[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Epiclesis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old talk

[edit]

Technically, the Orthodox generally say they do not know when the consecration occurs. Thus it is not correct to say that no consecration occurs without an epiclesis. Many Orthodox believe that the Words of Institution used in the Roman liturgy imply an unstated epiclesis.

--Sophroniscus 01:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nicholas C

[edit]

After a couple reverts between myself and @Zusty001: there seems to be some disagreement on a portion of the "Implicit" section. Citing a blog post from a member of True Orthodox Church movement, Zusty001 asserts that the quoted Eastern Orthodox saint was opposing Latin consecration and rejecting an implicit Epiclesis. While the quotations within the blog post itself seem to contradict Zusty001's point, I would like them to express their views outside of the limitations of an edit summary—that's not what they're for. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant portion is the direct text from Nicolas Cabasilas regarding the Latin service which the deleted text refers to and makes false claims about, although it does not refer to it by name or reference. Although the parts of the article regarding Cabasilas's impugning of the Latin service are well-written and, in their exposition of Cabasilas, support what I have already written about the text itself.
The full work by Cabasilas is his "Commentary on the Divine Liturgy". If any correct reference to Nicolas Cabasilas's words should added in in place of what will be deleted, this should be cited.
I will put what has been written in the edit summary here:
"Removed for falsely describing the opinion of Nicolas Cabasilas. Cabasilas was writing not in defense of the Latin Liturgy as it then existed, but rather as an explicit condemnation of the defense of the so-called "words of institution" as being acceptable, as offered by certain Latin authors (This being the universal position among Latins at this time). The words in question were described by him as a remnant of Orthodoxy in a heretical service; He did not pretend to offer some defense of the Latin service as it existed in his time. For the exact words of Nicolas in question, see the end of this article:
→"https://nftu.net/pre-schism-west-against-the-scholastic-view-of-eucharistic-consecration/"
I will wait for some sort of response, and then I will remove the paragraph once again. It does not belong anywhere - it is entirely false. Zusty001 (talk) 02:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti: Zusty001 (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:FRINGE and WP:NOBLOGS, the NFTU link you cite is not applicable in this discussion (or to justify the deletion of a reliable source). However, we could have a discussion on the contents of the actual quoted text in the article. As for that: Cabasilas, in the exact words that are cited in this Wikipedia article and the NFTU source, suggests that the Roman Canon is indeed capable of consecrating because of an implied Epiclesis. There is no indication anywhere in your statements Cabasilas opposed the notion of an implied Epiclesis. Please directly quote Cabasilas or a reliable source in your response. Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti:
No exact quotes from Nicolas Cabasilas are given in the deleted paragraph.
Cabasilas explicitly condemns the Latin service for retaining such a remnant of Orthodoxy while (In his writing, heretically) putting the so-called "Words of Institution" in their place, and of (Again, in his writing, heretically) ascribing the consecration of the Gifts to these latter "Words" in their teaching; This being the universal position of Latins and their scholarly apologists in his own time. You may read the text yourself.
As for the impugning of the article on your behalf, the reason behind its sourcing has already been explained sufficiently; Although I will also note that I know of no other freely available online source where Cabasilas's "Commentary" is quoted at length.
As for 'blog posts', the site takes itself firstly to be a general publication, of news and otherwise; As for the other rule you cite, I suppose you will apply it however you will.
I will wait for a second reply before deleting the paragraph. If this does reach the point of calls for legislation, I will simply give up hope for the integrity of this particular article, especially since something so plain should not need it. Zusty001 (talk) 03:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per the source cited in the article—accessible partially via Google Books here—it's fairly evident that Cabasilas believes the epiclesis is the consecratory portion of the Roman Canon and that it is said in a manner identifiable from Eastern Christian perspective but not in the same distinguished way it is said in the Divine Liturgies of the Byzantine Rite. Page 79 is especially key to establishing this point and the citation has been updated to reflect this.
Additionally, with regards to the True Orthodox blog you linked previously, websites that are self-published without editorial boards are typically understood as blogs for the purposes of policy. Additionally, while I am actually personally acquainted with a few True Orthodox adherents in my offline private life, I am also aware that their interpretations and publications are typically dismissed by academic and theological consensus. While this is unfortunate for believers in True Orthodoxy, this is how Wikipedia operates. Individual exceptions notwithstanding, I have a hard time imagining articles from NFTU being acceptable for anything but raw quotes. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti:

The online source available on "Google Books" itself lacks page 78, which in turn is quoted mostly in full on the relevant page which I have linked. As for Cabasilas's words, it is abundantly clear that, when he describes the Latins as 'admitting' to the invocation of the Holy Spirit being consecratory, and not the so-called "Words of Institution", he is speaking towards what can be called the consequences of a doctrine or practice. St. John Damascene described the Muslims as admitting in their doctrines to mutilating God, by way of calling Christ the Word of God while denying His Divinity (As such depriving God of His Word); But you would not find any Muslim who would admit to this in such words. The parallel is suggested here because the doctrine of the "Words of Institution" was, as regards pronounces doctrines, universal among the Latins in the time of Cabasilas. Until the Second Vatican Council and its new service, the Epiclesis was by teaching denigrated entirely; Although this council only further confused the meaning of the Epiclesis, since, by doctrine, the "Words of Institution" are still taught as consecratory. If the "few innovators" Cabasilas speaks of are meant to be any who hold to the Latin doctrines regarding the "Words", then it would have to be thought that Cabasilas was almost wholly ignorant of Latin teaching. But as such, since this is not the case, it can clearly be said that those which he refers to are the scholarly Latin polemicists with whom he was well familiar; And that when he speaks of "consecration" among them, this, like his speaking of their "admitting" to the invocation of the Holy Spirit, does not concern any description of actual consecration, but of what is professed by the remnant of Orthodoxy he describes in the Latin service - and is, in truth, a condemnation of that service and its new doctrines.

The site that I have linked is not run by only man, as far as I know. I do not know what you would call an 'editorial board' for your purposes. I am not from any of the bodies which the site belongs to, by any means. But I have to write and admit openly that I have absolutely no regard for the "academic and theological consensus" you speak of, whatever you mean by this scheming term. There are, after all, more Latins than any other singular body who claim the name 'Christian' on this Earth today, yourself included - I suppose that this gives your kind the right of consensus under your definitions. And there are countless academic 'consensuses' regarding the doctrine God, many of which are contrary also to the teachings of your own religion; Countless insane positions are popular in the academic sphere, or rather, the many separate academic spheres that exist. Neither of these classes you mention, slippery as their definitions are, do I respect by any means, although this is not acceptable to say on Wikipedia.

I will be deleting the paragraph again, as I said I would. I am moved by the obligation of conscience and truth to do so. It is plainly false. Zusty001 (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zusty001: You clearly do not understand our policies regarding discussion, reliable sources, blogs, and fringe sources. Unfortunately, this is not the only time you have blatantly misread sources material, remembering our discussion on the A-10 talk page. Please understand nothing you said in your paragraphs actually pertains to the fact that the sourced material you are intent on removing actually says something wildly different than you claim it does. If you are unable to come to an understanding of this, please raise the issue elsewhere. Thank you. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti: I do understand well enough the rules that have been put in place, and I do know that you are capable of using them as you will. I hope that you do not continue to employ them here as you already have.
That what I have written is plainly against the content of the paragraph that does not belong is simply as such. The paragraph ascribes to Cabasilas a defense of the Latin service in his writing on the Epiclesis when such a defense not only does not exist, but rather the inverse exists; A condemnation. This is the basic content of the paragraph, and it is why it cannot be given excuse, nor be defended on the grounds of truth.
You now openly accuse me of "blatantly" misreading Cabasilas. I can only say that this accusation shows either yourself to have done so, or that you have instead preferred not the reading of it at all.
I had not recalled writing to you before. But returning to that page, I see that I had made the error of wrongly attributing an excerpt, and not in a revision but in a comment; But moreover that I freely confessed to doing so after my earnest questions about objections were answered and after I reviewed the document in question once more. As for anything else I had written in those, I only recall it as being fairly reasonable, I having maintained my words otherwise.
An error with regards to what I am now writing about would be, I have to say, far graver. I only maintain what I have made no such error, that what I have defended is the truth, and that I can only repeat what I have already written about your own accusations. There is nothing for me to submit to. Zusty001 (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zusty001: Firstly, please review edit warring policy guidelines for a review of why your reversions mid-discussion are discouraged. Additionally, a complete online version of the Cabasilas passage cited in this article is accessible here in what appears to be a transcription of the translation included in the deleted citation. Below I will compare the Cabasilas source with what was in the article:
  • The deleted passage in this article states that Cabasilas believed the consecration in the Roman Canon is performed through an Epiclesis after the Words of Institution. Cabasilas infers this based on the fact a priest praying the Roman Canon "does not cease to pray for the offerings after the words of consecration have been pronounced." He continues, saying that the implied Epiclesis does not identically match the words of the Byzantine Rite but rather "use[s] other terms, which, however, have exactly the same meaning."
  • That this is Cabasilas's view is maintained in other reliable sourcing: The New Catholic Encyclopedia, which is understood as an independent and reliable source on theological and historical matters, states that Cabasilas rejected the Words of Institution as the consecratory portion of the prayer and served only as narrative prelude. The identification of the Supplices te rogamus as the Epiclesis in the view of Cabasilas and his contemporaries is further elaborated by this same source.
  • Your NFTU source, while not really usable as a citation, concurs with this summary of Cabasilas's position and even expresses more firmly, saying his commentary "affirms the view that the 'Supplices Te', is, in fact, the original place where the Consecration in the Roman Canon of the Mass took place."
  • Addressing Cabasilas's more prosaic reflection on the consecratory portion of the Roman Canon, the deleted passage cites Cabasilas as stating Christ is described as "both victim and priest" and "is also the altar" in what Cabasilas identifies as the Roman Canon's Epiclesis. This citation is drawn from Cabasilas saying that a priests praying the Roman Canon are "regarding Christ as the victim," and "pray that the offerings may be placed in Him". "Since Christ is at one and the same time priest, altar, victim", Cabasilas says, the Roman Canon is identifying Him as all three things.
You seem to imply a "scheming" Latin conspiracy to misconstrue Cabasilas's words, but the translation of his works was performed in and published by an OCA seminary, accepted as accurate by a bishop in the True Orthodox tradition, and republished by an Eastern Orthodox blog using it to evangelize. Reflecting next on your rationale for deleting this passage, I struggle to identify any instance in which the deleted passage runs contrary to the truth. I think, like previously, your comprehension of what the passage in the article said was impaired. At no time do you directly identify an instance in which the deleted passage from the article is contrary to Cabasilas's own words. Instead, you argue that Cabasilas identified the Roman Canon as incapable of consecration. This is a misreading of Cabasilas, one that runs contrary to the very NFTU blog post you originally cited.
Bearing all this in mind, I would encourage you to reflect on the "obligation of conscience and truth" you have previously asserted, recognize you have again made a simple error, and revert yourself. Thank you, and have a good Sunday! ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti: That Christ "...must be priest, victim, and altar" (Pg. 78, previously mentioned edition) is not something which Cabasilas assigned exclusively to the Latin service, since this would suppose a total confusion about Christ, but rather tells this to be the doctrine of God.
I suggest no extreme error in the content of the present translation. I only impugn your interpretation of it as false.
As has already been written, that Cabasilas is describing a 'remnant', so to speak, of Orthodoxy in what he would describe as a service of heretics shows nothing about consecration. As has already been explained, that Cabasilas writes that "...the Latins know perfectly well that the bread and the wine are not yet consecrated" (Pg. 77, of the same), one would have to consider him almost wholly ignorant of Latin teaching to understand this in such a naive way, since the denial of the Epiclesis as consecratory was the universal position of the Latins by his time.
It is unimaginable to attempt to ascribe to Cabasilas the belief that the denial of the Epiclesis among the Latins was acceptable, since such a denial was the fact of his time.
Rather, what his description of this can be easily be found even in explicit words in this excerpt, it being the conclusion of his consideration of the Latin's denial of the efficacy of such a prayer (That is, the Epiclesis): "To follow the innovations of these men would indeed inevitably mean the total destruction of all Christianity." (Pg. 75, of the same)
The suggestion of the deleted paragraph is that Cabasilas had mounted a defense of the Latin service and its denial, and I can only repeat that this is amazingly distant from the truth.
And although this has already been explained, I will write again that the reproduction of Cabasilas's writing (Or, if you prefer, this translation of it) within sources by no means suggests a defense of the suggestions of yourself or of the removed paragraph; And as for your comments about myself and the English translation given, this perhaps having some relation, this has already been addressed earlier.
And that the "New Catholic Encyclopedia" can be called a source of doctrine is a suggestion I reject also: But you will not find a defense the suggestion of yourself or the removed paragraph in that particular article therein, as far as I can tell at this moment.
The second link you gives the reproduction of Cabasilas's text from the 1913 "Catholic Encyclopedia" (Actually published over several years), which is now the most full online reproduction of the relevant writing of Cabasilas that I know of.
I cannot accept any thanks in advance for a seeminlgy hoped for denial of the truth. If, on the contrary, thanks for the truth itself is instead eventually desired to be given, then, by God, I am not the one to thank. Zusty001 (talk) 06:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zusty001: Brevity is the soul of wit; long textblocks are unwieldy. Also, try to format your responses correctly—you have to put two returns in to separate paragraphs, that's a basic step you should know by now.

In any case, your response is inaccurate and incomprehensible. First off, the New Catholic Encyclopedia source I cite is a separate project from the 1913 CE; the particular passage I was citing was published 70+ years later with more Eastern Orthodox input and clearly states Cabasilas believed the Roman Canon consecrates. So does the NFTU blog. Your track record of refusing to accept academic consensus and reliable sourcing over your own interpretation means this is your last chance before I request admin intervention. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zusty001: Additional reliable sources that confirm Cabasilas indeed viewed the Roman Canon as consecratory: Page 230, Page 125, and Page 491. This last one is especially useful because it directly refutes your claim that, because Latins disagreed about the point of consecration, that Cabasilas believed the Roman Canon didn't consecrate. Indeed, it says the opposite. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti: It is the other source you have referred to which gives the text from the 1913 "Catholic Encyclopedia"; And not from the "New Catholic Encyclopedia".
That the sources which have up to now been mentioned do not make the same suggestions of yourself nor of the deleted paragraph remains the same (As for the "New Catholic Encyclopedia", my specific words about this being as such "as far as I can tell at this moment" remain the same also). If I were to write at length on this again, it would be much the same as what has already been written. Those words still stand, and you false interpretation here shares some similarity, perhaps, of your false interpretation of the excerpts from Cabasilas.
Not even any of the new sources you cite, within those portions mentioned, attempt to assign the defense of the actuality of consecration in the Latin service to Cabasilas, as the removed paragraph and yourself now insist upon; Even the portion from Christiaan Kappes (Whom I am familiar with for other controversies) does not do so, disregarding his suggestions of Cabasilas drawing from certain Latin works, and references to a certain 'Pseudo-Augustine' with relation to Paschasius Radbertus. Although as for Kaapes, he may well do so elsewhere - I could not say.
If in Kappes' work you refer to the words "total consecration", these are very specifically about Cabasilas's references to the Latin doctrine which holds the "Words of Consecration" to be as such: And about how the remnant of the Orthodox Epiclesis which Cabasilas describes shows, in his writing, the falsehood of this position.
I have already written on what conclusions may come about if you summon legislative powers. I hope that you do not persist to this end, but if you do, your hand will, excluding any amazing happenings, be what is almost certainly respected, and any help for this article which I might struggle for will be snuffed out. Zusty001 (talk) 08:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Note for those it may concern: I had not formatted indentation for separate paragraphs in the above message, and in a few others, which is why the introduction appears properly formatted but not the rest. This will be amended in future messages.) Zusty001 (talk) 08:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zusty001: Below are the two main claims you have made and quotes from reliable sources proving them wrong.
This will be my last communication before dispute resolution. Please consider self-reversion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti: As for the first document you mention, none of the 'Latins' mentioned therein are from Cabasilas's own day (Those whom I have made clear are being referred to with regards to the position on the "Words" universal among them), but are rather all Western authors from times which Cabasilas would have described as being when the West was still, at least in good part, Orthodox. It has nothing to do with the basically universal position of the Latins in Cabasilas's own time regarding the so-called "Words of Institution", and in truth, I must say, serves only to support Cabasilas's description of the prayer which he mentions as being a remnant of the Orthodox Epiclesis.
The suggestion being made by yourself which you attempt to support with the second document, already referenced to the same ends previously, is one that I have already written on at length, especially since it relates so exactly to the suggestions of yourself and the deleted paragraph regarding Cabasilas's own writing in a more direct way. I will only repeat that none of the documents that you have as of now produced attempt to make the suggestions of you or the deleted paragraph; Of a supposed defense from Cabasilas, in the relevant writing, of an actuality of consecration in the Latin service, a service which he would describe as heretical (Although a document which makes such a suggestion about this writing of Cabasilas, again, may well exist somewhere - in that regard, I could not say with certainty). And moreover, I can only repeat that no such defense can really be found in the writing, either, but rather, once more, a condemnation of the service - a condemnation which, as even the "New Catholic Encyclopedia" suggests, Mark of Ephesus would later draw from (Although how much Cabasilas in particular really aided Mark needs more study).
I am compelled to write, then, that neither of the attempted reputations offered of each of the principles given in my own writings, unworthy though I may be to set them forth, have any actual substance or reality. I will not withdraw my deletion, since this would be, again, to violate both my conscience and the truth of the matter. Zusty001 (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zusty001: You assert–with no source–the claim that Latins in Cabasilas's day were all in agreement on the Words of Institution matter; Cabasilas himself even says "It is evident therefore that is not the whole Latin Church which condemns the prayer for the offerings after the words of consecration, but only a few innovators who are causing her harm in other ways". You claim Cabasilas would deem the Roman Canon "heretical"–despite the fact there is no instance in which he describes it as "heretical" and any criticisms he makes are directed at "certain Latins". In the New Catholic Encyclopedia, we have notice that Cabasilas "accepted the Latin position that the Sacrament was realized by the Lord's words alone." Give a response with a source supporting your claims, provide quotes, give page numbers, anything. Please. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: Cabasilas's words on the "...few innovators" have already been regarded and sufficiently explained within this page.
The document you cite in attempting to refute that the universal position of the Latins of Cabasilas's time was the belief in the "Words" as consecratory has already been shown to give no substance to your efforts.
It is plainly clear and known that from the era of Cabasilas up through the Twentieth Century, the position of the Latins, considered heretical by Cabasilas and the Orthodox East, was that of the "Words" as being consecratory - the universality of this opinion among them being only interrupted in some sense by the confused 'compromises' of the Union of Florence in the Fifteenth Century, and the echo of this in the Second Vatican Council's new service in the Twentieth. Everywhere else (With the acception a few among the Latins in the years leading to the Second Vatican Council), from the time of Cabasilas onwards one will find denigration of the Epiclesis among them; Despite the words of the early Western authors referenced in the document now previously mentioned.
On the second matter, the baldness with which you now falsely cite the "New Catholic Encyclopedia" is astonishing. The full sentence, which regards the Latin Union of Florence, is as such:
"...the Greeks [held] that the prayer of epiclesis after the words of institution was necessary for consecration. The Latins maintained that the words of institution sufficed. In the reunion council at Florence (1438), John Torquemada (d. 1468), Bessarion (d. 1472), and Isidore (d. 1463), metropolitan of Kiev, tried to reconcile the two opinions. All but Marcus of Ephesus accepted the Latin position that the Sacrament was realized by the Lord's words alone." (source)
It is this same Mark of Ephesus whom, as previously mentioned, the "Catholic Encyclopedia" described as having been emboldened in his staunch rejection of the Latin "Words" by Cabasilas's writings themselves.
How you could not only falsely suppose these words of the "Encyclopedia" to be referring to Cabasilas, but even mutilate them in order to suggest a meaning exactly opposite to their meaning in truth, is astonishing.
So what I have written, unworthy though I am to give it, remains the same, including on Cabasilas's own writings; And I continue to only hope that your own persistence towards a false end might itself be ended. Zusty001 (talk) 10:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zusty001: I disagree with your reading of the NCE source; that said, I would concur that it is unique in its assertions that Marcus of Ephesus was taking Cabasilas's logic further than Cabasilas himself. I intended to note this discrepancy in my last; apologies and you're right to acknowledge its isolation. Because you seem unwilling to articulate disagreement with the original passage with sources, perhaps you are willing to engage with a new passage:
"Nicholas Cabasilas, a 14th-century Eastern Orthodox writer, held that the Roman Canon did not solely consecrate via the Words of Institution–which was typically identified as the consecratory element by contemporaneous Latin theologians–but instead retained an implicit epiclesis in the Supplices te rogamus that was the consecratory element. Responding to Latin criticisms of Greek emphasis on the epiclesis, Cabasilas asserted the epiclesis as a necessary component of Eucharistic consecration. However, Cabasilas clarified that the epiclesis and Words of Institution are interdependent in order to create an effectual anaphora. Ultimately, Cabasilas assessed that while some Latin liturgical practices appeared errant, the Latin doctrine of the Eucharist was identical to that Eastern Orthodox and that there was a mostly shared ritual practice. At the Council of Florence, Cabasilas's necessity of the epiclesis was sharply challenged and ultimately rejected by Latin theologians; modern Catholic teaching is more approving of his view. As a result, Cabasilas's work remains a frequent point of discussion in ecumenical dialogues." (pages 5-6, 115, 120; page 230, pages 275-277)
Note the previously undiscussed sources; there may be material within them you might want to add/amplify. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
I'm here in response to the third-opinion request raised by Pbritti. I am just a regular editor with no special authority. My opinion here is just that; an opinion. You are free to agree, disagree, or ignore me entirely!

To summarise my understanding of the dispute, the original question is whether the following text should be included in the article:

Nicholas Cabasilas, acknowledging the antiquity of the venerable Roman Canon, was of the opinion that the functional epiclesis in the Roman Rite is an ascending epiclesis following the words of Institution and the anamnesis and oblation just as in the Byzantine Liturgy.[1] Thus, he posits the Supplices te rogamus as the Roman epiclesis wherein Christ who is both victim and priest is also the altar.[2]

Assuming that Cabasilas is accurately quoted in the NFTU article, the first part of this text appears to be a valid interpretation of his words. (Though we should probably define "ascending epiclesis", or reword to avoid that phrase.)

The second part:

Thus, he posits the Supplices te rogamus as the Roman epiclesis wherein Christ who is both victim and priest is also the altar

...is unverifiable by me without a physical trip to the library, but from what is available online it seems a stretch to say Cabasilas states that the Supplices te is an epiclesis; rather he states it is consecratory without using the word epiclesis. I suggest that if anyone has access to the translated text of the Commentary it would be helpful to quote any passages relevant to the discussion. This can be done as part of the citation template and is very helpful both for editorial discussion and as a service to our readers.

As for "wherein Christ who is both victim and priest is also the altar", I can't comment on whether that is a fair paraphrase of Cabasilas's words without access to the text, but I think that regardless of its accuracy it might be helpful to remove it in the interests of clarity and concision.

I think that Pbritti's most recent proposed revision to the text is an improvement generally but I remain nervous about to what extent Cabasilas used the word "epiclesis" specifically, as noted in footnote 107 of the first new reference provided. Thparkth (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thparkth: I appreciate the quick THIRD! That was super fast. Since you're concerned about not being able to access the whole chapter of Cabasilas's writings on this without a library, I point you to the source Zusty misidentified as from the 1913 CE: this link is the translated chapter relevant to discussion perhaps illegally copied onto a blog (I checked it against a copy available to me). As for the point you raised about Cabasilas explicitly identifying the Supplices te as an Epiclesis, this paper cites and partially translates a Finnish paper that explicitly states Cabasilas described it as an Epiclesis (footnote on pages 134-135; the Finnish author tempers this by saying Cabasilas had little foundation for his claim). ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: I have not falsely identified anything here.
This source derives its lengthy quotation of the relevant writing Cabasilas from the 1913 "Catholic Encyclopedia", and not the "New Catholic Encyclopedia", as it notes at its end, and as has already been mentioned. The link you give here in this new message also does not give the correct page.
The meaning of your previous reply to myself is largely unclear. I do not know what you 'disagree' with myself about regarding the article from the "New Catholic Encyclopedia". As regards your quotation, that you falsely described it as being about a person which it is not, and that you had mutilated the quotation within your context to suggest an exactly opposite meaning, is simply the truth.
And nowhere in the relevant article does the "New Catholic Encyclopedia" suggest that what Mark of Ephesus maintained was different than that of Cabasilas; And, really, it seems to explicitly contradict this in the sentences found in the more lengthy quotation of my last message. Rather, the 'extremity' which the article suggests of Mark seems to be an extremity of staunchness, more than anything (Being the only one present from the East refusing to accept the Union).
As for the new passage you cite, I have no idea where it is from, as I cannot find it in any of the new works you mention as of now. But, wherever it is from, it is the first you have given which seems to more explicitly suggest that Cabasilas did not consider the Latin service heretical, and even that his words from the passage in his "Commentary" were a defense of it; These being the suggestions of the deleted paragraph, and of yourself. I reject both all the same, and I go so far as to say that even the Latin "New Catholic Encyclopedia", insofar as the relevant article is concerned, admits in some part what I have written about Cabasilas's relevant writing, in its own words.
To @Thparkth: It is because of the two false principles mentioned here (The false principle that Cabasilas did not hold the Latin service to be unacceptable, and as such must have held either its "Words" or its remnant of an Epiclesis to be consecratory;

And the false principle that the relevant writing of his in the "Commentary" as such must have been a defense of the Latin service) that I principally insist upon the continued expunging of the deleted paragraph, since, especially as can be seen in its original form, it suggests both of them in its very substance. Zusty001 (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(This portion did not properly indent, but it is a continuation of the paragraph beginning with "To @Thparkth".) Zusty001 (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Zusty001. Would it be fair to re-state your concern as follows?
1. Cabasilas held the Latin service to be unacceptable, and we should not suggest that he endorsed it when in fact he was criticising it.
and
2. Cabasilas did not consider the Latin service to contain an effective consecration.
If so, I can certainly agree with #1. It seems that a simple re-wording would deal with the issue.
With regard to #2, it seems to me that Cabasilas did consider the Latin Supplices te to be effective as consecration, saying of it:

This prayer can have only one significance - it transforms the offerings into the Body and Blood of the Lord.

For this reason I think it would be appropriate to have (some version of) the disputed paragraph in the article.
Thparkth (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zusty001: Again, please read the sources. There are multiple sections to that page you have repeatedly misread. Above the italicized, asterisked portion of that blog post is a lengthy quotation of Cabasilas's Commentary that I took much time out of my weekend to ensure was matching to the copy I have so that you could enjoy the same privileged access to the source that I do. Below it, separated by a bolded heading, is a quotation of the "Epiklesis" article from the 1913 CE. I directed you towards the quoted portion from Cabasilas but you seem incapable or openly unwilling to process this or any of the many sources I have offered. Additionally, you impugn certain academic sources as "scheming" and "Latin" (which, in of itself, actually can warrant a short block; I opted for a light warning on your talk page). You have previously been warned about an inability to comprehend and identify reliable sources at least three times; you have wasted too much time.
@Thparkth: I can't stay in this conversation or I'll get too heated. I endorse your preferred action, whatever it is, on the grounds that you are a volunteering good-faith third party. You may reach me on my talk page. I apologize for my inability to remain here in any civil way and recognize how unfair that is. I am sorry. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti: The relevant page, linked again in my previous message, cites its source for its quotation of Cabasilas as such: "From the Catholic Encyclopedia – Epiklesis". The article linked here is from the online reproduction of the 1913 "Catholic Encyclopedia", as anyone may find for themselves on that site.
So I repeat that I have not falsely identified anything - this being the one source which I have noted as deriving its quotation from the 1913 "Catholic Encyclopedia". As for the rest of what you write on this in particular, I cannot see its meaning.
You may look through the entirety of the present page, and you will find that all I have referred to as scheming (And at that only once) are certain phrases employed by yourself in attempt to censure what has been written by myself, and to censure the removal of the relevant relevant paragraph from the article on the present site. I do not retract this.
As for the "New Catholic Encyclopedia", or the 1913 "Catholic Encyclopedia", or other documents, it would be rather ridiculous to deny that they are Latin sources. But I have not attempted to censor anything of note and value that may have been derived from them (After all, the most lengthy reproduction of the relevant writing of Cabasilas that I know of online is, again, sourced from the older "Encyclopedia"); And I maintain what I have written as regards the contents of these otherwise, especially the "New Catholic Encyclopedia", despite your accusations of false readings. The same is true for any other documents of note mentioned here and addressed by myself here.
I can only hope, again, that you do not continue to persist in the manner that you have up to now, this persistence only growing all the more bewildering and vitriolic. As I've written from the very beginning, respect for conscience and the truth must outweigh any respect for false accusations or anger. Zusty001 (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thparkth: You give a basically correct account of these two main principles. Moreover, I would say that the main principle necessitating the removal of the paragraph is the first of these two, as you have listed them.
However, I must maintain the second with all the same emphasis. With regards to the portion you cite, and to all other places within the relevant writing of Cabasilas where he may refer to a 'consecration' of the Latin service (These being in similar terms and of same context as the portion you cite), I maintain that he refers to the meaning of the Epiclesis in the Orthodox Liturgy, and means to advocate the position that this certain prayer in the Latin service, beginning "Supplices te...", was a remnant of the Epiclesis.
Cabasilas's writing is of note enough to be relevant in the article, and in the same place as the expunged paragraph once was. As such, I can begin writing this new paragraph soon enough. Zusty001 (talk) 06:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Nicholas Cabasilar, A Commentary on the Divine Liturgy, Translated by J.M. Hussey&P.A. McNulty (St Vladimir's: Crestwoord, NY, 2002), pp. 76-77
  2. ^ Nicholas Cabasilar, A Commentary on the Divine Liturgy, Translated by J.M. Hussey&P.A. McNulty (St Vladimir's: Crestwoord, NY, 2002), pp. 78
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Epiclesis&oldid=1201780066"