tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9152780693209331281.post223473065648412283..comments2023-05-28T10:19:09.773+01:00Comments on Distinguo: Where's the epiclesis?Neil Jeffershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07049760329273618171noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9152780693209331281.post-53025713056452449412008-06-25T10:10:00.000+01:002008-06-25T10:10:00.000+01:00Liam,Thank you. I agree that none of them is unequ...Liam,<BR/><BR/>Thank you. I agree that none of them is unequivocal (unsurprisingly in a Synod-approved text). Jeremy Haselock, Precentor of Norwich, and the man who drafted many of the eucharistic prayers says this of Prayer E:<BR/><BR/>"Much could be said about the phrasing of the epiclesis and the odium theologicum such a concept induces in Synod. In prayer E the original draft (my own) read "send your Holy Spirit on us and on these gifts, that broken bread and wine outpoured may be for us the body and blood of your dear Son" but the revision committee was too timorous a beastie to allow this all too clear phrasing to remain and so what we have is simply "send your Holy Spirit, that broken bread and wine outpoured." I know what I meant and most of those who use the prayer will know what we are asking God to do. Yes, as Fr Moreton observes, it is not as we might like, but to say that the epiclesis in all the new prayers "consistently refers only to us and never to the gifts" is an ungenerous lack of acknowledgment of the real progress we have made."<BR/><BR/>So while it may be possible to use the eucharistic prayers, even in their ambiguity, with Calvinistic understanding, within the political context of the Church of England, it is clear many of them are an attempt to move as far as permissible in a Romanising direction, and we may, therefore, wish to avoid them.Neil Jeffershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07049760329273618171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9152780693209331281.post-67776345470442463712008-06-15T20:52:00.000+01:002008-06-15T20:52:00.000+01:00I should add that some of the sacrificial language...I should add that some of the sacrificial language in the anamnesis in Prayer C actually makes it more problematic than some of the other prayers in the rite. In some ways, Prayer B is preferable, given its explicit separation of the sacrifice of praise and the bringing of the bread and the cup.Liam Beadlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08042044098055326555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9152780693209331281.post-86558571840891151572008-06-15T20:50:00.000+01:002008-06-15T20:50:00.000+01:00Thank you for this.I am unconvinced that any of th...Thank you for this.<BR/><BR/>I am unconvinced that any of the Eucharistic Prayers in CW contain an epiclesis which is unequivocally on the elements. There may be a measure of ambiguity (which is a shame, I grant you), but it is always possible to interpret the words as invoking the Spirit on the gathering or the eucharistic action. In none of them (except D, where it is on the gathering) is the direction of the Spirit's work stipulated.Liam Beadlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08042044098055326555noreply@blogger.com