover, the text is very ancient (though it probably in the past had an institution narrative).

[quote]In the first place, 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, 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. 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). 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).

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.[/quote]