Author Topic: On the Eucharistia  (Read 7968 times)

John_Hannah

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 5743
    • View Profile
Re: On the Eucharistia
« Reply #75 on: March 24, 2010, 03:48:34 PM »

Scott: You are quite correct. The Epiclesis is absolutely ESSENTIAL to an Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Consecration. If I understand Lutheranism correctly, it is not essential at all. Only the Words of Institution are essential in the Lutheran tradition. Perhaps your suggestion would be the better choice. Since Lutheran theology does not require an epiclesis, perhaps it would be better to follow your suggestion and NOT have one. After all, that would seem to make the Lutheran position clearer for all to see.  However, I do sympathize with Pastor Weedon, who has a great appreciation of what the Church catholic has done for the past 2,000 years, and who would like to see the Epiclesis rehabilitated in Lutheran circles. I do think it could be rehabiltated, and if phrased properly, not do violence to Lutheran theology.

Although Rome and Orthodoxy have had a different understanding of the Epiclesis, and even insert it at different places in the Mass/Divine Liturgy, Rome (at least in the Roman Canon) inserting it BEFORE the Verba and the Orthodox inserting it AFTER the Verba, our differences regarding this matter were never seen to be insurmountable. St. Nicholas Cabasilas (1323- 1391), who wrote a commentary on the Divine Liturgy in the 14th century and compared it to the Roman Mass, found the Epiclesis in the Roman Mass fully acceptable, even though it is worded differently and occurs in a different place. Cabasilas called Rome's version an "ascending Epiclesis" and he called the Orthodox version a "descending Epiclesis". 

In the Roman Rite, the Epiclesis comes during the Offertory, as the gifts of bread and wine are placed on the altar, and before the Canon of the Mass begins. In the Roman Rite the priest uses these words:

Veni, sanctificator, omnipotens aeterne Deus: et benedic hoc sacrificium, tuo sancto nomini praeparatum.
Come, Thou sanctifier, almighty, everlasting God, and bless these sacrificial gifts, prepared for the glory of thy holy name. 

The Mass then proceeds with the Canon. The Verba are indeed enclosed in a Eucharistic Prayer, but if I under Roman theology correctly on this point,  it is the words of the Verba that bring about the Eucharistic change, as long as they are recited by a validly ordained priest.

The Orthodox Eucharistic Rite, on the other hand, begins with the recitation of the Nicene Creed.  Then the deacon summons the people with these words:
Let us stand aright! Let us stand with fear! Let us attend, that we may offer the Holy Oblation in peace.
People: A mercy of peace! A sacrifice of praise!

Then the Eucharistic Prayer (the Anaphora) follows, and it has a very deliberate Trinitarian structure to it.  First the God the Father is addressed. He is praised mainly for his role in Creation, for 'bringing us from nonexistence into being', for creating mankind and the angelic hosts.  Secondly, God the Son is mentioned. Great stress is laid upon his incarnation, birth, betrayal, the cross, the resurrection, the Ascension and the Second Coming. Within the middle part of this Eucharistic Prayer, when the narrative refers to "the night in which He gave Himself up for the life of the world", the Verba are recited. In fact, rather pointedly, after the priest intones "Take! Eat! This is my Body ... Take! Drink! This is My Blood..." the congregation responds with a hearty "Amen".

Now to a Westerner, one might think that the Eucharist is duly consecrated at this point. But to an Orthodox it isn't finished yet. We haven't yet mentioned the Holy Spirit. To the Orthodox mind it is simply impossible to start speaking of the Father, and the Son and not include the Holy Spirit. Remember how the Orthodox Eucharistic Rite begins with the Creed? And the Creed calls the Holy Spirit "the Lord and Giver of Life". Therefore to the Orthodox mind, we have to invoke the Giver of Life in the Eucharist as well, especially since all Three Persons of the Holy Trinity are involved in the Holy Sacraments.  So unlike the Roman or the Lutheran Rite, the Orthodox Rite continues to supplicate the Holy Spirit after the Institution Narrative is finished. The Priest addresses God the Father, beseeching Him to send down the Holy Spirit "upon us and upon these Gifts here offered" and  "make this Bread the precious Body of Thy Christ" and "that which is in in this Cup, the precious Blood of Thy Christ" and finally beseeching "Making the change by Thy Holy Spirit" folllowed by the triple amen.

For the Orthodox, this is the moment of certainty when we know our Lord is truly Present.  Just as in the Roman Rite, the priest will genuflect to adore Christ in the Sacrament after he has finished reciting the Verba, so Orthodox Christians will prostrate themselves to adore Christ after the Epiclesis.

I would maintain that if Lutherans do restore the Epiclesis, they would be wise to insert it BEFORE the Verba to honor its historic place in the Western Rite.


If I recall accurately, Arthur Carl Piepkorn held exactly that position.

Peace, JOHN HANNAH
Pr. JOHN HANNAH, STS

BrotherBoris

  • Guest
Re: On the Eucharistia
« Reply #76 on: March 24, 2010, 04:26:47 PM »

Scott: You are quite correct. The Epiclesis is absolutely ESSENTIAL to an Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Consecration. If I understand Lutheranism correctly, it is not essential at all. Only the Words of Institution are essential in the Lutheran tradition. Perhaps your suggestion would be the better choice. Since Lutheran theology does not require an epiclesis, perhaps it would be better to follow your suggestion and NOT have one. After all, that would seem to make the Lutheran position clearer for all to see.  However, I do sympathize with Pastor Weedon, who has a great appreciation of what the Church catholic has done for the past 2,000 years, and who would like to see the Epiclesis rehabilitated in Lutheran circles. I do think it could be rehabiltated, and if phrased properly, not do violence to Lutheran theology.

Although Rome and Orthodoxy have had a different understanding of the Epiclesis, and even insert it at different places in the Mass/Divine Liturgy, Rome (at least in the Roman Canon) inserting it BEFORE the Verba and the Orthodox inserting it AFTER the Verba, our differences regarding this matter were never seen to be insurmountable. St. Nicholas Cabasilas (1323- 1391), who wrote a commentary on the Divine Liturgy in the 14th century and compared it to the Roman Mass, found the Epiclesis in the Roman Mass fully acceptable, even though it is worded differently and occurs in a different place. Cabasilas called Rome's version an "ascending Epiclesis" and he called the Orthodox version a "descending Epiclesis". 

In the Roman Rite, the Epiclesis comes during the Offertory, as the gifts of bread and wine are placed on the altar, and before the Canon of the Mass begins. In the Roman Rite the priest uses these words:

Veni, sanctificator, omnipotens aeterne Deus: et benedic hoc sacrificium, tuo sancto nomini praeparatum.
Come, Thou sanctifier, almighty, everlasting God, and bless these sacrificial gifts, prepared for the glory of thy holy name. 

The Mass then proceeds with the Canon. The Verba are indeed enclosed in a Eucharistic Prayer, but if I under Roman theology correctly on this point,  it is the words of the Verba that bring about the Eucharistic change, as long as they are recited by a validly ordained priest.

The Orthodox Eucharistic Rite, on the other hand, begins with the recitation of the Nicene Creed.  Then the deacon summons the people with these words:
Let us stand aright! Let us stand with fear! Let us attend, that we may offer the Holy Oblation in peace.
People: A mercy of peace! A sacrifice of praise!

Then the Eucharistic Prayer (the Anaphora) follows, and it has a very deliberate Trinitarian structure to it.  First the God the Father is addressed. He is praised mainly for his role in Creation, for 'bringing us from nonexistence into being', for creating mankind and the angelic hosts.  Secondly, God the Son is mentioned. Great stress is laid upon his incarnation, birth, betrayal, the cross, the resurrection, the Ascension and the Second Coming. Within the middle part of this Eucharistic Prayer, when the narrative refers to "the night in which He gave Himself up for the life of the world", the Verba are recited. In fact, rather pointedly, after the priest intones "Take! Eat! This is my Body ... Take! Drink! This is My Blood..." the congregation responds with a hearty "Amen".

Now to a Westerner, one might think that the Eucharist is duly consecrated at this point. But to an Orthodox it isn't finished yet. We haven't yet mentioned the Holy Spirit. To the Orthodox mind it is simply impossible to start speaking of the Father, and the Son and not include the Holy Spirit. Remember how the Orthodox Eucharistic Rite begins with the Creed? And the Creed calls the Holy Spirit "the Lord and Giver of Life". Therefore to the Orthodox mind, we have to invoke the Giver of Life in the Eucharist as well, especially since all Three Persons of the Holy Trinity are involved in the Holy Sacraments.  So unlike the Roman or the Lutheran Rite, the Orthodox Rite continues to supplicate the Holy Spirit after the Institution Narrative is finished. The Priest addresses God the Father, beseeching Him to send down the Holy Spirit "upon us and upon these Gifts here offered" and  "make this Bread the precious Body of Thy Christ" and "that which is in in this Cup, the precious Blood of Thy Christ" and finally beseeching "Making the change by Thy Holy Spirit" folllowed by the triple amen.

For the Orthodox, this is the moment of certainty when we know our Lord is truly Present.  Just as in the Roman Rite, the priest will genuflect to adore Christ in the Sacrament after he has finished reciting the Verba, so Orthodox Christians will prostrate themselves to adore Christ after the Epiclesis.

I would maintain that if Lutherans do restore the Epiclesis, they would be wise to insert it BEFORE the Verba to honor its historic place in the Western Rite.


If I recall accurately, Arthur Carl Piepkorn held exactly that position.

Peace, JOHN HANNAH

Well, I am honored to know that I stand in such illustrious company. I highly respect the sainted A. C. Piepkorn. That man had a real VISION of what the Lutheran Church could be. One can also hope the Missouri Synod might raise up some more men like him in our present age.

Boris

Scott6

  • Guest
Re: On the Eucharistia
« Reply #77 on: March 24, 2010, 04:32:21 PM »

Scott: You are quite correct. The Epiclesis is absolutely ESSENTIAL to an Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Consecration. If I understand Lutheranism correctly, it is not essential at all. Only the Words of Institution are essential in the Lutheran tradition. Perhaps your suggestion would be the better choice. Since Lutheran theology does not require an epiclesis, perhaps it would be better to follow your suggestion and NOT have one. After all, that would seem to make the Lutheran position clearer for all to see.  However, I do sympathize with Pastor Weedon, who has a great appreciation of what the Church catholic has done for the past 2,000 years, and who would like to see the Epiclesis rehabilitated in Lutheran circles. I do think it could be rehabiltated, and if phrased properly, not do violence to Lutheran theology.

Although Rome and Orthodoxy have had a different understanding of the Epiclesis, and even insert it at different places in the Mass/Divine Liturgy, Rome (at least in the Roman Canon) inserting it BEFORE the Verba and the Orthodox inserting it AFTER the Verba, our differences regarding this matter were never seen to be insurmountable. St. Nicholas Cabasilas (1323- 1391), who wrote a commentary on the Divine Liturgy in the 14th century and compared it to the Roman Mass, found the Epiclesis in the Roman Mass fully acceptable, even though it is worded differently and occurs in a different place. Cabasilas called Rome's version an "ascending Epiclesis" and he called the Orthodox version a "descending Epiclesis". 

In the Roman Rite, the Epiclesis comes during the Offertory, as the gifts of bread and wine are placed on the altar, and before the Canon of the Mass begins. In the Roman Rite the priest uses these words:

Veni, sanctificator, omnipotens aeterne Deus: et benedic hoc sacrificium, tuo sancto nomini praeparatum.
Come, Thou sanctifier, almighty, everlasting God, and bless these sacrificial gifts, prepared for the glory of thy holy name. 

The Mass then proceeds with the Canon. The Verba are indeed enclosed in a Eucharistic Prayer, but if I under Roman theology correctly on this point,  it is the words of the Verba that bring about the Eucharistic change, as long as they are recited by a validly ordained priest.

The Orthodox Eucharistic Rite, on the other hand, begins with the recitation of the Nicene Creed.  Then the deacon summons the people with these words:
Let us stand aright! Let us stand with fear! Let us attend, that we may offer the Holy Oblation in peace.
People: A mercy of peace! A sacrifice of praise!

Then the Eucharistic Prayer (the Anaphora) follows, and it has a very deliberate Trinitarian structure to it.  First the God the Father is addressed. He is praised mainly for his role in Creation, for 'bringing us from nonexistence into being', for creating mankind and the angelic hosts.  Secondly, God the Son is mentioned. Great stress is laid upon his incarnation, birth, betrayal, the cross, the resurrection, the Ascension and the Second Coming. Within the middle part of this Eucharistic Prayer, when the narrative refers to "the night in which He gave Himself up for the life of the world", the Verba are recited. In fact, rather pointedly, after the priest intones "Take! Eat! This is my Body ... Take! Drink! This is My Blood..." the congregation responds with a hearty "Amen".

Now to a Westerner, one might think that the Eucharist is duly consecrated at this point. But to an Orthodox it isn't finished yet. We haven't yet mentioned the Holy Spirit. To the Orthodox mind it is simply impossible to start speaking of the Father, and the Son and not include the Holy Spirit. Remember how the Orthodox Eucharistic Rite begins with the Creed? And the Creed calls the Holy Spirit "the Lord and Giver of Life". Therefore to the Orthodox mind, we have to invoke the Giver of Life in the Eucharist as well, especially since all Three Persons of the Holy Trinity are involved in the Holy Sacraments.  So unlike the Roman or the Lutheran Rite, the Orthodox Rite continues to supplicate the Holy Spirit after the Institution Narrative is finished. The Priest addresses God the Father, beseeching Him to send down the Holy Spirit "upon us and upon these Gifts here offered" and  "make this Bread the precious Body of Thy Christ" and "that which is in in this Cup, the precious Blood of Thy Christ" and finally beseeching "Making the change by Thy Holy Spirit" folllowed by the triple amen.

For the Orthodox, this is the moment of certainty when we know our Lord is truly Present.  Just as in the Roman Rite, the priest will genuflect to adore Christ in the Sacrament after he has finished reciting the Verba, so Orthodox Christians will prostrate themselves to adore Christ after the Epiclesis.

I would maintain that if Lutherans do restore the Epiclesis, they would be wise to insert it BEFORE the Verba to honor its historic place in the Western Rite.


If I recall accurately, Arthur Carl Piepkorn held exactly that position.

Peace, JOHN HANNAH

Which aspect of what Brother Boris wrote?

Weedon

  • Guest
Re: On the Eucharistia
« Reply #78 on: March 24, 2010, 04:35:31 PM »
Brother Boris,

I heartily concur on the location of an epiclesis PRIOR to the Verba as the best option from a Lutheran perspective, should one have an epiclesis at all.  What I always find a tad odd is that the Lutheran doctrine of the consecration so very much leans upon St. John Chrysostom's famous words about Christ blessing the table with His own words and causing the bread to be His body; yet the Orthodox do not run with this statement of the Golden Mouth, or at best regard its approach as incomplete.  I seem to remember that there were some words of Nyssa in the Great Catechism that also leaned toward the consecration being effected by the Words of our Lord.  Whatever, it is a classic east/west difference.  

John_Hannah

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 5743
    • View Profile
Re: On the Eucharistia
« Reply #79 on: March 24, 2010, 04:47:34 PM »

I would maintain that if Lutherans do restore the Epiclesis, they would be wise to insert it BEFORE the Verba to honor its historic place in the Western Rite.


If I recall accurately, Arthur Carl Piepkorn held exactly that position.

Peace, JOHN HANNAH
[/quote]

Which aspect of what Brother Boris wrote?
[/quote]

That the Verba effect the consecration (in line with the West). Epiclesis does not (opposing the East). Epiclesis before would be more appropriate.

Peace, JOHN HANNAH
Pr. JOHN HANNAH, STS

Scott6

  • Guest
Re: On the Eucharistia
« Reply #80 on: March 24, 2010, 05:29:22 PM »
Quote
Quote

I would maintain that if Lutherans do restore the Epiclesis, they would be wise to insert it BEFORE the Verba to honor its historic place in the Western Rite.


If I recall accurately, Arthur Carl Piepkorn held exactly that position.

Peace, JOHN HANNAH

Which aspect of what Brother Boris wrote?

That the Verba effect the consecration (in line with the West). Epiclesis does not (opposing the East). Epiclesis before would be more appropriate.

Peace, JOHN HANNAH

Thanks -- a quick note, the bit in the center boxed quote is not from me but from Brother Boris.

Back to my comp...

Weedon

  • Guest
Re: On the Eucharistia
« Reply #81 on: March 24, 2010, 05:43:52 PM »
Scott,

Discussing the Holy Eucharist is a LOT MORE FUN than comps.  Get your priorities straight, lad!  ;)

MaddogLutheran

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3695
  • It's my fantasy football avatar...
    • View Profile
Re: On the Eucharistia
« Reply #82 on: March 24, 2010, 05:57:58 PM »
Yes, I am certainly having fun following you guys...and getting the Eastern perspective too from Brother Boris!

Sterling
Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter

Scott6

  • Guest
Re: On the Eucharistia
« Reply #83 on: March 24, 2010, 08:44:10 PM »
Scott,

Discussing the Holy Eucharist is a LOT MORE FUN than comps.  Get your priorities straight, lad!  ;)

Hey, if you've never critiqued Gadamer's wirkungsgeschichtliches Bewusstsein via Ricoeur, Peirce and Derrida, you just haven't lived...

And though I'm not commenting much for the next couple days, I'm still reading.  I'd appreciate any reactions you had to the below post which I think most succinctly encapsulates my concern re: the epiclesis, esp. now that Brother Boris has beautifully presented the Orthodox understanding of its importance (which I'll comment on later):

Scott,

That would be a fine epiclesis in my book - however, I do not understand your objection to the other forms in light of the fact that we constantly pray for things which are most certainly promised and given even without our prayers.  I'm not sure you've dealt with that in your replies - but I may have missed it, if you did.  

If an epiclesis is defined so broadly that it's no longer an invocation but a declarative statement, then I'm not sure in what sense it remains an epiclesis whose definition is, in fact, "invocation" or "calling down."

There is, of course, no problem but rather a most blessed thing in a prayer to pray back what God has promised, even in the imperative mood.  "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us."

The problem I'm raising is that in the context of the Sacrament, such language of invoking God to do something will (and historically has) be seen as that which invokes or causes the presence of what it commands / asks.  It doesn't have to, but the tendency by the very type of speech act it is does (and has) tended in this direction.

That you are willing to change the form of the epiclesis from an invocation to a declaration shows, methinks, that you're Lutheran.  I wonder if our Roman Catholic and Orthodox brothers would be equally willing, or if they would see something else at stake in this discussion.

And it's that "something else" that I'm concerned about.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2010, 08:46:02 PM by Scott Yakimow »

BrotherBoris

  • Guest
Re: On the Eucharistia
« Reply #84 on: March 24, 2010, 10:58:35 PM »
Thank you for your kind words, Scott.

I'm trying to be as fair and as even-handed as I possibly can in this discussion.  When I think of the Lutheran understanding of the Consecration, I think particularly of Saint Augustine and his statement, Accedat verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum, that is "The Word is added to the element and it becomes a Sacrament. This was a favorite of Luther and Augustine's maxim is quoted numerous times in the Lutheran Confessions. I would suggest that it forms the very basis of Lutheran sacramental theology. It seems, at least to me, that Roman Catholic sacramental theology also closely follows this maxim of Augustine's, with the addition that a validly ordained priest is necessary to confect the Eucharist. But other than the validly ordained priest requirement , the Lutheran and Catholic views seem very, very close to me.  Given Augustine's enormous influence on the Latin Church, it is only natural that his views on the sacraments would shape the minds of how Western Christians view the Sacraments. We are all products of our history.

Now here are where things start to get complicated, or at least "messy" theologically. The East never had an Augustine. We have no one Church Father who shines head and shoulders above the rest. Secondly, Augustine wrote only in Latin. He couldn't even read Greek, much less write anything in it. Because of accidents of historical circumstances, Augustine's writing were not translated into Greek (or Russian, for that matter) until the 19th century in most places. Therefore, all our sacramental theology developed without him, and without his influence. For good or for bad, that is the case. So when one looks at Eastern Christian sacramental theology, one has to abandon Augustinian definitions and categories, because that framework simply isn't there. It won't help you understand it.

Secondly, if you study the Epiclesis and the Eastern view of it and its importance, you will eventually discover that it proceeds from a slightly different understanding of the Holy Trinity than the West has.  Remember that the East defines the Trinity differently from the West. In the East, the Father is the source of unity in the Trinity. He holds it together. The two other persons (the Son and the Holy Spirit) are defined by their relationship to the Father. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father. The Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father. St. Irenaeus of Lyons refers to the Son and the Holy Spirit as the "hands of the Father." And thus when we speak of God acting in something, i.e. the Sacraments, it is natural to us to think that He uses BOTH his hands. This is quite different from Augustine who defines the Holy Spirit as the "love between the Father and the Son."  For an Orthodox, such a statement is woefully inadequate because it both de-personalizes the Spirit, and seems to subordinate Him below Christ. How can one invoke the "love between the Father and the Son" to do anything? I don't want to belabor the point, but to understand the Orthodox insistence on an Epiclesis, you really have to understand why the Orthodox reject the filioque in the Creed, because the two are inversely related. For if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, then, I suppose, using the Son's words (the Verba) would be enough, because somehow the Holy Spirit could proceed from that and bring about the sacramental change. However, if one believes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and not the Son, then using the Son's words (the Verba) by themselves seems to us a bit too formulaic, too (dare I say) "magical" (in the negative sense), too much like just following a recipe. Think of it like baking a cake. You have the text before you (the recipe.) As you recite the recipe, you add the ingredients together to make a cake. And you pour the batter into the cake pan, just like we prepare the Chalice for the Eucharist. But in the Orthodox understanding, it isn't cake yet. Oh its POTENTIALLY cake, yes. All the necessary ingredients are there. But you have to put that cake pan in the oven. You have to add heat. You have to add the fire of the Holy Spirit to it. Only then does it rise and show that it has been "given life" and truly become "cake".  That's kind of our view of the Epiclesis, if you will all pardon my rather crude illustration. Now I suppose some Lutheran might object to invoking the Holy Spirit because that might be interpreted as a "work" or "something we do." Yes, the priest does beseech the Holy Spirit to make the change. But the priest himself doesn't make the change. He only asks (or more literally "begs") the Holy Spirit to bring about the change. The miraculous change is still purely a gift of grace. We can't force the Holy Spirit to do anything. When we think of our Lord's Incarnation in the Womb of the Blessed Virgin, Orthodox think of Mary's question, How shall this be? And what answer was she given? "The power of the Most High shall come upon you and the Holy Spirit will overshadow you" .... that's sort of an Epiclesis to us. So we like to think that an Epiclesis is required to bring about our Lord's Incarnation in the Eucharist as well.

However, let me clearly and unequivocally state that Orthodox do not teach that the Eucharist is consecrated by the Epiclesis alone. Our tradition requires both the Verba and the Epiclesis, or as St. Irenaeus would say "both hands of the Father."

I hope this helps. And I hope I have not distorted or spoken unfairly of anyone else's views.

Let the discussion continue.

Boris

Harvey_Mozolak

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4857
    • View Profile
    • line and letter lettuce
Re: On the Eucharistia
« Reply #85 on: March 25, 2010, 06:26:55 AM »
I am going to ask this without thinking (or opening my Bible) but where are there scriptural references to the Holy Spiirit in connection to the Verbi and/or to the Eucharist?  Now I will think and look and someone else may write even before I find.  Harvey Mozolak
Harvey S. Mozolak
my poetry blog is listed below:

http://lineandletterlettuce.blogspot.com

Harvey_Mozolak

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4857
    • View Profile
    • line and letter lettuce
Re: On the Eucharistia
« Reply #86 on: March 25, 2010, 06:50:21 AM »
well, for one, you might have to wrestle, if you find the Sacerdotal prayer to be Eucharistic, with its words that say that the Spirit of truth brings guidance and how he will make what is Christ's, which all belongs to Father, known to the disciples and to us.  Does the Spirit not only open the scriptures and faith to us but also open the glory and trust to us that the bread and wine is in reality the body and blood of Christ?  Jesus concludes somewhat cryptically, "a little while see me no more, little while see me..." and what of that which was being passed about that time and what it looked like and yet it was and is unseen?


Then there is the proximity, in 1 Corinthians 11 of the Pauline "no one can say Jesus is Lord" to his rehearsing the meal in the night of betrayal....  No one can say, this bread is Christ's body, this cup is Christ's blood, "except by the Spirit?"   Discussion on the epiclesis has so far spoken of timing, need for and whether or how it makes change, but what of the Spirit as the blessed One who brings knowledge, faith, understanding, wisdom, love and all the gifts that are like wine's overtones and undercurrents, gifts of Eucharist?

Harvey Mozolak
Harvey S. Mozolak
my poetry blog is listed below:

http://lineandletterlettuce.blogspot.com

Weedon

  • Guest
Re: On the Eucharistia
« Reply #87 on: March 25, 2010, 08:57:01 AM »
Discussion on the epiclesis has so far spoken of timing, need for and whether or how it makes change, but what of the Spirit as the blessed One who brings knowledge, faith, understanding, wisdom, love and all the gifts that are like wine's overtones and undercurrents, gifts of Eucharist?

That is the path Krauth was headed down when he wrote:  

The Apostolic Constitutions direct... The prayer is made:  "Send down Thy Holy Spirit, that He may show this bread (to be) the body of Thy Christ, and this cup the blood of Thy Christ"  Here, in the earliest form, the function of the Holy Ghost in the Supper is clearly stated  - not the consummation of the sacramental mystery, by His working, but the illumination of the soul, so that it may grasp the great mystery there existent, and may have shown to it by the Holy Ghost that the bread and cup are indeed the body and blood of Christ. -- Conservative Reformation, p. 753

[Krauth believed The Apostolic Constitutions to be the most ancient liturgy in existence.]  It is significant, in line with Pr. Mozolak's thought, that the prayer goes on to ask:  

"that they may be to all who partake of them for life and resurrection, for forgiveness of sins, for health of soul and body, and enlightenment of mind, and defence before the dread judgment seat of Christ; and let no one of Your people perish, Lord, but make us all worthy that, serving without disturbance and ministering before You at all times of our life, we may enjoy Your heavenly and immortal and life-giving mysteries, through Your grace and mercy and love for man."  [J&C, p. 95]
« Last Edit: March 25, 2010, 08:59:58 AM by Weedon »

grabau

  • Guest
Re: On the Eucharistia
« Reply #88 on: March 25, 2010, 09:20:00 AM »
"He will take what is mine and make it kn own to you"--does have bearing on  the topic.  grabau

Harvey_Mozolak

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4857
    • View Profile
    • line and letter lettuce
Re: On the Eucharistia
« Reply #89 on: March 25, 2010, 09:28:10 AM »
but we have bypassed the first question I asked and that relates to the fact that in the actual account of the Upper Room in the Synoptics there is no reference whatsoever to the Holy Spirit in the institution narratives... albeit if you take John 17 you can find the Spirit...  hmmm.  Of course the church has Trinitized everything (and I do not criticize that) but observe that for those who believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we do not have to triangluate everything, God does a pretty good job of that.   Maybe not worth noting, but I did.  H.S. Mozolak
Harvey S. Mozolak
my poetry blog is listed below:

http://lineandletterlettuce.blogspot.com