No "Words of Institution"... ?

[FireDragon76]

Yesterday at church, on Palm Sunday, the pastor did not read the full "Words of Institution" at Holy Communion. I could only recognize "Do this in remembrance of me", shortening the whole form. I was a bit shocked, so I went home and did some research. Evidently, this is an avant-garde theological opinion of some Reformed Protestant liturgists based on Speech Act Theory, that the Words of Institution do not have to be read at Holy Communion. It is also not rare in the UCC, as I found a number of other exemplar orders of Communion on the web from churches in this denomination, and half of them had significant omissions of the Words of Institution.

This is quite surprising, as Lutherans wouldn't consider it a valid sacrament without the Words of Institution, specifically words from the Bible uniting the bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ. In the rite yesterday, that was done in a dispersed, and not necessarily in a literal manner, even with some ambiguity (at reception, "the body of Christ" was spoken).

In the end, I received the bread and wine anyways, and decided to reserve judgement until I did more research (perhaps the pastor just had a slip of the mind, after all). Neverethless, I found it distressing. After further research, it may be that in the first few centuries, the Words of Institution were not often read as part of the Church's Eucharist, but I am surprised that such an avant-garde bit of theology is felt necessary to introduce into an ancient Christian rite, when traditionally the only churches that omit the discrete reading of the Words of Institution today, are certain small Eastern Christian churches in contemporary Iran, in the Holy Qurbana of Adai and Mari (and even then, the liturgy contains sacrificial language, something Protestants are averse to). The Catholic Church accepts the Holy Qurbana as valid, but only because it is performed as a Eucharistic sacrifice as a whole.

At the very least, it is difficult to see how this is an ecumenical-minded move, especially since our churches (ELCA and UCC) have intercommunion agreements, which means the theology of our sacraments should be, at least, compatible and recognizable with each other.

 

[JM]

How are you able to take communion from a church that doesn't believe or practice what you believe and practice? PCUSA and RCA deny the real presence in, with and under the elements. Are the two joined by liberalism rather than theology?

How are you able to be in full communion with them?

Thanks.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

How are you able to take communion from a church that doesn't believe or practice what you believe and practice? PCUSA and RCA deny the real presence in, with and under the elements. Are the two joined by liberalism rather than theology?

How are you able to be in full communion with them?

Thanks.

All confessional Lutheran Churches have been asking the same question for a long, long time.

The so called "Eucharist" described above is invalid and without efficacy, it is not a sacrament. Period.

 

[FireDragon76]

All confessional Lutheran Churches have been asking the same question for a long, long time.

The so called "Eucharist" described above is invalid and without efficacy, it is not a sacrament. Period.

That's consistent with traditional Protestant and premodern Catholic theology, certainly.

The Syriac rite of Addai and Mari doesn't have the Words of Institution used in the liturgy. In the Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari, the central defining element of the Eucharist is the anaphora, the prayer of thanksgiving and anamensis or memorial, similar to the anaphora in the Didache (which also has no words of institution)

 

[JM]

That's consistent with traditional Protestant and premodern Catholic theology, certainly.

The Syriac rite of Addai and Mari doesn't have the Words of Institution used in the liturgy. In the Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari, the central defining element of the Eucharist is the anaphora, the prayer of thanksgiving and anamensis or memorial, similar to the anaphora in the Didache (which also has no words of institution)

Yeah, that is strange and probably why many believe their liturgy is invalid.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yeah, that is strange and probably why many believe their liturgy is invalid.

The Roman Catholics don't consider their Eucharist invalid, and historically it may have been the norm rather than the exception in the early church.

Modern Catholic and Reformed theology doesn't necessarily consider that the Words of Institution need to be explicit for the sacrament to be valid. What matters is the memorial and thanksgiving. Latin Catholics still use the Words of Institution, of course.

Interestingly enough, the Syriac Church considers their Eucharist to be a sacrifice and they believe the bread and wine received are the body and blood of Christ. They just don't have the words of institution as part of the liturgy, but they do have an epiclesis:

And may there come, o my Lord, thine Holy Spirit and rest upon this offering of thy servants and bless it and hallow it that it be to us, o my Lord, for the pardon of offences and the remission of sins and for the great hope of resurrection from the dead and for new life in the kingdom of heaven with all those who have been wellpleasing in thy sight.

 

[actionsub]

At the very least, it is difficult to see how this is an ecumenical-minded move, especially since our churches (ELCA and UCC) have intercommunion agreements, which means the theology of our sacraments should be, at least, compatible and recognizable with each other.

Here's a possible explanation, especially if this happened at a UCC church. The UCC for a number of reasons has a relationship with the Disciples of Christ that they refer to as "full communion", which is far more comprehensive in practice than the intercommunion agreement they have with the ELCA. The agreement falls just short of a merger, and ministers ordained in the UCC are also considered credentialed in the Disciples (and vice versa).
Now here's why that's relevant. The Disciples grew out of the Second Great Awakening with the intent of abolishing denominations in favor of Christian unity. Historically, the movement failed on a massive scale; the movement itself split three ways over 150 years giving us the Church of Christ (those guys that don't use musical instruments), the Disciples, and the Christian Churches (Church of Christ with instrumental accompaniment). The one thing that all three of the splinter groups still have in common is weekly observance of Communion; however, they are rather anti-liturgical. Because of some of their theological quirks, the preaching minister plays no role in the observance save the taking of the elements like everyone else. Communion is generally prefaced in these churches with a brief devotional and prayer.
Boring long church history lesson short, I'm betting there's some Disciple influence in that service somewhere.

 

[FireDragon76]

Here's a possible explanation, especially if this happened at a UCC church. The UCC for a number of reasons has a relationship with the Disciples of Christ that they refer to as "full communion", which is far more comprehensive in practice than the intercommunion agreement they have with the ELCA. The agreement falls just short of a merger, and ministers ordained in the UCC are also considered credentialed in the Disciples (and vice versa).
Now here's why that's relevant. The Disciples grew out of the Second Great Awakening with the intent of abolishing denominations in favor of Christian unity. Historically, the movement failed on a massive scale; the movement itself split three ways over 150 years giving us the Church of Christ (those guys that don't use musical instruments), the Disciples, and the Christian Churches (Church of Christ with instrumental accompaniment). The one thing that all three of the splinter groups still have in common is weekly observance of Communion; however, they are rather anti-liturgical. Because of some of their theological quirks, the preaching minister plays no role in the observance save the taking of the elements like everyone else. Communion is generally prefaced in these churches with a brief devotional and prayer.
Boring long church history lesson short, I'm betting there's some Disciple influence in that service somewhere.

I think what happened was the pastor simply forgot the words. But it did lead me to researching why a church might not have the Words of Institution in the Eucharist.

The particularly emphasis at the church is on the anaphora and epiclesis, though, and the sacramental theology seems to be receptionist. Lutherans traditionally didn't consider those parts as important.

 

[RileyG]

It is my understanding the ELCA believes the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. By definition, wouldn't the prayer of institution be required?

 

[RileyG]

***My apologies for the term "Eucharist" which is mostly a Catholic and Orthodox Term. AKA Holy Communion, Lord's Supper etc ****

 

[FireDragon76]

It is my understanding the ELCA believes the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. By definition, wouldn't the prayer of institution be required?

Yes, in the ELCA it is required.

 

[RileyG]

Yes, in the ELCA it is required.

That is what I would presume, as with most liturgical Churches, with the exception of those you mentioned.

 

[FireDragon76]

That is what I would presume, as with most liturgical Churches, with the exception of those you mentioned.

Orthodox have a broader understanding of the basis of the Eucharist than just the Words of Institution. The Epiclesis is also required.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

That is what I would presume, as with most liturgical Churches, with the exception of those you mentioned.

Hi Riley, the term Eucharist is fine in Lutheran usage. Regarding what Lutherans believe, this part of the small catechism The Sacrament of the Altar

 

[ViaCrucis]

It is my understanding the ELCA believes the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. By definition, wouldn't the prayer of institution be required?

All Lutherans consider the Words of Institution to be essential for the Eucharist/Lord's Supper to be valid.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

***My apologies for the term "Eucharist" which is mostly a Catholic and Orthodox Term. AKA Holy Communion, Lord's Supper etc ****

As Mark said, we use the term Eucharist too. The Sacrament of the Altar has many names.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The Liturgist]

Interestingly enough, the Syriac Church considers their Eucharist to be a sacrifice and they believe the bread and wine received are the body and blood of Christ. They just don't have the words of institution as part of the liturgy, but they do have an epiclesis:

Actually, you are talking about the Assyrian Church of the East, not the Syriac Orthodox Church. And while it is true that their most commonly used anaphora, that of Saints Addai and Mari, lacks the Words of Institution, it is present in their other two Anaphorae, that of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and a third one attributed to Nestorius, but which is in fact a sixth century East Syriac arrangement of the quintessentially Byzantine Anaphora of St. Basil (presumably attributed to Nestorius due to its Constantinopolitan origin, since Nestorius was Patriarch of Constantinople before being deposed).

Regarding the Liturgy of Addai and Mari, it is one of the two oldest extant liturgies still in use, with the Liturgy of St. Mark, also known as the Liturgy of St. Cyril as used by the Coptic Orthodox, being the very oldest in terms of attested documents, surviving in a second century papyrus. The Liturgy of St. Mark does have the institution narrative, but it also has not one but two epicleses.

I would note that the sacramental theology of the Eastern churches tends not to say that the gifts of bread and wine become the Body and Blood at the intonation of the Words of Institution, but rather, if there is a specific place in the liturgy where the Real Change happens, it is usually agreed to be in the Epiclesis, when the prayer for the Holy Spirit to descend on the elements is said.

I would also note that Pope Benedict xVI, among his many achievements in the 1990s as Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith (formerly the Holy Office) did determine that the Liturgy of Addai and Mari, as celebrated by the Assyrians, was still a valid Eucharist despite the lack of an explicit Institution Narrative or the Words of Institution, his rationale being something along the lines of the essence of the Words of Institution being distributed across the Anaphora rather than consolidated together, so they were still effectively there, just not in one place in the familiar configuration. Chaldean Catholics and Syro Malabar Catholics, who also use the East Syriac Rite and the Liturgy of Addai and Mari as their primary (and for some time, only) anaphora interpolate the Words of Institution into the text.

Now in the case of the Syriac Orthodox liturgy, all of the anaphorae I have read (which is far from being all of them, for there are at least 86 of them, and I think I have seen Syriac manuscripts for as many as sixty, but there are only around 16 or so translated into English, although using ChatGPT it might be possible to accelerate the rate of translation, provided Unicode text of the anaphoras can be generated), most have the Words of Institution, and all of them have the Institution Narrative, but in the case of some of the Anaphorae, such as that of Mar Dionysius bar Salibi, the Words of Institution are paraphrased. I personally don’t see any problem with this.

However in the specific case of the UCC mentioned above, I am absolutely bewildered as to why they would omit the Words of Institution, because people in Western churches expect to hear them, and I suspect the motivations for doing this have something to do with extreme theological liberalism. For what its worth, the official Book of Worship of the United Church of Christ, which dates from 1991, and is extremely liberal, especially by early 90s standards, but which can still be patched into a usable liturgical book, does have the Words of Institution, but for better, or nowadays usually for worse, UCC congregations are not required to use it.

 

[The Liturgist]

All Lutherans consider the Words of Institution to be essential for the Eucharist/Lord's Supper to be valid.

-CryptoLutheran

Indeed. Conversely, most Eastern Christians consider the Epiclesis to be essential for a valid Eucharist, although not all of them would agree that the Real Change of the gifts from the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood happens at precisely that moment. And in the case of the Liturgy of Addai and Mari, Pope Benedict XVI argued the Words of Institution are present, albeit in a distributed way.

My own belief is that either the Epiclesis or the Words of Institution can be consecratory, depending on the tradition of the specific local church, because the Eucharist is a prayer, and the Words of Institution can function as an Epiclesis-like prayer if the Presbyter offers them with the intent that the Holy Spirit should descend and change the bread and wine into the body and blood at that moment.

In this way I am able to fellowship both with Western Christians who believe as you do, that the Words of Institution are consecratory, and also those Eastern Christians who believe the Epiclesis is consecratory, as well as those Eastern Christians who believe the entire liturgy is consecratory.

 

[The Liturgist]

All confessional Lutheran Churches have been asking the same question for a long, long time.

The so called "Eucharist" described above is invalid and without efficacy, it is not a sacrament. Period.

It strikes me that like much of what the United Church of Christ does, it is entirely possible that the raison d’etre for omitting the Words of Institution amounts to shock value. This may sound uncharitable, but it is not intended that way - I am simply observing that for reasons related to their overall growth strategy, much of what the UCC does is intended to scandalize traditional Christians so as to attract radical Christians who subscribe to movements like Postmodern Theology, Womanist Theology, Liberation Theology, Queer Theology, etc. The UCC has gone all in on catering to the extreme left of Christendom, so the more radical they come across, the more people of such an inclination are attracted to them. Indeed almost all of their new membership in recent years has been due to such efforts, and it has in a large number of cases consisted of large liberal megachurches like FIrst Congregational of Los Angeles and the Cathedral of Hope in Dallas (formerly a member of the homosexual denomination known as the Metropolitan Community Church) leaving their former denominations and joining the UCC.

Now I would argue that this has not actually been a good strategic move for the UCC, since their overall membership numbers continue to decline, and furthermore they have experienced the largest loss of membership of any of the mainline churches, exceeding the losses in the Episcopal Church to a large extent. Ultimately, the people who the UCC is trying to recruit as members are, to a very large extent, simply joining the Unitarian Universalist church, which is fully unhindered by any dogmatic considerations and thus is able to embrace the most radical contemporary theologies in their fullness, and the UUA is growing, in contrast to the UCC. Indeed I suspect some of the UUA’s growth has come from former members of the UCC. The UUA, for example, is able to simply deprecate outright those verses of scripture it finds inconvenient regarding issues such as human sexuality, which the UCC can only gloss over, since the UCC is still explicitly Christian, and has enough committed Christian members so as to make repudiating its Christianity an untenable proposition.

 

[The Liturgist]

are certain small Eastern Christian churches in contemporary Iran, in the Holy Qurbana of Adai and Mari (and even then, the liturgy contains sacrificial language, something Protestants are averse to)

Both the Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East, which you are referring to, have a larger presence in Iraq than Iran (their largest concentration of members being in the Nineveh Plains), however, it is true the Assyrians are one of the two main Christian denominations in Iran, the other being the Armenian Apostolic Church. In Iraq, the other traditional denomination is the Syriac Orthodox Church, and then in the area around Baghdad you have the Chaldean Catholic Church, which broke away rrom the Church of the East in the 17th century. Today, most Chaldeans speak only Arabic, whereas of the million or so Assyrians, at least 700,000 continue to speak a dialect of Aramaic (which is related to but not directly descended from Classical Syriac), making them the largest Aramaic speaking population in the world. Additionally, like in the Syriac Orthodox and Chaldean churches, the Church of the East uses Classical Syriac as its liturgical language, and uses the Peshitta as its Bible.

The Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East became separated as a result of a schism in the late 1960s after some bishops of the Church of the East discovered their hereditary Patriarchate was a violation of their own canon law, and fuel was added to the fire when the Assyrian Church of the East adopted the Gregorian Calendar, so for a time, even after the assasination of the last hereditary Patriarch and the election of the reforming Patriarch, Catholicos Mar Dinkha IV, memory eternal, the Ancient Church of the East under its own Patriarch Mar Addai II, memory eternal (who was just 20 when he was consecrated as Patriarch) existed as a sort of Old Calendarist alternative to the much larger Assyrian Church of the East, with about 100,000 members to the million or so in the Assyrian church. Additionally, in the 1920s, the Patriarchate of the Assyrian Church of the East had been relocated to Chicago (which is home to a huge Assyrian diaspora), but the Ancient Church of the East established its rival Patriarchate firmly on the shores of Iraq. Recently, since the death of Mar Dinkha IV, the Patriarchate of the Assyrian Church of the East relocated to Iraq, and the two churches have been in the process of reunification for some time now, so hopefully within the next decade or so there will once more be a single unified Church of the East, as was the case since the first century AD.

The Church of the East does have a particularly glorious past, for at its peak, it was the largest church in the world in terms of geographic territory, extending from Aleppo to Mongolia and from Socotra (an island off the south coast of Yemen) to Tibet, but then in the 13th century, the evil Muslim warlord Tamerlane initiated a genocide against the Assyrian church and the large number of converts of different ethnicities who were members of it, which resulted in its members being killed off everywhere except India and the Fertile Crescent. I am at a loss as to why Tamerlane is celebrated as a national hero in Uzbekistan; to my eyes the tomb of Tamerlane in Tashkent produces a similar emotional reaction to what I expect I would feel if Germany built an elaborate monument to Adolf Hitler in the center of Berlin.

At any rate, the Assyrians are absolutely lovely people and there are a large number of Assyrian churches in the United States and Europe, both of the Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East.

Additionally, unlike the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, the Assyrians allow anyone who believes in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist to take communion in their churches. So I would strongly encourage anyone interested to visit the nearest parish of the Church of the East. They are extremely friendly and loving people.