The Ongoing Dispute About the Anaphora/Eucharistic Prayer

And when Christ becomes sacramentally or truly present on the altar.

NLM: East-West Disagreements about the Epiclesis and Transubstantiation by Peter Kwasniewski


A modified Tridentine position that is close to the "holistic" position of Fr. Louis Bouyer, who thinks that the Words of Consecration effect consecration of the sacred species but the whole anaphora is important. (But not the same as Fr. Robert Taft's, who talks of the necessity of the whole anaphora, both the institution narrative whether explicit or not and an explicit expiclesis, if there is one.) But Trent was not an ecumenical council with representatives from all of the Apostolic Churches, nor did it take into consideration the liturgies from the traditions of those Churches.


Kwasniewski uses the work of Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, De Eucharistia et Poenitentia.

To begin with, we have before our eyes definitions of the Church. The Church has declared that the form of this sacrament are the words of Christ, not the epiclesis (the subsequent prayer, as the Greeks call it). Cf. Denz. 414, 698, 715, 876, 938, 3043, 3035. [1] The Council of Florence (D. 698) says: “The form of this sacrament are the Savior’s words, with which he confected this sacrament; the priest then speaking in persona Christi, confects this sacrament. For by the power of those words the substance of bread is converted into the body of Christ, and the substance of wine into His blood.” ... The Council of Trent (D. 876) says: “By the force of the words [of consecration], the body of Christ is under the appearance of bread and the blood under the appearance of wine.” [See also D. 938 and 949.]

Of course, this is just Latin proof-texting from authorities not recognized by non-Latins, in accordance with Latin ecclesiology.

Innocent IV, in the year 1254, concerning the Greek rite, declares: “The Greeks should be permitted to celebrate Masses at the hour which is according to their own custom, provided that they observe, in the confection or consecration, the very words expressed and handed down by the Lord” (D. 3043). In fact, Pius X, in the year 1910 (D. 3035), condemning doctrine recently defended, declares against certain errors of the Orientals: [in brief, consecration is effected by the words of consecration, not by the epiclesis, which is not strictly necessary]. Denziger notes here that many earlier popes have declared that the epiclesis is not required for consecration, namely Benedict XII (D. 532), Clement VI, Benedict XIII, Benedict XIV and Pius VII.

 More recitation of Latin authorities.

 From the fourteenth century on, schismatic Greeks say that the Eucharist is confected by the prayers which are poured out after the words “This is my body, This is my blood” have been pronounced, according to their liturgical prayers as follows: “We beseech you, Father, that you send Your spirit over us and over these gifts set before us, and make this bread the precious body of your Son and that which is in the chalice the precious blood of your Son.” To say that this prayer is necessary for consecration is to affirm that the Masses celebrated in the Roman Church are invalid and is, moreover, contrary to the declaration of the Council of Florence (D. 698 and 715). The chief proponents of this error were Cabasilas, Mark of Ephesus, and Simeon of Thessalonica, who were refuted by Cardinal Bessarion in his work De Eucharistia, as well as by Allatius and Arcudius. (Cf. Dict. Théol. Cath., s. v. «Epiclèse», P. Salaville.)

Does the lack of an explicit epiclesis render the  Eucharist invalid? (Council of Florence is another authority not recognized by Chalcedonian Orthodox and therefore irrelevant.) Fr. Augustine Thompson, O.P. notes in the combox:

It might be of interest that a common opinion among the Latinophrones (Greek theologians of the 14th and 15th centuries who actually learned Latin and read western theologians---e.g. the Kydones brothers) is that of Nicholas Kabasilas (d. 1392) in his Commentary on the Divine Liturgy. His opinion is that the prayer Supplices in the Roman Canon is the Latin Epiclesis. The gestures and posture used in this prayer (even in the Novus Ordo---which introduced an extension of hands over the gifts at the prayer Quam Oblationem---suggest that that may well have been the ancient Latin view as well. He is considered a saint of the Orthodox Church, in spite of his generally irenic attitude toward Latin theology.

Back to Garrigou-Lagrange:

There is a twofold explanation of the meaning of the epiclesis after the words of consecration.
       (1) One explanation is: When it is read after the consecration, as it now is [in the Greek rite], the epiclesis invokes the Holy Spirit, not to effect transubstantiation, which is already accomplished, that is, not so that the bread become the body of Christ, but that it may become this for us, namely, that it may profit the priest and the faithful, especially those who are going to receive communion. In this way speak Vasquez, Bellarmine, Suárez, de Lugo, Billuart, and among the recent authors, Billot. But this explanation does not seem literal enough [i.e., it doesn’t account for the seemingly obvious meaning of the prayer].
       (2) The second explanation, which is more common, was proposed by Cardinal Bessarion. The epiclesis invokes the Holy Spirit exactly inasmuch as the consecration, being a work ad extra, is common to the three divine Persons, and accordingly the Holy Spirit is invoked, so that, with the Father and the Son already having been invoked, He Himself [in unity with them] may bring about transubstantiation. Indeed, this transubstantiation is accomplished in an instant, by the words of consecration already pronounced; but because, by our human speech, all these things cannot be expressed in one and the same instant, “things which are completed in an instant are declared one after another.” In this way speak Bessarion, Bossuet, Ferraris, Cagin, Franzelin, Salaville.

Kwsniewski notes: "Later, Garrigou notes that a similar principle is at work in the narrative of the Last Supper, where Jesus takes bread, blesses it, breaks it, and speaks the words: 'narration is successive and announces words after facts, when really the words spoken are simultaneous with the facts.'"


Christ has the power to send the Holy Spirit. Does a presbyter have this power? Not of himself, and not through his ordination, since this is a property belonging to the Son as a Divine Person (in terms of Latin theology). A creature cannot participate in this property. (Or would Latins claim this?)  The presbyter can invoke or ask for the Holy Spirit by addressing the Father (or the Son?) - can there be an epiclesis without addressing Whom sends the Spirit?

There is the question of how the Holy Spirit can make the "divinity" or the Divine Person of the Son present, as opposed to making the humanity of Christ present, which, having been assumed by the Son, entails that the Divinity or the Person of the Son is present as well. A co-operation of the Son and the Spirit?

Is an addition of an epiclesis to the Roman Canon necessary? It wouldn't be a Byzantinization or an Orientalization, but a sign of a fuller Latin reception of Constantinople I and subsequent ecumenical councils. If our understanding of the Trinity has deepened, why shouldn't that be reflected in our corporate prayer? Even if Latin traditionalists prefer to conserve the Roman Canon, they are most likely not conserving its original form, but a later form. But they would not agree to having it restored according to the scholarly findings, either.


As it is mentioned by Garrigou-Lagrange, it probably isn't controversial to see that this emphasis on the "Words of Consecration" in the West probably contributed to the notion of the presbyter acting "in persona Christi" in the Latin theology of the presbyterate.


Some links to the discussion of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari:

The Ecumenical Context of the Agreement on the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, in: C. Giraudo (ed.), The Anaphoral Genesis of the Institution Narrative in Light of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari. (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 295). Rome 2013, 28-34. by Dietmar W Winkler

Commonweal: THIS, TOO, IS MY BOYD: WHEN DOES THE CONSECRATION HAPPEN? By Mark Plaiss

An Anglican perspective on the Anaphora of Adai and Mari.

A critique resting upon Latin ecclesiological suppositions: Excerpts from Historical and Theological Argumentation in Favour Of Anaphoras without Institution Narrative: A Critical Appraisal by Ansgar Santogrossi OSB, Cuernavaca and Declaration on the Anaphora of Addai and Mari FOLLOW-UP: It was once condemned