EPIPHANIA
503
EPIPHANIA
to discuss the question. The Greeks maintained that
both forms are necessary, that Transubstantiation
does not take place till the second one (the Epiklesis)
is pronounced, and that the Latin "Supplices te
rogamus" is a true Epiklesis having the same effect as
theirs. On the other hand the Dominican John of
Torquemada defended the Western position that the
words of Institution alone and at once consecrate
(Hardouin, IX, 977 sqq.). The decree of the council
eventually defined thLs (" quod ilia verba divina Salva-
toris omnem virtutem transsubstantiationis habent",
ibid.; see also the decree for the Armenians: "forma
huius sacramenti sunt verba Salvatoris" in Denziger,
10th ed., no. 69S-old no. 593). Cardinal Bessarion
afterwards wrote a book (De Sacramento EucharistiEe
et quibus verbis Christi corpus conficitur, 1462, in
P. G., CLXI, 494-52.5), to whom Marcus Eugenicus of
Ephesus answered in a treatise with a long title:
"That not only by the sound of the Lord's words are
the divine gifts sanctified, but (in addition) by the
prayer after these and by the consecration of the priest
in the strength of the Holy Ghost".
The official Euchologion of the Orthodox Church has a note after the words of Institution to explain that: " Since the demonstrative pronouns: This is my body, and again: This is my blood, do not refer to the Offerings that are present, but to those which Jesus, taking in His hands and blessing, gave to His Disci- ples; therefore those words of the Lord are repeated as a narrative [SirjyqiMTiKQis], and consequently it is superfluous to show the Offerings (by an elevation) and indeed contrary to the right mind of the Eastern Church of Christ" (ed. Venice, 189S, p. 0.3). This would seem to imply that Christ's words have no part in the form of the sacrament. On the other hand Dositheus in the Synod of Jerusalem (1672) apparent- ly requires both words of Institution and Epiklesis: " It [the Holy Eucharist] is instituted by the essential word [/S^/iOTi uirapKTtKtfi, i. e. Christ's word] and sancti- fied by the invocation of the Holy Ghost" (Conf. Dosithei, in Kiramel, op. cit., I, 451), and this seems to be the common theory among the Orthodox in our time. Their arguments for the necessity of the Epik- lesis as at any rate the perfecting part of the form are: (1) that the context shows the words of Institution to be used only as a narrative; (2) that otherwise the Epiklesis would be superfluous and deceptive: its very form shows that it consecrates; (3) tradition. The first and second points are not diflicult to answer. The words of Institution are certainly used histori- cally ("qui pridie quam pateretur, sumpsit panem . . . ac dixit: hoc est enim corpus meum ", as well as all Eastern forms, is an historical account of what hap- pened at the Last Supper) ; but this is no proof that they may not be used effectively and with actual meaning too. Given the intention of so doing, they necessarily would be so used. The second point is al- ready answered above: the succession of time in sac- ramental prayers necessarily involves nothing but a dramatic representation of what presumably really takes place in one instant (this point is further evolved by Fortescue, "The Orth. Eastern Church", pp. 387 sq.). As for tradition, in any case it is only a question of Eastern tradition. In the West there has been a great unanimity in speaking of the words of Institu- tion as consecrating, especially since St. Augustine; and the disappearance of any real Epiklesis in our Liturgy confirms this. Among Eastern Fathers there is less unanimity. Some, notably St. Cyril of Jeru- salem, refer the consecration to the action of the Holy Ghost in a way that seems to imply that the Epiklesis is the moment (St. Cyril, Cat. xix, 7; xxi, 3; xxiii, 7, 19; cf. Basil, "De Spir. Sancto", xxvii sqq.); others, as St. John Chrj'sostom (Hom. i, De prod. ludae, 6: "He [Christ] .says: This is ray body. This word changes the offering"; cf. Hom. ii, in II Tim., i), quite plainly refer Consecration to Christ's words. It should
be noted that these Fathers were concerned to defend
the Real Presence, not to explain the moment at which
it began, that they always thought of the whole Eucha-
ristic prayer as one form, containing both Christ's
words and the Invocation, and that a statement that
the change takes place by the power of the Holy Ghost
does not necessarily show that the writer attaches that
change to this special prayer. For instance St. Iren-
seus says that " the bread which receives the Invoca-
tion of God is not common bread, but a Eucharist"
(Adv. haer., IV, xviii, 5), and, yet immediately before
(IV, xviii, 4), he explains that that bread is the Body
of Christ over which the earlier part of the Anaphora
is said. The final argument against the Epiklesis as
Consecration-form is the accoimt of the Last Supper
in the Gospels. We know what (Christ did then, and
that He told us to do the same thing. There is no hint
of an Epiklesis at the Last Supper.
It may finally be noted that later, in the West too (since the sixteenth century especially), this quest ion aroused some not very important discussion. The Dominican Ambrose Catharinus (sixteenth century) thought that our Consecration takes place at an Epik- lesis that precedes the recital of Christ's words. This Epiklesis he thinks to be the prayer " Quam obla- tionem". A few others (including Renaudot) more or less shared his opinion. Against these Hoppe (op. cit. infra) showed that in any case the Epiklesis always follows the words of Institution and that our " Quam Oblationem" cannot be considered one at all. He and others suggest a mitigated theory, according to which the Invocation (in our case the "Supplices te roga- mus") belongs not to the essence of the sacrament, but in some way to its (accidental) integrity. John of Torquemada at the Council of Florence (Hardouin, IX, 97C), Suarez (De Sacram., disp. Iviii, 3), Bellar- mine (De Euch., iv, 14), Lugo (De Euch., disp. xi, 1) explain that the Invocation of the Holy Ghost is made rather that He may sanctify our reception of the Holy Eucharist. This is a theoretical explanation sought out to account for the fact of the Epiklesis, without giving up our insistence on the words of Institution as alone consecrating. Historically and according to the text of the old invocations they must rather be looked upon as dramatically postponed expressions of what happens at one moment. There are many like cases in our rite (examples quoted in "The Orth. Eastern Church", loc. cit.).
ZoRN. Di^f^f-rtatio hiMorico-theologica de Epiklesi (Rostock, 1T05); Hr>ppE, Dio Fi^ikhsis rier griech. u. orient. Liturgien u.
derrim. K- ' ' '.r„.,re (Schatfhausen. 1864); Filinz. Da-
eucharinti ' /. 'n.usmomenl (Wurzburg, 1875); Idem,
Die eucli,n II I mg u. die Epiklese (.Vi'uTzburg. ISSO);
Probst. Li/..!/'.' •■'■• IV.JahrhunderU u.deren Reform (Miinster, 1893); Wattericii, Dcr Konsekrationsmoment imhl, Ahendmabl (Heidelberg 1896); Lingens, Die etw^fearisiiscAe Consecrati<ms- formin ZeitschriflfurkalU. Theol. (lansbruck.lSQ?), pp. 51-106.
Adrian Fortescue.
Epiphania, a titular see in CUicia Secunda, in Asia Minor, suffragan of Anazarbus. This city is men- tioned by many ancient geographers, Ptolemy, Pliny, Stephanus Byzantius, etc. It was formerly called Oiniandos and afterwards Epiphania, after ,\ntiochus IV Epiphanes, King of Syria (175-164 B. c). Cicero once encamped there, and Pompey settled there some of the pirates he had subdued. The city had a special era beginning in A. D. 37 (Barth^lemy, Numismatique ancienne, 247). Seven bishops of Epiphania are known, from 325 to 692 (I>e(|uien, Oriens chri-st., II, 895). The first, St. Amphion, suffered during the persecution of Diocletian and was present at the Coun- cil of Nica>a (325). Epiphania was the birthplace of George, the usurping Bishop of Alexandria in the fourth century. Its ruins stand near Piyas, in the sanjak of Djebel-i-Bereket, vilayet of Adana; there are remains of walls, a temple, an acropolis, an aque- duct, and many houses, all built in basalt. Nearby are the celebrated "Cilician Gates" and the battle-
