Ship of Fools: Consecratory Epiklesis: Before or After Words of Institution?

Thread: Consecratory Epiklesis: Before or After Words of Institution? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026549

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

There are various types of epikleses in eucharistic prayers: asking the Holy Spirit (HS) to carry the sacrifice to the altar in Heaven, asking the HS to make the congregation one body, one spirit, asking the HS to sanctify communicants and their lives, etc. I am interested here only in what I call the consecratory epiklesis: asking the HS to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.

For those of you who care about this sort of thing, should the Consecratory Epiklesis be before or after the words of institution or are either positions acceptable? Why? Can an "incorrect" placement of the Consecratory Epiklesis reflect an incorrect understanding of how and when the Consecration of the gifts occurs, or does asking this question reflect a human arrogance in attempting to understand and analyze what is a Divine Mystery?

Roman Rite Eucharistic Prayers place their Consecratory Epikleses before the words of institution. I grant that some Eastern Orthodox theologians do not think that the Consecratory Epiklesis preceding the words of institution in the Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer I) is valid, but that is a topic for another thread. The eucharistic prayer (anaphora) of the Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom places its consecratory epiklesis after the words of instution.

Once Cranmer got to write his own Eucharistic Prayer, he put the Consecratory Epiklesis after the words of institution (whether or not his Eucharistic Prayer, especially when read in light of the 39 Articles, implies a merely Pneumatic Presence of the Body and Blood is not the point here - all that matters is that the Epiklesis asks the HS to make the gifts be the Body and Blood to the recipients in some way). Some later Anglican Eucharistic prayers have Consecratory Epikleses that precede the Words of Institution.

The RCC currently teaches that, although an entire Eucharistic Prayer is consecratory, the consecration is effected by the end of the words of institution, which explains why all Eucharisitc Prayers composed for the Roman Rite after Vatican II placed their Consecratory Epikleses before the words of institution. Their reasoning seems to be that it is wrong to ask the Holy Spirit to do something that has already happened.

The English translation of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom used in the Ukrainian Catholic Church (in communion with the Pope) has its consecratory epiklesis after the words of insutition but has an unusual wording:

"send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here present. (Blessing the bread) And make this bread the precious body of Your Christ. (Blessing the chalice) And that which is in this chalice, the precious blood of your Christ. (Blessing both) <bold>Having changed</bold> them by Your Holy Spirit:"

http://www.nativityukr.org/worship/divine_liturgy_text1.html

In comparison, the English translation used by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (Eastern Orthodox, in Communion with Constantinople, not Rome) is:

"send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here presented.
And make this bread the precious Body of Your Christ.
Amen.
And that which is in this cup the precious Blood of Your Christ.
Amen.
<bold>Changing</bold> them by Your Holy Spirit. Amen. Amen. Amen."

http://www.goarch.org/chapel/liturgical_texts/liturgy_hchc

So does the Roman Catholic Church think it is ok to have the Consecratory Epiklesis be after the words of instution as long as the tense of the verbs used, albeit ambiguous, seems to indicate the the consecration was complete by the time the words of instituion were said?

Correct me if my impression of Eastern Orthodox theology is wrong here, but I think the Orthodox believe that the liturgy occurs out of time so the idea of a precise moment of consecration is not emphasized. The Orthodox emphasize a correctly worded Consecratory Epiklesis as key in ensuring the validity of the Eucharist, but I do not think it is very important in their view whether or not the Consecratory Epiklesis is said before or after the words of instituion.

It is worth mentioning that the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the validity of the Eucharistic Prayer in the Liturgy of Saints Mari and Addai used by some ancient Syriac Churches, although this Eucharistic Prayer does not contain the words of institution at all. I do not know if this liturgy has an epiklesis, what it is like, or where it occurs in the liturgy.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
does asking this question reflect a human arrogance in attempting to understand and analyze what is a Divine Mystery?

In my opinion, yes.

quote:
Roman Rite Eucharistic Prayers place their Consecratory Epikleses before the words of institution. I grant that some Eastern Orthodox theologians do not think that the Consecratory Epiklesis preceding the words of institution in the Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer I) is valid, but that is a topic for another thread. The eucharistic prayer (anaphora) of the Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom places its consecratory epiklesis after the words of instution.

I've never understood that argument from some Orthodox. I don't like it. The old Roman Rite is venerable in its own right and doesn't need to have Byzantine elements introduced into it (but then they've done exactly that to Western Rite liturgies) just as the Byzantine Rite doesn't need to be Latinised (as was done with the Uniates).

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

My tradition (United Methodist) places the Epiclesis after the Words of Institution. I don't know why, aside from the fact that both TEC's 1979 BCP and (I think) Novus Ordo do the same. Ours came out of the changes following Vatican 2.

But upon further reflection, doing it this way makes more sense to me. The way our Great Thanksgiving is written, the whole prayer is a cohesive, Trinitarian prayer. It begins by addressing the Father and recalling God's work in humankind despite humanity's propensity to reject God ("When we turned away, and our love failed, your love remained steadfast..."). After the sanctus and benedictus, it goes on to recall and celebrate the work of the Son in the person of the incarnate Jesus, where his love and inclusiveness is mentioned, along with the Words of Institution. Finally, after the mystery of faith, we have the Epiclesis:

"Pour out your Holy Spirit upon us gathered here, and upon these gifts of bread and wine. Make them be for us the Body and Blood of Christ, that we might be the body of Christ, redeemed by his blood. By your Spirit make us one with Christ, one with each other, and one in ministry to all the world, until Christ comes in final victory and we feast at his heavenly banquet."

What I find interesting is that the old rite of the former Methodist Church (in use prior to and immediately after the merger in 1968) has no epiclesis. I always feel it's missing something. I guess I'm just used to the new liturgy.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

I've never understood the "cohesive whole" argument, much loved of many of the liturgical reformers of the twentieth century (may God have mercy on their souls). The Roman Canon clearly is a mishmash of different prayers which have been added over time. So what? Why impose some kind of rationalism on it?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:

It is worth mentioning that the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the validity of the Eucharistic Prayer in the Liturgy of Saints Mari and Addai used by some ancient Syriac Churches, although this Eucharistic Prayer does not contain the words of institution at all. I do not know if this liturgy has an epiklesis, what it is like, or where it occurs in the liturgy.

From Addai and Mari in the translation in Jasper and Cuming:

May your Holy Spirit, Lord, come and rest on this offering of your servants, and bless and sanctify it, that it may be to us, Lord, for remission of debts, forgiveness of sins, and the great hope of resurrection from the dea, and new life in the kingdom of heaven, with all who have been pleasing in your sight.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

We (Church of Ireland) have it after the words of institution; a prayer both for the people (that they may be united in the Body of Christ) and that the bread and wine be to us the body and blood of Christ. It makes sense to me to have the epi after the words of institution rather than before in an anamnesis (probably spelled that incorrectly) followed by an acknowledgment of presence (to put it simply)

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
It is worth mentioning that the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the validity of the Eucharistic Prayer in the Liturgy of Saints Mari and Addai used by some ancient Syriac Churches, although this Eucharistic Prayer does not contain the words of institution at all. I do not know if this liturgy has an epiklesis, what it is like, or where it occurs in the liturgy.

That is over-egging it somewhat. It would be more accurate to say the Catholic Church doesn't condemn it as invalid. In ecumenical discussions with the Assyrians it's been made clear that restoration of the words of institution will be required in the event of reunion. I believe the Assyrians at the time tacitly if not explicitly accepted this. The Chaldeans have included the words of institution since reunion.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
We (Church of Ireland) have it after the words of institution; a prayer both for the people (that they may be united in the Body of Christ) and that the bread and wine be to us the body and blood of Christ. It makes sense to me to have the epi after the words of institution rather than before in an anamnesis (probably spelled that incorrectly) followed by an acknowledgment of presence (to put it simply)

If the Words of Institution are viewed as merely a retelling, rather than a re-present-ation of the Last Supper, then it would make sense to tell the story of the institution of the Eucharist before asking the Holy Spirit to make the Eucharist present now.

I think the placement of the Consecratory Epiklesis only has doctrinal implications if you believe that the Words of Institution are the words of Consecration, as Roman Catholics traditionally have believed. When a priest says the words of institution, RCs belive, not only is he recalling in a prayer to the Father the words spoken at the Last Supper and Christ's mandate to repeat that supper in memory of Him, but he is also acting in Persona Christi (through the Holy Spirit, though) by declaring the gifts to now be what they represent. The Words of Instution are also seen by RCs as the moment when the Paschal Mystery and Sacrifice is fully made present - so that not only the Last Supper, but also the Crucifixion and Resurrection are united with the present. As I said earlier, it applies a concept of linear time to the Liturgy that Eastern traditions have not emphasized. Therefore it seems redundant (if not heretical) to ask the Holy Spirit to make the offerings the Body and Blood of Christ after the Words of Institution when they are already so.

I wonder if when the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is celebrated by an Eastern Rite (ie Uniate, in communion with Rome) Church in Greek, is the tense of the verb "change" altered from the original as it appears to have been in the Ukrainian Catholic English translation I showed above? Or are verb tenses in Late Classical/Early Medieval Koine Greek such that either sense of time could be translated into English from the same Greek word?

Does the Roman Catholic Church consider it doctrinally incorrect to have a Consecratory Epiklesis without properly adjusted verb tenses after the Words of Institution?

Finally, if the Roman Catholic Church at least has made some indications that a traditional Eucharistic prayer without the Words of Institution, as long as the text and its history shows clear consecratory intent, is not necessarily invalid - could this mean that a Eucharistic Prayer such as that in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom as used by the Eastern Orthodox (and without any Uniate/Eastern Rite adjustments) could validly intend for the Epiklesis, and not the Words of Institution, to be where the Consecration is "centered"? (Notice that I am not saying "moment" of Consecration in order to avoid broaching the Eastern Orthodox idea of the Liturgy being outside of linear time.) Could it be ok to ask the Holy Spirit to make the bread and wine the Body and Blood of Christ after the words of instution because, at least as the Roman Catholics see it, in an Eastern Orthodox liturgy the Consecration has not (fully) happened yet until the Consecratory Epiklesis? Or could the Roman Catholic Church agree that if the intent of the Eastern Orthodox Liturgy is not to identify any specific moment of consecration but rather to have the entire Eucharistic Prayer be consecratory, the specific placement and verb tense of the Consecratory Epiklesis is not important? (Although it would be in the Roman Rite Eucharistic prayers, which have a history of interpretation where linear time is applied to the Liturgy.)

Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:

quote:
It is worth mentioning that the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the validity of the Eucharistic Prayer in the Liturgy of Saints Mari and Addai used by some ancient Syriac Churches, although this Eucharistic Prayer does not contain the words of institution at all. I do not know if this liturgy has an epiklesis, what it is like, or where it occurs in the liturgy.
That is over-egging it somewhat. It would be more accurate to say the Catholic Church doesn't condemn it as invalid. In ecumenical discussions with the Assyrians it's been made clear that restoration of the words of institution will be required in the event of reunion. I believe the Assyrians at the time tacitly if not explicitly accepted this. The Chaldeans have included the words of institution since reunion.

Restoration of the words of institution in Addai & Mari? Is it possible to 'restore' something that was never there? If they had been there, why, given their supposed central importance, would they have been dropped? See Dix's discussion of A&M, where he remarks that Anglican editors of the text, against all manuscript tradition and the practice of those whose rite it is, feel obliged to insert these, because they are unable to conceive of an anaphora without them. The Chaldaeans may have acquiesced in Roman insistence that the words be inserted, but that one might observe says more about Roman liturgical practice and attitude to the liturgical practices of other churches than about the Chaldaeans themselves.

There is indeed an epiklesis in A&M; it comes almost at the end of the anaphora -

quote:
And may there come, O my Lord, Thy Holy Spirit and rest upon this oblation of Thy servants, and bless and hallow it that it be to us, O my Lord, for the pardon of offences and the remission of sins and for the great hope of resurrection from the dead and for new life in the kingdom of heaven with all those who have been well-pleasing in thy sight.

Note too, that the prayer is addressed to the second person of the Trinity, not to the Father.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I know I sound like Eeyore Met, but I already quoted that epiclesis in full. I took to trouble to type it out from Jasper and Cumings. I'm used to nobody taking any notice of me.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

My understanding, based on experiencing the 1979 BCP liturgy and also having a fresh-out-of-seminary priest tell me what he'd learned in class, is that the Anglican/Episcopal practice of placing the Words of Institution before the Epiclesis is due to our wish to avoid specifying when the change happens - whether you believe it's transubstantiation or some other understanding of the Real Presence. We give a wide berth to people's consciences on the "how."

As for the "when," we can be certain the bread and wine have become the Body and Blood of Christ after the people say AMEN. It's part of our theology that a priest can't say Mass alone; s/he needs a congregation, even of just one other person. So the people's consent is part of the whole Eucharistic prayer and is taken very seriously. If you think about it historically, moving the Epiclesis till after the Words of Institution might have been a way to eliminate any hint of "hocus pocus."

That's why I don't get why some Episcopal priests bow at during the Words of Institution. I (being a pious layperson) will give a slight bow of the head - which is how I acknowledge others in the service as well as on the street, and how I venerate the name of the BVM - and I do that "in remembrance." I give a deep bow after the people's AMEN, worshipping the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament.

It's a pet peeve of mine when Episcopal priests skim right into the Lord's Prayer after the people's AMEN, as if it added nothing to the prayer they just said.

Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on :

We have the same practise in my church,The Old-Catholic Church in the Netherlands,Union of Utrrecht.
Most priests bow at the Words of the Institution,but genuflect at the end of the Eucharistic Prayer,when the people respond by saying or singing thrice Amen.

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

And if we were to take the "hocus pocus" view of consecration plus the idea that the consecration should come last, then the Eucharistic Prayer should end: "Do this, as oft as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me. Amen." Funny how that doesn't seem to be the favoured form...

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Eucharistic theologians, who are just no fun at all, tell me that one shouldn't try too hard to find a precise Sacramental Moment. A Sacramental Moment makes the rest of the service technically superfluous—the whole service is sacramental.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Eucharistic theologians, who are just no fun at all, tell me that one shouldn't try too hard to find a precise Sacramental Moment. A Sacramental Moment makes the rest of the service technically superfluous—the whole service is sacramental.

Life is more fun if you hang with the liturgical crowd. Better stories. Dry wit.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
Life is more fun if you hang with the liturgical crowd. Better stories. Dry wit.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I dunno. In my experience, liturgists are even less likely to leave me to my bell ringing and prostrations.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Any responses to my suggestion that maybe the Roman tradition is to emphasize a moment of consecration, the Eastern (and maybe for some Anglicans too) tradition is to emphasize a sacramental event rather than a specific moment, and their Eucharistic prayers reflect that - and that is ok and each Eucharistic prayer is valid for its tradition and whether or not sacramental moments are possible are not is a mystery just like a whole lot of other things about the Eucharist is? It seems odd to me that the Romans with their elevations and genuflections at the words of institution could have been so for so many centuries since at least the late Middle Ages. The East might have had their lack of a big adoration moment during the Eucharistic prayer for longer but does that make their tradition more valid?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

At least one Orthodox theologian that I know of, Alexander Schmemann, insists that concern for a sacramental moment is a Western corruption that has crept into Eastern thinking.

On the other hand, pretty much every Orthodox theologian blames the West for everything bad.

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
And if we were to take the "hocus pocus" view of consecration plus the idea that the consecration should come last, then the Eucharistic Prayer should end: "Do this, as oft as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me. Amen." Funny how that doesn't seem to be the favoured form...

The recitation of the words of instruction is the only consecration I've seen in Baptist and Presbyterian and Pentecostal churches, but I admit I have been to many. (Oh yeah, the 1662 too)

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

At a Lutheran church I've been to a few times, the Eucharistic prayer is opening dialogue, preface, sanctus, words of institution, memorial acclamation (Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again)...and that's it. The memorial acclamation is an addition from the Liturgical movement so in this Lutheran tradition (ELCA, USA) the Eucharstic prayer would have ended with the words of institution.

Lutherans definitely believe in the real presence, but traditionally reject the Mass as a sacrifice offered by the pastor, so Luther made a point of cutting the Eucharistic prayer short at the words of institution, which he (raised in the Western tradtition) probably thought of as the moment of consecration (Luther experts correct me if I am wrong).

The ELCA and some other Lutheran denominations now do have an additional option to use a longer Eucharistic prayer that goes on beyond the words of institution, but these prayers avoid referring to any sacrifice offered by the pastor or people (as far as I know - correct me if I'm wrong).

Does anyone know if any Lutheran Eucharistic prayers have an epiklesis, what it sounds like, and when it occurs?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

This is going to be annoying, but

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Eucharistic theologians, who are just no fun at all, tell me that one shouldn't try too hard to find a precise Sacramental Moment. A Sacramental Moment makes the rest of the service technically superfluous—the whole service is sacramental.

...is pretty much what I understand about Lutheran attitudes toward when exactly the bread-and-wine is no longer simply-bread-and-wine. If you held a gun to our heads, most of us would plump for the Words of Institution (at least, they are the one bit that, if not said or garbled, make us squirm squirm SQUIRM in our pews), but we'd really rather NOT be pinned down, and we freely admit that there is no word-for-word command "Repeat these words" in the Scripture.

We just get freakily uncomfortable with the kind of thinking that says, "let's pare this down to the bare minimum. Is it still communion if...

the words are omitted?
the words are truncated?
there is no congregation?
the congregation does not partake?
the partakers receive in one kind only?
the bread is not made of wheat?
the grape product is not fermented?
and etc, and etc, and etc.

These kinds of debates send us down to the nearest pub.

ETA: For beer. Which is much less controversial.

[ 20. November 2013, 00:21: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I can't vouch for the theology of a Sacramental Moment. I just want to take a moment to bow my head and cover my face in fearful awe when the priest elevates the host because, at whatever point, Jesus has become specially present to me and the congregation. Ringing bells serves a quite practical purpose of letting me know when I can look up.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
The recitation of the words of instruction is the only consecration I've seen in Baptist and Presbyterian and Pentecostal churches, but I admit I have been to many. (Oh yeah, the 1662 too)

Hmmm. I've been Presbyterian my entire life and have never encountered that in a Presbyterian service. Lutheran, yes, but not Presbyterian.

That said, it has always been very common in Presbyterian services to hear the words of institution (or the "Warrant," as we would traditionally call it) outside the prayer, either as an invitation to the Table (the more traditional placement) or at the breaking of the bread. In recent decades, the words of institution within the Great Thanksgiving has become more common, but all three options are regularly encountered and countenanced.

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Is it still communion if...

the words are omitted?
the words are truncated?

And which words? The ones reported by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11, the rather different ones in Mark 14, Matthew's tidying up on Mark's words, either text-form of Luke (only the NEB has the guts to go for the shorter one in the text), or traditional forms that broadly speaking conflate Paul and Matthew? (And for a pretty comparison that one could stare at for too long, I might have something up my sleeve...)

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
At a Lutheran church I've been to a few times, the Eucharistic prayer is opening dialogue, preface, sanctus, words of institution, memorial acclamation (Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again)...and that's it. The memorial acclamation is an addition from the Liturgical movement so in this Lutheran tradition (ELCA, USA) the Eucharstic prayer would have ended with the words of institution.

Lutherans definitely believe in the real presence, but traditionally reject the Mass as a sacrifice offered by the pastor, so Luther made a point of cutting the Eucharistic prayer short at the words of institution, which he (raised in the Western tradtition) probably thought of as the moment of consecration (Luther experts correct me if I am wrong).

The ELCA and some other Lutheran denominations now do have an additional option to use a longer Eucharistic prayer that goes on beyond the words of institution, but these prayers avoid referring to any sacrifice offered by the pastor or people (as far as I know - correct me if I'm wrong).

Does anyone know if any Lutheran Eucharistic prayers have an epiklesis, what it sounds like, and when it occurs?

Yeah, Lutheran pastors like to dilly-dally until about the offertory, and then they try to speed things up, usually by chopping large bits of the liturgy that follow. The first casualty is always a full eucharistic prayer, which in the ELCA's current book of worship is technically called a "Thanksgiving at the Table." Olaf suppresses rant.

To answer your question about the epiclesis, off the top of my head, all the ELCA euch prayers have some sort of epiclesis or epiclesis-esque language, and they all appear between the memorial acclamation and the final doxology of the prayer. For lack of better words, I would summarize some of them as epiclesis over the people, and others are epiclesis over the people and the elements.

Regarding sacrificial language, even in the ELCA, you will not find any such language, even the good old Anglican fudge, "sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving."

In the LCMS, they do have extra prayers that can be said after the Sanctus, but would bristle at calling them "eucharistic prayers." I can only recall the LCMS texts using what I called above an epiclesis over the people. I'm sure the elements aren't mentioned at that point.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Roman Rite Eucharistic Prayers place their Consecratory Epikleses before the words of institution. I grant that some Eastern Orthodox theologians do not think that the Consecratory Epiklesis preceding the words of institution in the Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer I) is valid, but that is a topic for another thread. The eucharistic prayer (anaphora) of the Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom places its consecratory epiklesis after the words of instution.
I've never understood that argument from some Orthodox. I don't like it.

There is certainly an insistence on the inclusion of an explicit epiklesis in the Orthodox Western Rites but I have never heard it explained as being corrective of some invalidity of the Roman Canon without it. (I'm not saying that there aren't those who would say this but rather that I've never encountered it.)

What I have encountered is a line of reasoning that seems to be applied elsewhere as well. For instance, there was some unpleasantness recently when one of our bishops ordained a number of men to the same order during the same service. This was met with strong reactions and action has been taken to calm things, but I haven't heard anybody in authority denying the validity of ordination performed in this manner. Rather, it has been described as uncanonical but not invalid, and those so ordained were spoken of as needing to be regularised but not ordained for a second time.

The understanding in both the case of these ordinations and of the insertion of the epiklesis into the Roman Canon seems to be that, while first millennium western practice was wholly Orthodox, it has been out of widespread use for well nigh a thousand years. During that time, the near-universal norm on certain matters has become firmly entrenched in the mind of the Orthodox Church, and this includes such things as a strong focus on the place of the epiklesis in the anaphora, and the rule that no more than one person is ordained to a single order within a single service. These are things that are so much a part of our Orthodox consciousness that one doesn't need to be a theologian or liturgy geek to know them: they're just part of the experience of every practising Orthodox Christian.

Therefore, regardless of what may have happened in the Orthodox West a millennium ago (the validity of which is not being called into question), those coming to the Orthodox Church from outside today are expected to conform to these Orthodox norms. This means no multiple ordinations and an explicit epiklesis in the canon, (the latter not being without western precedent anyway).

Personally, I have no problem with this. At different points in history and for various reasons, there has always been cross-fertilisation of texts and practice among the various rites of the Church. At Sarum, as the Sacrament was carried back to the altar, one of the Byzantine Resurrection stikhera from Matins was sung. The Gallican Mass imported the Trisagion due to eastern influence. More recently, the blessing of candles on 2nd February was transported directly from the Roman Rite into Slavic practice, with some of the prayers completely unchanged, (even though they refer to the procession with the blessed candles, which doesn't actually take place in the east). The influence of western harmonies on the musical and tonal chant tradition of the Russian Orthodox Church is immense. The epiklesis in the Roman Canon just strikes me as another similar development.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
The RCC currently teaches that, although an entire Eucharistic Prayer is consecratory, the consecration is effected by the end of the words of institution, which explains why all Eucharisitc Prayers composed for the Roman Rite after Vatican II placed their Consecratory Epikleses before the words of institution.

To put it more correctly: before the Eucharistic prayers of the Ordinary form (prayers II-IV, that is), there was no epiklesis in the Roman Catholic liturgy (Latin rite). And this rite is as old, or probably older, than most Eastern prayers. But anyway, the Roman Canon is venerable in its own right.

quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
Restoration of the words of institution in Addai & Mari? Is it possible to 'restore' something that was never there?

Well, some scholars say that it could have been there, and that there are textual evidence of that. I have no english language source for this, but there is a Norwegian article on this subject; Nils Hallvard Korsvoll, “Nattverd utan innstiftingsorda?” (Teologisk tidsskrift 1, 2012): 249-267. Teologisk tidsskrift (translated Theological Journal or Journal of Theology) is a Norwegian peer reviewed academic journal. That article has some english language sources.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0