Valid Consecration

[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."

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1699696' date='Nov 11 2008, 06:04 PM']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]).[/quote]

In the Roman Rite, the genuflection is made at times to the crucifix or a relic of the True Cross in addition to its primary use as a sign of adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1699812' date='Nov 11 2008, 06:58 PM']In the Roman Rite, the genuflection is made at times to the crucifix or a relic of the True Cross in addition to its primary use as a sign of adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.[/quote]
Ergo, one must not attach too much importance to genuflection after the words of institution, since that action is not by definition a sign of adoration.

Edited November 12, 2008 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

As an Eastern Catholic I believe that the entire eucharistic anaphora is consecratory, but if I had to identify a precise moment for the consecration of the elements I would place it at the epiclesis.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1699815' date='Nov 11 2008, 09:00 PM']Ergo, one must not attach too much importance to genuflection after the words of institution, since that action is not by definition a sign of adoration.[/quote]

I would disagree. A genuflection is by definition a sign of adoration, but when a genuflection is made to the a crucifix or relic of Christ's cross, it is relative adoration.

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1699818' date='Nov 11 2008, 09:03 PM']As an Eastern Catholic I believe that the entire eucharistic anaphora is consecratory, but if I had to identify a precise moment for the consecration of the elements I would place it at the epiclesis.[/quote]

The Church, however, at the Council of Trent, taught the following, my emphasis added:

"[b][S]tatim post consecrationem[/b] verum Domini nostri corpus verumque eius sanguinem sub panis et vini specie una cum ipsius anima et divinitate exsistere." (DS 1640)

"[b][I]mmediately after the consecration[/b] the true body of our Lord and His true blood together with His soul and divinity exist under the species of bread and wine."

And then defined the following infallibly, my emphasis aded:

"Si quis dixerit, peracta consecratione in admirabili Eucharistiae sacramento non esse corpus et sanguinem Domini nostri Iesu Christi, sed tantum in usu, dum sumitur, non autem ante vel post, et in hostiis seu particulis consecratis, quae post communionem reservantur vel supersunt, non remanere verum corpus Domini: an. s." (DS 1654)

"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."

One could argue that the Council did not mean to define the moment that the consecration took place, but this would be ridiculous since at the time of the Council the term "consecration" was practically synonymous with the Words of Institution.

[Apotheoun]

We will have to agree to disagree. I am a Byzantine Catholic and I follow the tradition of the Eastern Fathers and saints. Thus I repeat what I have already said, the whole of the eucharistic anaphora is consecratory, but if I must give a precise moment for the consecration of the elements I believe that it occurs at the epiclesis.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1699843' date='Nov 11 2008, 07:29 PM']One could argue that the Council did not mean to define the moment that the consecration took place, but this would be ridiculous since at the time of the Council the term "consecration" was practically synonymous with the Words of Institution.[/quote]
I agree with Archbishop Zoghby and the Melkite Catholic Church in holding that Trent does not represent the Byzantine tradition, and -- as a consequence -- that it does not bind Eastern Christians.

[Resurrexi]

One cannot disregard the teaching of the Magisterium merely because of his rite:

Can. 750 Those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal magisterium, which is manifested by the common adherence of Christ's faithful under the guidance of the sacred magisterium. All are therefore bound to shun any contrary doctrines.

Can. 752 While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ's faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.

[Apotheoun]

Those canons would only apply if my Church were truly subject to the teachings of the Council of Trent, but it is not. God bless.

[Resurrexi]

Trent does apply to the Eastern Catholic Churches. Trent fits the definitions of an Ecumenical Council set forth in your canon law:

Canon 51
1. It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical
council, to preside over it personally or through others, to
transfer, suspend or dissolve it, and to confirm its decrees.
2. It is for the same Roman Pontiff to determine matters to be
treated in a council and to establish the order to be followed in
the same council; to the questions proposed by the Roman Pontiff
the fathers of a council can add other questions, to be approved
by the same Roman Pontiff.

Canon 54
1. Decrees of an ecumenical council do not have obligatory
force unless they are approved by the Roman Pontiff together with
the fathers of the council and are confirmed by the Roman Pontiff
and promulgated at his order. 2. When the college of bishops
takes collegial action in another manner, initiated or freely
accepted by the Roman Pontiff, in order for its decrees to have
binding force, they need this same confirmation and promulgation.

[Apotheoun]

On this issue we are not going to agree. My Church holds that there have been seven ecumenical councils, and that we are bound by those councils, but the councils held by the Roman Church in the second millennium are particular synods of the Latin Church and only apply to that sui juris ecclesial body.