EUCHARIST
586
EUCHARIST
Were the Greeks Justified in maintaining this position,
the immediate result would be, that the Latins who
have no such thing as the Epiklesis in their present
Litiirgj', would possess neither the true Sacrifice of the
Mass nor the Holy Eucharist. Fortunately, however,
the Greeks can be shown the error of their ways from
their own writings, since it can be proved, that they
themselves formerly placed the form of Transubstan-
tiation m the words of Institution. Not only did such
renowned Fathers as Justin (Apol., I, Ixvi), Irenxus
(Adv. hser., V, ii, 3), Gregorj' of Nyssa (Or. catech.,
xxx\ai), Chrj-sostom (Hom. i, de prod. Juda?, n. 6),
and John Damascene (De fid. orth., IV, xiii) hold this
view, but the ancient Greek Liturgies bear testimony
to it, so that Cardinal Bessarion in 1439 at Florence
called the attention of his fellow-count rjTiien to the
fact, that as soon as the words of Institution have
been pronounced, supreme homage and adoration are
due to the Holy Eucharist, even though the famous
Epiklesis follows some time after.
The objection that the mere historical recitation of the words of Institution taken from the narrative of the Last Supper possesses no intrinsic consecratory force, would be well founded, did the priest of the Latin Church merely intend by means of them to narrate some historical event rather than pronounce them with the practical purpose of effecting the conversion, or if he pronounced them in his ov,ii name and person instead of the Person of Christ, whose minister and instrumental cause he is. Neither of the two sup- positions holds in the case of a priest who really in- tends to celebrate Mass. Hence, though the Greeks may in the best of faith go on erroneously maintaining that they consecrate exclusively in their Epiklesis, they do, nevertheless, as in the case of the Latins, ac- tually consecrate by means of the words of Institution contained in their Liturgies, if Christ has instituted these words as the words of Consecration and the form of the sacrament. We may in fact go a step farther and assert, that the words of Institution con- stitute the only and wholly adequate form of the Eu- charist and that, consequently, the words of the Epiklesis possess no inherent consecratory value. The contention that the words of the Epiklesis have a joint essential value and constitute the partial form of the sacrament, was indeed supported by individual Latin theologians, as Toutt'e, Renaudot, and Lebrun. Though this opinion cannot be condemned as errone- ous in faith, since it allows to the words of Institution their essential, though partial, consecratory value, it appears nevertheless to be intrinsically repugnant. For, since the act of Consecration cannot remain, as it were, in a state of suspense, but is completed in an instant of time, there arises the dilemma: Either the words of Institution alone and, therefore, not the Epiklesis, are productive of the conversion, or the words of the Epiklesis alone ha\e such power and not the words of Institution. Of more considerable im- portance is the circumstance that the whole question came up for discussion in the council for union held at Florence in 1439. Pope Eugene I\' urged the Greeks to come to a unanimous agreement with the Roman faith and subscribe to the words of Institution as alone constituting the sacramental form, and to drop the contention that the words of the Epiklesis also pos- sessed a partial consecratory force. But when the Greeks, not without fountiation, pleaded that a dog- matic decision would reflect with shame upon their whole ecclesiastical past, the cecumenical synod was satisfied with the oral declaration of Cardinal Bessa- rion recorded in the minutes of the council for .5 July, 1439 (P. G., CLXI, 491), namely, that the Greeks fol- low the universal teaching of the I'athers, especially of "blessed John Chrj'sostom. familiarly known to us", according to whom the " Divine words of Our Re- deemer contain the full and entire force of Transub- Btantiat ion ".
The venerable antiquity of the Oriental Epiklesis,
its peculiar position in the Canon of the Mass, and its
interior spiritual unction, obUge the theologian to
determine its dogmatic value and to account for its
use. Take, for instance, the Epiklesis of the EthicH
pian Liturgy: "We implore and beseech Thee, O
Lord, to send forth the Holy Spirit and His Power
upon this Bread and Chalice and convert them into
the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ." Since
this prayer always follows after the words of Institu-
tion have been pronounced, the theological question
arises, as to how it may be made to harmonize with
the words of Christ, which alone possess the consecra-
tory power. Two explanations have been suggested,
which, however, can be merged in one. The first view
considers the Epiklesis to be a mere declaration of the
fact, that the conversion has already taken place, and
that in the conversion just as essential a part is to be
attributed to the Holy Spirit as Co-Consecrator as in
the allied mystery of the Incarnation. Since, how-
ever, because of the brevity of the actual instant of
conversion, the part taken by the Holy Spirit could
not be expressed, the Epiklesis takes us back in imag-
ination to the precious moment and regards the Con-
secration as just about to occur. A similar purely
psychological retrospective transfer is met -n-ith in
other portions of the Litiu-gy, as in the Mass for the
Dead, wherein the Church prays for the departed as
if they were still upon their bed of agony and could
still be rescued from the gates of hell. Thus consid-
ered, the Epiklesis refers us back to the Consecration
as the centre about which all the significance con-
tained in its words revolves. .A second explanation is
based, not upon the enacted Consecration, but upon
the approachmg Communion, inasmuch as the latter,
being the effective means of uniting us more closely in
the organized body of the Church, brings forth in our
hearts the mystical Christ, as is read in the Roman
Canon of the Mass: " Ut nobis corpus et sanguis fiat",
i. e. that it may be made for -us the body and blood.
It was in this purely mystical manner that the Greeks
themselves explained the meaning of the Epiklesis at
the Council of Florence (Mansi, Collect. Concil., XXXI
106). Yet since much more is contained in the plain
words than this true and deep mysticism, it is desirable
to combine both explanations into one, and so we may
regard the Epiklesis, both in point of liturgy and of
time, as the significant connecting link, placed mid-
way between the Consecration and the Communion in
order to emphasize the part taken by the Holy Spirit
in the Consecration of bread anti wine, and, on the
other hand, with the help of the same Holy Spirit to
obtain the realization of the true Presence of the Body
and Blood of Christ by their fruitful effects on both
priest and people.
On the subject-matter of the foregoing section, see Orsi. De invocaiione S, Spiriiu.s in Liturgiis Grtrcis et oricntalibus (Milan, 17;il); HoppE, Die Epikle^vi der ffriechischen und orientalischen Liiurffie (Schaffhausen, 1S64); FluNZ, Die eucharistische Wand- lung und die Epiklese (Wurzhurg, ISSO); Scheeben. Mysterien de? Christentums (Freiburg, 1S9S), pp. 449 sqq.; Innsbrucker Zeilschrifl fur kalhol. Theologie (1S96), pp. 743 sqq.; (1S97), pp. 51 sqq.; Semeria. La Messa nella sua storia e net suoi simboU (Rome, 1904), 153 sqq.
(3) The EffecU of the Holy Eucharist.— The doctrine of the Church regarding the effects or the fruits of Holy Communion centres around two ideas: (a) the union with Christ by love and (b) the spiritual repast of the soul. Both ideas are often verified in one and the same effect of Holy Communion.
(a) The first and principal effect of the Holy Eu- charist is union with Christ by love (Deer, pro Ar- menis: adunatio orf Christum), which union as such does not consist in the sacramental reception of the Host, but in the spiritual and mystical union with Jesus by the theological virtue of love. Christ Him- self designated the iilea of Communion as a union by love: "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my
