Valid Consecration

[Resurrexi]

I don't think accepting all the teachings of the Church means that you have to agree with the prudence of every discipline (if I'm correct in my understanding of what you're referring to).

But if you don't want to discuss this, that's fine.

[goldenchild17]

that's ok. I come from a different understanding where the faithful is supposed to trust their superiors in all decisions, infallible or otherwise, until a later authority confirms or tosses a teaching or discipline or whatever it may be. For me it is considered extremely disrespectful and disobedient to disregard a teaching or discipline that is not directly and very obviously sinful or wrong in some way. Even "just disciplines" are regarded as not infallible, but still require our assent until they are dismissed. But, that's just me. As for wanting to discuss things, I would love to, but starting all the way at the validity (or lack thereof) of certain sacraments is to lay waste to far too much absolutely essential groundwork material, groundwork material that is not to be laid out on this forum. So I just have to go ahead and pass altogether. peace

[T-Bone _]

.

Edited September 28, 2008 by T-Bone _

[LouisvilleFan]

Abracadabra!

[Slappo]

Oops, I voted no on baptism but meant to vote yes. I thought you had omitting the water in there . Surely Baptism can't be done without water, but I just read the question wrong.


So only 1 person voted no for Baptism.

Edited October 29, 2008 by Slappo

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1688087' date='Oct 28 2008, 03:42 PM']Abracadabra![/quote]

FWIW, I learned in my Discipleship course the other day, when we talked about the Mass, that the Church has moved to a more Eastern understanding of the consecration that views the entire Eucharistic Prayer as the consecrating act of the priest, rather than focusing on a single moment. Not that the previous teaching is wrong, but too much emphasis on the exact moment of consecration can make the priest appear to be a magician, of sorts.

[Slappo]

As far as I know, the Byzantine's hold to a singular moment of consecration. It just happens to be a DIFFERENT moment then the Latin rite. Consecration for Byzantine's takes place during the epeclesis.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Slappo' post='1689899' date='Oct 31 2008, 01:36 PM']As far as I know, the Byzantine's hold to a singular moment of consecration. It just happens to be a DIFFERENT moment then the Latin rite. Consecration for Byzantine's takes place during the epeclesis.[/quote]

I think it's the Epeclesis for all Catholic rites, if you really wish to pin it down to a moment. But, I'm surprised the Byzantines even teach that. The Orthodox certainly don't.

[Slappo]

I may be getting my liturgical words mixed up.

Latin rite views consecration to take place at the words "hic est enim corpus meum" whereas Byzantine's believe consecration to take place at the calling down of the Holy Spirit (which is after the words of institution).

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Slappo' post='1689984' date='Oct 31 2008, 04:04 PM']I may be getting my liturgical words mixed up.

Latin rite views consecration to take place at the words "hic est enim corpus meum" whereas Byzantine's believe consecration to take place at the calling down of the Holy Spirit (which is after the words of institution).[/quote]

Yeah, I'm not entirely certain on the vocabulary, but I think all the Eastern Rites believe that consecration occurs through the entire Eucharistic Prayer. They don't pin it down to any particular moment or words said by the priest. I know for sure this is the case with Eastern Orthodox. The Latin Rite, I suppose, still consider "This is my body" to be the words of consecration, but the Church is emphasizing more of an Eastern understanding of consecration to avoids figuring out exactly when God works. After all, it's a consecration, not a magic formula.

Edited October 31, 2008 by LouisvilleFan

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1689993' date='Oct 31 2008, 02:14 PM']Yeah, I'm not entirely certain on the vocabulary, but I think all the Eastern Rites believe that consecration occurs through the entire Eucharistic Prayer. They don't pin it down to any particular moment or words said by the priest. I know for sure this is the case with Eastern Orthodox. The Latin Rite, I suppose, still consider "This is my body" to be the words of consecration, but the Church is emphasizing more of an Eastern understanding of consecration to avoids figuring out exactly when God works. After all, it's a consecration, not a magic formula.[/quote]

The whole Church, in all its rites, believes that the consecration is effected by the Words of Institution alone. In the Byzantine Liturgy the priest makes the Greek equivalent of a genuflection after the Words of Institution in adoration of the Body of Christ then present upon the altar. Were the consecration not to occur at the Words of Institution, the priest would be committing idolatry.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1696246' date='Nov 6 2008, 07:59 PM']The whole Church, in all its rites, believes that the consecration is effected by the Words of Institution alone. In the Byzantine Liturgy the priest makes the Greek equivalent of a genuflection after the Words of Institution in adoration of the Body of Christ then present upon the altar. Were the consecration not to occur at the Words of Institution, the priest would be committing idolatry.[/quote]
The priest in the Byzantine liturgy makes a deep bow of reverence after the words of institution, while following the epiclesis he makes a profound bow to the floor. Neither of these ritual acts are the equivalent of the Roman rite's genuflection.

[Resurrexi]

The bow which the priest makes following the consecration is similar to the genuflection in that it is a sign of both humility and reverence. That bow is also similar to the genuflection in that it is an abbreviated prostration, while in the West the prostration has been replaced by the genuflection in most instances.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1699677' date='Nov 11 2008, 03:33 PM']The bow which the priest makes following the consecration is similar to the genuflection in that it is a sign of both humility and reverence. That bow is also similar to the genuflection in that it is an abbreviated prostration, while in the West the prostration has been replaced by the genuflection in most instances.[/quote]
These actions have different meanings in our two traditions. The more profound bow (i.e., the lesser [i]metania[/i]) that is made after the epiclesis is more important than the bows made at the words of institution, but both the bow and the lesser [i]metania[/i] (and even the greater [i]metania[/i]) can be made before icons, and other sacred objects, and so they do not signify an act of adoration properly so-called, but are rather signs of veneration ([i]proskynesis[/i]).

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1699677' date='Nov 11 2008, 03:33 PM']The bow which the priest makes following the consecration is similar to the genuflection in that it is a sign of both humility and reverence.[/quote]
In the Byzantine tradition the words of institution are not referred to as the "consecration."