[sionnsar]

Interesting read. No Epiklesis that I could detect. Was there one in earlier versions?

There is mention fairly earlier on in the comments that followed the original. I'd be interested to hear your commentary, K.

[Kolokotronis]

I noted several interesting comments. First, the question of how the Creed actually begins. The Creed in the Divine Liturgies of both +Basil and +John Chrysostomos begins "Πιστευω", "I believe". The Creed adopted by the Ecumenical Council begins, "Πιστευομεν", "We believe" because it was a "corporate" statement of the belief of the One Church. At the DL we make a personal statement of Faith, thus the first person singular. I should think that either form would be acceptable though 1700 years of the use of the one over the other would seem to counsel leaving it singular.

I did notice that the Creed still uses the innovative filioque. That's a shame actually.

Finally, there is a comment which indicates that The Church is not of one mind about the epiklesis. I think this is entirely untrue though I have heard this argument from Protestants before. The position is based upon the apparent lack of an epiklesis in the Roman canon. It is fair to say that it is not so obvious in the Roman Canon as it is in the Orthodox Divine Liturgies, but it is indeed there. "And do Thou, O God, vouchsafe in all respects to bless, + consecrate, + and approve + this our oblation, to perfect it and to render it well-pleasing to Thyself, so that it may become for us the Body + and the Blood + of Thy most beloved Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord." The NO Mass makes the epiklesis much more obvious, but to say that the Roman Canon does not contain it would mean that there was a disagreement on a most fundamental theological point within The Church, namely, Who (or who) makes the consecration take place. The Church was always of one mind here, that it is God Who effects the change. Since the Reformation, some have argued that the Catholic Mass is "magic" because it appears that it is the priest, sua sponte, who effects the change (whence comes the phrase hocus pocus). This idea that the priest has "magical" powers is a particularly unfortunate error but understandable given the "vagueness" of the epiklesis in the Roman Canon and particularly so when one considers that the absolution formula for the Latin Church's sacrament of Confession says "Absolvo te". Interestingly, the ancient English Sarum Liturgy contains virtually the same epiklesis as the Divine Liturgy of +John Chrysostomos: "Therefore we beseech Thee, O Lord, to send down Thy Holy Spirit upon this Sacrifice, that He may make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ, and this chalice the precious Blood of Thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ, changing Them by the Holy Spirit." Anyway, the absence of an epiklesis can lead to all sorts of theological confusion and bolster the traditional Protestant position that the Eucharist really is simply a memorial of the Last Supper and not truly the Body and Blood of Christ.