[Romulus]

Because the Epiklesis invokes the Holy Spirit to accomplish what the words of consecration set out to cause.

Your words were still with me at Mass this morning (a N.O. liturgy -- not my customary worship -- using Eucharistic Prayer #1). In adoring the Eucharistic Elements immediately after the repetition of the words of institution, celebrant and congregation alike signify the belief that Christ is really present on that altar. It seems that an epiclesis after this point would be redundant so far as "accomplishing" transubstantiation is concerned. In my unlearned layman's view, the logic of a "wishful" epiclesis in advance of the words of institution seems more persuasive than to pray for the ratification of something the Church teaches has already taken place. I believe the Greeks do not share the Roman interest in defining the precise moment at which the change occurs, or whether it can be said to happen in a moment at all. But we Latins make a point of adoring the Blessed Sacrament at the elevation, and that seems hard to get around.

Happy New Year, btw.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The Greeks, following their doctors such as St. Basil and St. John Damascene, teach the change occurs at the Epiklesis (after all, the prayer says "changing them by your Holy Spirit", not "having changed them").

I don't see any reason that in the Greek Church, this cannot be the moment of change.

Recently, the Vatican has held that the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is consecratory, although it lacks completely the words of institution. At what moment does the consecration occur there?

It seems the entire matter is somewhat conditioned by the intention of the Church in creating the rite.