 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 742 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16th, 2007 12:33 pm |
|
I have attended some Eastern services and I noticed that the order of prayers at the consecration is slightly different. I assume that the change in the elements takes place when the priest says the words "this is my body..."
But in the Latin Rite we already said in our anaphora (is that what this is called) ('send your spirit on these gifts that they may become for us...' Wheras in the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom they first say 'this is my body' then they go on to ask the Spirit to come upon the gifts and bless them and literally say something to the effect of 'change them in to the body and blood...' I am pretty sure they already are changed by then. Or are they? When do they change? and if it is with the same words, why do they have words just after that that sound like the place where the change is taking place?
Priest:
Take, eat, this is my Body which is broken for you for the forgiveness of sins.
People:
Amen.
Priest (in a low voice):
Likewise, after supper, He took the cup, saying:
Priest:
Drink of it all of you; this is my Blood of the new Covenant which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.
People:
Amen.
Priest (in a low voice):
Remembering, therefore, this command of the Savior, and all that came to pass for our sake, the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the enthronement at the right hand of the Father, and the second, glorious coming,
Priest:
We offer to You these gifts from Your own gifts in all and for all.
People:
We praise You, we bless You, we give thanks to You, and we pray to You, Lord our God.
Priest (in a low voice):
Once again we offer to You this spiritual worship without the shedding of blood, and we ask, pray, and entreat You: send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here presented.
And make this bread the precious Body of Your Christ.
(He blesses the holy Bread.)
Deacon (in a low voice):
Amen.
Priest (in a low voice):
And that which is in this cup the precious Blood of Your Christ.
(He blesses the holy Cup.)
Deacon (in a low voice):
Amen.
Priest (in a low voice):
Changing them by Your Holy Spirit.
(He blesses them both.)
Deacon (in a low voice):
Amen. Amen. Amen.
Secondly, if we believe that the sacrifice is the same each day. For it is one eternal sacrifice, why in the liturgy do they refer to "unbloody sacrifices" Is it just because to us it is plural or taking place on many altars, but to God it is one sacrifice? Is it many or is it one? or is it both? I guess I want to make positive that in this liturgy it is understood indeed as one sacrifice, and then ask why use the term plural.
Priest (in a low voice):
We give thanks unto Thee, O Lord God of the Powers, Who hast accounted us worthy to stand even now before Thy holy altar, and to prostrate ourselves before Thy compassion for our sins and errors of the people. Accept our supplications, O God; make us worthy to offer unto Thee prayers and supplications, and bloodless sacrifices for all Thy people. And enable us, whom Thou hast appointed in this Thy ministry, by the power of Thy Holy Spirit, blamelessly and without offense, in the pure testimony of our conscience, to call upon Thee at all times and in every place; that hearing us, Thou mayest show mercy upon us according to the multitude of Thy goodness.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5079 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16th, 2007 05:22 pm |
|
Brian, I did some research before answering this question because it is something that is not really doctrinally defined in the east.
My primary source is the forum on the ByzCath website.
Essentially, Eastern theology does not specify a "moment" of consecration but considers it an action that takes place during the Eucharistic Prayer. This is especially true with the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, which is considered valid by the Catholic Church even though it does not include an institution narrative.
Robert Taft has a very interesting article in America magazine about the "moment" of consecration that you'll find here. It is referenced in the thread at ByzCath.
The "Anaphora" in the Eastern liturgy is called the Canon or Eucharistic Prayer in the west; the "Epiclesis" is the prayer calling down the Holy Spirit to transform the gifts. Originally it was said after the words of institution in both the east and west, but in the west it was moved to before the "moment of consecration". However, as best I can tell, there is no doctrine that specifies the exact moment of transition. Instead, the common teaching in both the east and the west is that when the Eucharistic Prayer/Anaphora is complete, the conversion has taken place.
I admit this is not something I am really sure of. I've looked around a few web sites including ByzCath, New Advent, America, and a few others looking for specific information. Basically what I find on Western sites is that it takes place at the words of institution (although these are not doctrinal statements); on Eastern sites, the general answer is, "Why does it matter? When the Anaphora is complete, the Savior is present."
New Advent has an interesting take on why the "moment" of consecration is considered important in the west. Since the mass was in Latin and the people were praying privately, the priest would elevate the Eucharist over his head so the people could see and adore it. That serves no purpose unless the elements are already consecrated, so the Epiclesis was moved to before the words of institution. In the west, all essential elements of the consecration narrative have taken place by the words of institution so we can safely say the consecration is complete. In the east, all elements have not taken place at that point, but the Sacrament is certainly truly present by the end of the Anaphora.
Note that this article is from 1917, and both the liturgy and the teaching in the west has changed from that represented in the article. There is no longer a question of legitimacy of the Sacrament in both the east and the west, in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 742 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 17th, 2007 01:58 am |
|
| Thank you for your help. The reason I wanted to know was that I was getting confised as to when I could feel sadfe to adore Jesus in the host. I started doing it at when I thought it had taken place, and then a few prayers later I was like, wait, maybe I was adoring pre transformed bread and wine, which I am not comfortable with. Of course, God knows my heart and would not hold it against me. but I prefer to know what I am worshipping. So from now on I will wait until all the prayers are said before I adore Jesus specifically in the elements.
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 742 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 26th, 2007 01:28 am |
|
So are you telling me, Rick, that it is not a point of doctrine to believe that the hosty is changed at a specific time? That it is merely widely held view in the west but not necessarily completely definedor forced on us to accept? That if I wanted to say that I do not know when the consecration takes place but I do know that it takes place by the end of the prayers that I am within my right to do so? It would seem weird to me that we would have to believe it takes place at a certain time and allow the East to disagree with us on that matter. I would think that if one could just join the Eastern rite and believe what they believe they should be free to believe the same things as a western Catholic, as long as they practice the faith as they are asked.
From now on if people ask me when we know the consecration takes place I will tell them both sides instead of telling them that it is definitely at this specific moment.
We seem pretty confident in the west since many churches ring bells at the words of consecration. But perhaps this is just letting us know something Holy is going on. Though I was at a church in Indiana where they rang the bell during the anaphora which was interesting.
Also the Byzantine priest told me that it is not the priest who transforms the bread and wine, but rather it is the Holy Spirit. Is this also acceptable to believe for us in the latin rite?
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1790 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 26th, 2007 01:43 am |
|
Considering the differences in the anaphoras of the respective traditions, it simply makes sense to say that for the Eastern Christians, the consecration is complete by the end of the anaphora, whereas for the Western Catholics, the specific words of consecration make it easy to say, “At this point we have transubstantiation.” So I see no contradiction.
Yes, it is the Holy Spirit’s power that effects the consecration. In both Eastern and Western tradition the Holy Spirit is invoked for this purpose (at the epiclesis). However, it is the priest, in persona Christi, who invokes and who pronounces the words of consecration (regardless of whether this is viewed as a single sentence or the entire anaphora). So his act is also necessary to the process.
David
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 742 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 26th, 2007 04:13 am |
|
So all I am bound to believe is that we definitely have consecration by the end of the prayers in either liturgy, and in neither do I have to believe that it took part after a specific word or phrase but rather as a result of the event as it takes place in kairos time. But if I said that I did not believe entirely that it was this or that phrase that effects the change in either liturgy, I am within my right to do so.
“At this point we have transubstantiation.”
That is different than saying that transubstantiation is the direct result of that specific phrase or did not somehow start or finish happening before the phrase.
What you say makes sense, because after all the phrases have been prayed we can know for sure Christ is present. I just wanted to see if I had freedom to believe that it was not 100% sure that it was definitely at the moment the priest says 'this is my body' though to agree with the Latin church that at that point, in one way or another, the change has taken place and I must say 'amen' and adore the consecrated elements regardless of how or when they became Jesus present on the table.
I guess I just find it odd that if we do have the freedom to take this approach, why it would be so easy to find it written that the consecration takes place at a certain time. When encountering this topic why not include both theories?
Here was something interesting I found. My question is which is true: that the church never has made a dogmatic statement on the matter, or that the council of trent quote is a dogmatic statement proving what we do believe? Or is the Trent quote still not binding because it only says that 'immediately after these words it has taken place'....well does that mean that immediately after hearing those words we know one way or another Jesus is present, or does it mean, that Jesus became present immediately after and as a result of that specific statement. 'immediately after' does not specifically mean as a result of, so much as from that point on we can be certain something has happened? and it does not say they immediately after become Jesus, but that they 'are present' immediately after this phrase.
The Western Church asserted the body and blood are present at the completion of the words of consecration. The Eastern Church supported the view that the real presence takes place through the epiclesis (the prayer for the sending or coming of the Spirit to sanctify the gifts of bread and wine).
According to Richard McBrien in his Encyclopedia of Catholicism (Harper Collins), ecumenical theologians in the 1990's avoid attempts to locate a moment of consecration at either the epiclesis or words of institution. They prefer, he says, to consider the entire prayer over the gifts, and not one of its isolated moments, as the consecratory prayer.
Emminghaus observes that the Church has never made a dogmatic pronouncement on the point.
Ludwig Ott, however, in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Herder Book Company, 1955) states it as certain that the form of the Eucharist consists of Christ's words of institution uttered at the consecration. And Ott cites the Council of Trent as teaching, 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 the true blood of the Lord are present."
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1790 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 26th, 2007 08:23 am |
|
I don’t think you are grasping my meaning. The Eastern liturgies are more diffuse, and it is difficult to pin down verbally an exact phrase where the transubstantiation takes place. So it seems quite right simply to say that by the end of the anaphora it has occurred, without specifying an exact moment. Western liturgies, however, are more specific, and it is indeed possible to point to the exact phrase of consecration. Therefore we are able to speak of “the words of institution.”
This is why, in ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox, we see an avoidance of specifying the exact moment of transubstantiation. Yet in the Western tradition, it is quite possible because we have the verbal confirmation. Hence the words from the Council of Trent, which deals with the Roman Rite only.
David
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 742 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 26th, 2007 01:58 pm |
|
| How do we know that the statement at Trent deals with the Roman Rite only? I believe there were some Byzantine Catholic churches by that point? Who does a council speak to or not? Why would it not speak to the Eastern Catholics as well?
|
|
|
Current time is 05:46 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
