Valid 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.

[Apotheoun]

The CCEO, as the Melkite Catholic Patriarch has indicated, establishes practices that are contrary to Eastern ecclesiology, and in so far as it does that it is not valid. Even Cardinal Kasper has indicated that the CCEO has only temporary validity pending the reunion of the Orthodox Churches.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1699866' date='Nov 11 2008, 09:51 PM']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.[/quote]


Were that true, the Maronites would not have professed that:

"I venerate also and accept all the other universal Synods which have been lawfully held and confirmed by the authority of the Roman Pontiff, and especially the Synod of Florence...

Likewise, I revere and accept the Council of Trent, and I profess what was defined and declared in it, and especially that there is offered to God in the Mass a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice, for the living and the dead, and that in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, in accordance with the faith that had always been in the Church of God, there is contained truly, really, and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and hence the whole Christ, and that there is made a change of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, which change the Catholic Church most fittingly calls transubstantiation, and that under each species and in each single part of each species, when a division is made, the whole Christ is contained." (DS 2534 - 2535)

Edited November 12, 2008 by Resurrexi

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1699873' date='Nov 11 2008, 08:00 PM']Were that true, the Maronites would not have professed that:

"I venerate also and accept all the other universal Synods which have been lawfully held and confirmed by the authority of the Roman Pontiff, and especially the Synod of Florence...[/quote]
The Maronites are a heavily Latinized Church, what their hierarches do -- even though I think it is foolish -- is their own business.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1699868' date='Nov 11 2008, 09:53 PM']The CCEO, as the Melkite Catholic Patriarch has indicated, establishes practices that are contrary to Eastern ecclesiology, and in so far as it does that it is not valid. Even Cardinal Kasper has indicated that the CCEO has only temporary validity pending the reunion of the Orthodox Churches.[/quote]

Following your logic, someone who assists at the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite regularly could deny that the deacon is an ordinary minister of Holy Communion even though the CIC says that the deacon is, simply because the deacon was not an ordinary minister of that Sacrament in 1962. This however, would be simply ridiculous. And regardless of whether Canon Law agrees with traditional practice, it is legally binding.

Edited November 12, 2008 by Resurrexi

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1699886' date='Nov 11 2008, 08:07 PM']Following your logic, someone who assists at the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite regularly could deny that the deacon is not and ordinary minister of Holy Communion even though the CIC says that the deacon is, simply because the deacon was not an ordinary minister of that Sacrament in 1962. This however, would be simply ridiculous. And regardless of whether Canon Law agrees with traditional practice, it is legally binding.[/quote]
What Roman Catholics do in their liturgy is their business.