Interpretation of the concept of “Heavenly Altar” in the teaching of St. Nicholas Cabasilas on the Eucharist in the light of his polemics with the Western view of the relationship between establishing words and epiclesis

Contents Introduction The doctrine of the consecration of the Eucharistic gifts in the Western Christian tradition until the beginning of the 13th century: a brief excursion The position of Western Christians and St. Nicholas Cabasilas on the question of the role of establishing words in the consecration of the Eucharistic gifts Christ as the “Heavenly Altar” Conclusion In his treatise “Explanation of the Divine Liturgy” St. Nikolai Kavasila compares Western Christian and Eastern Christian views on the problem of the relationship between establishing words and epiclesis. Cavasilas turns the attention of contemporary Latin theologians of the 14th century to their centuries-old Western Christian tradition of understanding prayer “Supplices Te rogamus”. In his interpretation of “Supplices Te rogamus”, on the one hand, he follows the Latin tradition, represented by many Christian writers of the patristic period and the beginning of the high Middle Ages, on the other hand, he creatively develops it and gives it a theological justification, relying on Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. For Kavasila, the prayer “Supplices Te rogamus” is nothing more than an epiclesis, in which an appeal to God with a request for the consecration of gifts is clothed in a figurative, poetic form. According to Cabasilas, in the prayer “Supplices Te rogamus” the Heavenly Altar is Christ Himself; An angel is a mediator between God and the earthly Church; The Church’s prayer to God for the ascension by the hand of an Angel of the offered gifts (bread and wine) to the Most Heavenly Altar is a prayer for their consecration. As René Borner notes, “Explanation of the Divine Liturgy” by St. Nicholas Cabasilas, “this is the first document where the prayer of the epiclesis is explicitly considered as the subject of an unresolved confrontation between the Latins and Greeks” 1. Indeed, Cabasilas became the first Byzantine theologian to speak out against the new teaching that was spreading at the beginning of the 14th century among Catholics, according to which the consecration of gifts is carried out solely by the power of instituted words, and the prayer of the epiclesis is meaningless and unnecessary 2. In his polemic against this new teaching, the saint focuses his theological analysis on the prayer "Supplices Te rogamus", which is part of the canon of the Mass. In this prayer, the Church asks God to lift up the offered gifts (bread and wine) with the hand of an Angel onto the Most Heavenly Altar (sublime altare) 3 . For Cabasilas, the key concept in this prayer is the concept of the “Heavenly Altar” (Ὑπερουράνιος Θυσιαστήριον). The teaching of Cabasilas on the relationship between establishing words and epiclesis has always been the focus of attention of Western theologians who studied the work of Cabasilas 4 . However, despite the numerous studies devoted to this topic, neither European nor domestic scientists paid proper attention to the interpretation that Cabasilas gave to the concept of the “Heavenly Altar” 5. The purpose of the article is to fill this omission and show that with his interpretation of the concept of the “Heavenly Altar”, Cabasilas invites contemporary Western Christians to turn to the original understanding of the prayer “Supplices Te rogamus”, characteristic of the Latin tradition; and also conduct a comparative analysis of the epiclesis in the Eastern anaphora and the Roman Eucharistic prayer. The doctrine of the consecration of the Eucharistic gifts in the Western Christian tradition before the beginning of the 13th century: a brief excursion If we turn to the patristic and medieval Latin tradition, we see that the sanctifying power was attributed by the Latin writers not to the words of institution, but to prayer, which contained an appeal to God or the Holy Spirit 6 . St. Ambrose of Milan (IV century) in his treatise “On Sacred Actions” cites the text of the Mediolan anaphora: “And we ask and we pray (Et petimus et praecamur), that You may accept this offering on Your heavenly altar by the hands of Your angels (in sublimi altari tuo per manus angelorum tuorum), as You deigned to accept the gifts of Your righteous servant Abel, and the sacrifice of our patriarch Abraham, and what the high priest Melchizedek brought to you." Here the request for the acceptance of gifts is actually considered as a prayer of epiclesis. Let us note that the prayer “Et petimus et praecamur” 8 is one of the very first testimonies in which the request for the Angel to present gifts to the Heavenly Altar is implicitly associated with the moment of their consecration 9 . The teaching that the gifts offered by the Church were sanctified by the Holy Spirit was universal and, in fact, remained unchanged until the end of the patristic period. At the beginning of the 7th century, Isidore of Seville (†636), in his treatise “On Church Services” (De ecclesiasticis officiis), writes that the consecration of gifts occurs during the “sixth prayer,” by which he means “the rites of the Mass and prayers, through which the sacrifices offered to God are sanctified” 10 . Elsewhere we see that by the sixth prayer he understands a whole series of prayers, starting from the Sanctus and ending with the Lord's Prayer: “Then [follows] the sixth prayer [of the Eucharist], as a result of which the sacrament is formed as an offering, which is offered to God, sanctified through the Holy Spirit, taking the form (conformetur) of the Body and Blood of Christ. The last of these is the prayer that our Lord instructed His disciples to pray: “Our Father who art in heaven...” 11. From the above passage, two important conclusions can be drawn: 1) the author does not indicate the exact moment of the consecration of the gifts, but he considers the entire anaphora as a single prayer for the consecration of the gifts, 2) the gifts are sanctified by the Holy Spirit through the prayers of the Church 12. This teaching, expressed by Isidore of Seville, the last Latin father of the patristic period, is deeply rooted in the Latin liturgical tradition and is not an isolated, private opinion 13. The Corbian abbot Paschasius Radbert (†865) writes very clearly and definitely about the consecration of gifts by the action of the Holy Spirit in the 9th century: “We believe that Christ is both the Altar, and the Offering, and the Sacrifice, and the Offerer of Sacrifice, and the High Priest” (Christus altare creditur esse hostia et sacrificium, pontifex et sacerdos) 14. In the treatise “Liber de corpore et sanguine Domini” he comments as follows on the words “Jube haec perferri” from the prayer “Supplices Te rogamus”: “Who, except the Holy Spirit, could bring about the incarnation of the Word in the womb of the Virgin? In the same way, in this mystery [in the Eucharist] we must believe that by the same power of the Holy Spirit, through the words of Christ, the Flesh and Blood of the Savior performs an invisible action. Therefore, the priest said: command that these offerings be raised by the hands of Your Angel on Your Heavenly Altar before Your divine Majesty” 15. Florus of Lyons (†860) also connects the consecration of gifts with the moment of laying them on the Most Heavenly Altar: “Fit ergo et in ista oratione et oblatione sacra consecrationis aliquid incomprehensibile et ineffabile, et multo his omnibus mirabilius, ut per angelica ministeria et supplicationes tanquam de sublimi altari divinae maiestatis conspectibus offerantur in illa immolationis hora, cum astantibus sibi ministris coelestibus Christus, ut proposita consecret, adesse credendus est" 16. The described position on the issue of the consecration of gifts was inherited from the Latin fathers of the patristic period and the Latin authors of the early High Middle Ages. For example, Gezo of Tortona (10th century) connects the consecration of gifts with their laying on the Heavenly Altar, by which he understands Christ Himself 17. Peter of Lombardy (†1160), writes about the prayer “Supplices Te rogamus” that it “is called Mass 18 because a heavenly messenger comes to consecrate the life-giving Body, according to the priest’s saying: “Almighty God, let this [i.e. bread and wine] brought by the hands of Thy holy angel upon Thy altar on high...” 19 . Honorius Augustodunsky, a medieval scholastic of the 12th century, calls Christ the Most Heavenly Altar (Sublime altare in conspectu Dei, est Christus in dextera Dei). At the same time, Honorius makes it clear that it is the laying of gifts on this Altar that implies their consecration 20. The same idea can be seen in Pope Innocent III (beginning of the 12th century), however, he calls the Trinity Itself, and not Christ, the Most Heavenly Altar: “Nam altare superius est Dei Trinitas” 21. Alger of Liege (†1131) in his treatise “On the Sacrifice of the Mass” connects the moment of laying gifts on the Most Heavenly Altar with their “union” with the Body and Blood of Christ 22 . This interpretation, according to which the act of laying gifts on the Heavenly Altar is associated with their consecration, was so general that it can be found in the commentary on the Holy Scriptures of John of the Teutonic “Glossa ordinaria ad Decretum Gratiani” 23, written around 1216/17 24. In this commentary one can indeed read the paraphrase of the indicated interpretation of “Supplices Te rogamus” by Peter of Lombard with amazing accuracy: “Let it be” (Jube), that is: do (fac). “Brought” (Perferri), that is: transubstantiated (transsubstantiari). Or: “brought” (perferri), that is, accepted (efferri), that is: converted (converti)” 25. Similar examples from the heritage of Latin writers of both the patristic period and the beginning of the High Middle Ages, in which the prayer “Supplices Te rogamus” is conceptualized and understood precisely as an epiclesis, could be multiplied, but we will limit ourselves to only those cited 26. As conciliar documents testify, at the Council of Lyon in 1274 the problem of the relationship between statutory words and epiclesis was not raised. However, until this time, mentions of this problem can be found. Thus, Jean Darrouzes notes that at the beginning of the 13th century, the Greek polemicist Constantine Stilbes (Κωνσταντίνος Στιλβής) reproached the Latins for “completely rejecting” (τέλεον ἀθετοῦσι) rites of the liturgy of St. Basil the Great and John Chrysostom, but without further specifications 27. Thus, the doctrine of the consecration of gifts during the epiclesis existed in the Western Church until the beginning of the 13th century (up to and including Peter of Lombardy). Subsequently, in Catholic theology, sanctifying power began to be attributed to established words 28. St. Nicholas Cabasilas became the first Byzantine author who, in the 14th century, openly opposed the emerging Latin doctrine of the consecration of gifts by the power of instituted words. As the saint notes, “The Latin Church as a whole (ἀπλῶς) does not neglect prayer for gifts after the words of the Lord, but only a few and later ones do so (ἐνίων ὀλίγων καὶ νεωτέρων), who in other respects harmed it, striving only for that to speak and hear something new” 29. As we will see, Cabasilas shows that Western Christians criticized the Greeks for adding a prayer for the consecration of gifts to the Eucharistic canon after the words of establishment. The position of Western Christians and St. Nicholas Kavasila on the question of the role of establishing words in the consecration of the Eucharistic gifts The controversy about the meaning of the words of establishment is presented by Cabasilas in chapters 29 and 30 of the “Explanation of the Divine Liturgy.” Of interest is the fact that first Cabasilas in chapter 29 (“On what the Latins reproach us with regard to this, and the answer to their reproaches”) criticizes and refutes the Catholic view of this problem, and then in chapter 30 (“On the fact that in the Latin Church the sacrament of the Eucharist is celebrated in the same way”) he proves that in the canon of the Mass of the Catholic Church there is also an epiclesis, that Catholics pray to God for the sanctification of the gifts themselves. completely unaware. At the beginning of chapter 29, Cabasilas notes that regarding the prayer of epiclesis, “some Latins (Λατῖνοι) blame (ἐπιλαμβάνονται) us” 30, referring (ἀναφέρειν) to the practice of the Latin Church (ἡ τῶν Λατίνων Ἐκκλησία) 31 . Apparently, we are talking about those Latin Christians who lived in the Byzantine Empire. It is this chapter that is the first written evidence that describes the new teaching of the Western Church about the consecration of the offered gifts precisely through the utterance of the establishing words by the priest. Despite the fact that the Latins (Λατῖνοι) emphasized the importance of the role of Christ in the Eucharist as the only Priest and the only Sacrifice, they, however, denied the importance of the epiclesis: the presence of the formula of the Sacrament (institutional words) makes prayer superfluous 32 . According to their ideas, whoever prays for sanctification after the establishing words suffers from lack of faith and is engaged in “vain and unnecessary things” 33 . Referring to the interpretation of St. John Chrysostom 34 to the verse: “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28) - they argued that just as these words were spoken once, but always act, so the establishing words spoken by Christ only once at the Last Supper have eternal sanctifying power. Moreover, those who pray for the consecration of gifts, firstly, recognize the word of the Lord as “powerless” (ἀσθένειαν); secondly, they show that they rely more on themselves, and not on the word of the Lord; thirdly, they make the reality of performing this most important sacrament for salvation dependent on “an uncertain thing, namely, human prayer,” which may or may not be accepted by God 35 . Like Western Christians, Cabasilas compares the establishing words spoken by Christ at the Last Supper with the words spoken by the Creator at the creation of the world (Gen. 1:28), but turns their own arguments against them. He agrees that since God spoke the words at the Last Supper and at the creation of the world, these words are truly immutable and remain forever. But just as the words “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28) need to be fulfilled on the part of man (that is, marriage), so the words of Christ “This is My Body […] and this is My Blood” (Matt. 26:26) must be realized by the Church in the prayer of epiclesis. Thus Cabasilas comes to the conclusion that the consecration of the gifts does not depend on the words of establishment, but on the prayer of the epiclesis, in which the priest asks that the Holy Spirit Himself perform the consecration. Establishing words, which have creative power and are always active, are the basis for the consecration of gifts, but the consecration itself is performed by the Holy Spirit through the prayer of the priest: “The word of the Lord itself performs (ἐνεργοῦντα) the Sacrament, but precisely through the priest, through his intercession and prayer (οὕτω διὰ ἱερέως, δι᾿ ἐντεύξεως αὐτοῦ καὶ εὐχῆς)" 36 . Therefore, for the word of the Lord to be “effective,” “much is required, otherwise it will be ineffective (οὐ ποιήσει)” 37. Refuting the opinion of Western Christians, Cabasilas also introduces a soteriological argument. Christ accomplished the work of redemption and through this gave the opportunity to all who wished to receive remission of sins. And although the salvation of the entire human race has already been accomplished, without repentance, faith, prayer and other virtues, a person will not be able to realize the gifts of redemption in himself. Also, in the matter of consecrating the offered gifts, not only the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit is important, but also the prayer of the Church for this consecration 38 . Cabasilas emphasizes that in celebrating the sacrament of the Eucharist, Christians rely not on the prayer of the priest, but on the “power of God” (Θεοῦ δυνάμει); They believe in the consecration of gifts not because the priest prays to God and begs Him, but because “God listens,” who “promised to bestow through prayer” 39. He notes that all “those who rely on prayer rely not on themselves, but on God, who has promised to give through prayer” 40. Therefore, the guarantor for the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist for Cabasilas is not the establishing words or even the prayer of the epiclesis, but God Himself, who promised to hear the prayer and give what was asked. Since Cabasilah's teaching on the meaning of the words of establishment has been well studied, 41 there is no need to dwell on it in detail. Let us only note that the establishing words for Cabasilas are the main condition and basis for the performance of the Sacrament, that is, for the transposition of gifts: “Having uttered the establishing words themselves, the priest then falls down and prays, and asks the Father to apply (ἐφαρμόσαι) those divine sayings of His only begotten Son... both to the gifts that are presented and, having revealed His All-Holy and Almighty Spirit, to transpose (μεταβληθῆναι) bread into His [Christ’s] most honorable and holy Body, and wine into His most pure and holy Blood” 42 . And as St. Mikhail Zheltov, in the theological thought of Cabasilas, epiclesis and establishing words complement each other and find their actualization in each other 43. Christ as the "Heavenly Altar" However, we find the most interesting and theologically significant argument against the Western teaching about the consecration of gifts at the moment of pronouncing the instituted words in chapter 30, “Explanation of the Divine Liturgy.” In this chapter, Cabasilas moves from refuting the position of Western Christians to proving that the Roman Mass also contains a prayer for the consecration of gifts, which is a kind of equivalent of the Eastern epiclesis 44. This prayer Kavasila calls the following: “Command this Gift to ascend by the hand of an angel to Your Heavenly Altar” χειρὶ ἀγγέλου εἰς τὸ ὑπερουράνιόν σου θυσιαστήριον) 45 . Here, apparently, Cabasilas freely sets out the prayer “Supplices Te rogamus” (“We humbly ask You”), which in the Roman canon of the Mass (Canon missae) follows “Qui pridie” (“Which before” - institutio, the utterance of institutive words) and precedes “Memento etiam” (“Remember also” - commemoration of the saints) 46 . Here is the full text of the prayer “Supplices Te rogamus” from the Roman canon of the Mass (IV century): “Supplices Te rogamus, omnipotens Deus: iube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublime altare tuum, in conspectu divinae maiestatis tuae: ut, quot ex hac altaris participatione sacrosanctum Filii tui Corpus, et Sanguinem sumpserimus, omni benedictione caelesti et gratia repleamur. Per eundem Christum Dominum nostrum" 47. Here is the Russian translation: “We humbly pray to You, Almighty God: may Your Angel lift up this Sacrifice on Your Heavenly Altar before Your divine majesty, so that we, having received from this throne the most holy Body and Blood of Your Son, may be filled with every heavenly blessing and grace. We pray to You through Christ our Lord." 48 As Christian Kappes notes, the canon of the Roman Mass was not available to Cavasila, since if it had been so, he would have quoted the prayer at more length and in his polemical chapters (29-30) would undoubtedly have more actively resorted to knowledge of the Roman canon, which is not present in the Exposition of the Divine Liturgy. But Cabasilas, as the researcher writes, quotes verbatim in ancient Greek the fourth book of the “Sentences” of Peter of Lombardy (†1160): “Omnipotens Deus, iube haec perferri per manus sancti angeli tui in sublime altare tuum, etc” 49. As K. Kappes believes, it was precisely this only, and, moreover, incomplete, quotation from the Roman canon of the Mass that was available to Cavasila. This fact, as well as the obvious textual parallels of the Alphabetic Syntagma (Σύνταγμα κατὰ στοιχεῖον) of the Byzantine canonist Matthew Blastar and the writings of Barlaam of Calabria with the “Sentences” allowed the researcher to conclude that ca. In 1341, in the library of the city of Thessalonica, where Barlaam, Blastar, Cabasilas and Simeon of Thessalonica lived, there was a Greek translation of the Latin “Sentences” of Peter of Lombardy 50. According to the author, the first owner of the Greek translation was the anti-Latin theologian monk Job (monk Job; floruit 1270) 51 . However, we note that it is very important that Peter of Lombrad in his fourth book of “Sentences” nowhere explains the meaning of the concept of “Heavenly Altar”. Therefore, Cavasila’s acquaintance with the “Sentences” could not in any way affect his interpretation of this concept. The only thing that Cabasilas could extract from the Sentences in the context of a discussion with Western teaching was the teaching of Peter of Lombardy on the consecration of gifts during the prayer “Supplices Te rogamus”. At first glance it may seem that there is no explicit prayer for the consecration of gifts in the Supplices Te rogamus. The main request of the prayer is that all who receive communion from the altar become partakers of the grace of Christ. Thus, the main focus is on the theme of worthy communion. The epicletic aspect of prayer seems very superficial or not noticeable at all. On what basis does Cabasilas consider this prayer to be equivalent to the epiclesis? According to Cabasilas, the prayer “Supplices Te rogamus” can only be interpreted in two senses: literal or metaphorical. In the first sense (literal), the prayer will express a request to take gifts from earth to heaven. But this makes no sense for two reasons. Firstly, if the gifts are already consecrated, then taking them to heaven seems absurd, for the purpose of the Liturgy is the sanctification of the faithful through communion, which would not be possible if the Holy Gifts ascended to heaven after their consecration. Secondly, if the gifts have not yet been consecrated, and the Church asks God to take them to heaven, then what is the meaning of the Liturgy and why should the gifts be raised to the Most Heavenly Altar. And in this thought Kavasila also rightly sees the absurdity 52. In the second sense (metaphorical), this prayer involves a qualitative transformation of the already consecrated Gifts (the Body and Blood of Christ) into something better and more perfect. But this would be meaningless if we recognize that the Gifts are already consecrated through the utterance of institutive words (and this is exactly what “some” Latins believed), because nothing can be more perfect than the Body and Blood of Christ 53 . By these arguments (reductio ad absurdum) Cabasilas argues that the only logical understanding of the prayer “Supplices Te rogamus” is that in it Western Christians ask God for the sanctification of the offered gifts. Consequently, before this prayer, “[the Latins] do not recognize bread and wine as having yet received consecration” 54 . How does Cabasilah interpret the words of the prayer “Supplices Te rogamus”? From the above reasoning of Cabasilah, it becomes obvious that the key problem in understanding the meaning of “Supplices Te rogamus” is the problem of understanding the concept of the “Heavenly Altar,” since it is this concept that is the meaning-forming one in this prayer. Therefore, in order to prove that the “Supplices Te rogamus” is nothing more than an epiclesis, Cabasilas focuses all his attention on the concept of the “Celestial Altar”. In the passage of the prayer “Supplices Te rogamus” cited by Cabasilas, the Latin “sublime altare” corresponds to the ancient Greek “ὑπερουράνιος θυσιαστήριον”. As shown by the results of studies of Byzantine patristic literature in the search program “Thesaurus Linguae Graecae”, St. Nicholas Cabasilus became the first Byzantine author to interpret the concept of the Most Heavenly Altar (ὑπερουράνιος θυσιαστήριον) and the prayer “Supplices Te rogamus”. Until St. Nicholas Kavasila, none of the Byzantine Christian writers tried to reveal the meaning of this concept, except for the only quote from “De ecclesiastica hierarchia” of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, which will be discussed below. Basically, they all follow the book of the Apocalypse in their understanding of the Most Heavenly Altar, where it is described as “a golden altar standing before God” (Rev. 9:13) 55. Indicative here is the example of St. Nikita Stifat and St. Herman of Constantinople. In a letter to the sophist Gregory, the Monk Nikitas, referring to Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, gives σοφιστὴν ἀντιρρητικαί" the following description of the Most-Heavenly Altar: "Angels always stand before [God] with fear and trembling, just as the great divine Dionysius describes their standing in the Most-heavenly and reasonable Altar of God (εἰς τὸ ὑπερουράνιον καὶ νοερὸν θυσιαστήριον τοῦ Θεοῦ), [...] when they never stop celebrating the liturgy to Him" 56. In his second letter to the same sophist Gregory, he writes that the Apostle Paul “presented himself before the throne of the Holy and Incomprehensible Trinity, where Christ ascended as the “Forerunner for us”, sacrificing Himself, where the mental, divine and heavenly altar of God is located (ἔνθα τὸ νοερὸν καὶ θεῖον καὶ ὑπερουράνιον τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχει θυσιαστήριον)" 57 . Here it is clear that the word “θυσιαστήριον” apparently has the meaning of a sanctuary, that is, a place where heavenly worship is performed, and not a throne or altar in the proper sense of the word. St. Herman of Constantinople, like St. Nikita, in “Tales of the Church and Consideration of the Sacraments” writes: “The altar [i.e. the throne] corresponds to the heavenly and mental Altar and is named after its image, and the earthly priests standing before it in the flesh and constantly serving the Lord are similar to the mental ranks of the disembodied and higher powers serving [God]” 58 . Thus, Rev. Nikita and St. Herman understands by “ὑπερουράνιος θυσιαστήριον” a certain sanctuary, a certain center of heavenly paradise, which, at least explicitly, is not identified with Christ. Does Kavasila follow St. Nikita and St. Herman in understanding the concept of “ὑπερουράνιος θυσιαστήριον”? He first notes that the Precelestial Altar does not need to be understood as any specific physical place “on which the [Eucharistic] sacrifice is to be offered” 59 . Further, the logic of his reasoning can be presented as follows. Since the only Mediator and source of sanctification, according to the Holy Scriptures, is Christ (1 Tim. 2:5), then, therefore, “everything that has the power of mediation and gives us sanctification is Christ Himself (πάντα τὰ μεσιτείαν δυνάμενα τὸν ἁγιασμὸν ἡμῖν ἔχοντα μόνος ἐστὶν αὐτὸς ὁ Σωτήρ)" 60 . Cabasilas, however, recognizes that in relation to the Eucharistic Sacrifice, “both the priest, and the victim, and the altar” (ἱερεύς, καὶ ἱερεῖον, καὶ θυσιαστήριον) is that which has power mediation (τὰ μεσιτείαν δυνάμενα) and sanctification (ἁγιάζοντα). But in the strict sense of the word, “the priest, the sacrifice, and the altar are one” 61 θυσιαστήριον) 62, for “Christ is both Priest, and Sacrifice, and Altar” (ὁ αὐτός ἐστι καὶ ἱερεύς καὶ θυσιαστήριον καὶ ἱερεῖον) 63 . Cabasilas proves this conclusion with two arguments: 1) Christ is a Priest and a Sacrifice, for He said about Himself that He calls Himself a Sacrifice for people: “For them I consecrate Myself” (John 17:19). Consequently, Christ is both the Sacrifice and the Priest, making the offering of Himself. 2) Christ is the Altar (Θυσιαστήριον), since he is the source of sanctification. For according to Holy Scripture, the altar is the source of sanctification (“The altar sanctifies the gift” Matthew 23:19). In support of this interpretation, Cabasilas also quotes from Pseudo-Dionysius: “Jesus himself, the original sanctification of the divine minds, is our most divine Altar, [...] on which everything that is sanctified is accomplished and sanctified” 64. Therefore, according to Cabasilas, who in this case follows Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, Christ is symbolically called the Altar. As researcher Nichifor Tănase notes, in the theological thought of Cabasilas, the sanctifying power of Christ is identified by Cabasilas with the sanctifying power of the throne, that is, the altar: “The altar symbolizes the hand of the Savior (τὰ θυσιαστήρια δὲ τὴν τοῦ Σωτῆρος μιμεῖται χεῖρα)" 65 . Therefore, “on the ontological level, the altar has a remarkable identity with Christ” 66. Cabasilus transfers this teaching about the mysterious unity of Christ and the throne to the teaching about the “Heavenly Altar.” According to Cabasilas, the act of laying gifts (bread and wine) on the “Heavenly Altar” (figuratively speaking “on Christ”) is nothing more than the act of consecrating gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ: “For if the Altar sanctifies the gifts placed on it, then it is one and the same (ταῦτόν ἐστιν) - whether to pray about the consecration of gifts or about placing them on the Altar” 67. When a priest prays to God with the hand of an angel to offer gifts to the Most Heavenly Altar, he asks to “bless” the gifts and “transfer them into the Most Heavenly Body of the Lord (εἰς αὐτὸ τὸ ὑπερουράνιον σῶμα τοῦ Κυρίου μεταβληθῆναι)" 68 . Consequently, in the prayer “Supplices Te rogamus” the priest asks “not at all to give them [i.e. gifts] to another place or to transfer from earth to heaven, because even after prayer we nevertheless see them [the consecrated Gifts] before us” 69. Thus, Cabasilas derives the idea that the expressions: “to be sanctified (ἱερουργηθῆναι) by Christ”, “to be converted (μεταβληθῆναι) into a Sacrifice” and “to be laid on (ἀνατεθῆναι) on the [Heavenly] Altar” - mean the same thing, that is, the consecration of gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ 70 . As Cabasilas concludes, “this prayer [“Supplices Te rogamus”] ... offers (μεταβολήν) gifts into the Body and Blood of the Lord” 71 . Mentally addressing Western Christians, St. Nicholas writes: “[If] your priests, contemplating Christ as that which sanctifies (ὡς ἱερεῖον) [that is, contemplating Christ as the Most Heavenly Altar], and pray for the laying of gifts on Him, then they pray for the same thing [that is, for the imparting of gifts], only in other expressions and words” 72 . Also, the priests of the Eastern tradition, after the consecration of the gifts, no longer pray for their placement on the Most Heavenly Altar, because “they have already been lifted up there and accepted” 73, but only remember Him, asking for the grace of the Holy Spirit: “So that our God who loves mankind, Who accepted (ὁ προσδεξάμενος) them to the Holy, and the Most Heavenly (ὑπερουράνιον), and His Mental Altar, as the aroma of a spiritual fragrance, sent down to us Divine grace and the gift of the Holy Spirit" 74 . Indeed, in this petition, proclaimed in the litany after the Eucharistic canon, God is already called “Having received” (προσδεξάμενος – aorist participle from προσδέχομαι) Gifts 75 . Cabasilas also explains the role of the Angel mentioned in the Supplices Te rogamus. Referring to the doctrine of the hierarchies of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite 76, Cabasilas asserts that the gifts, in order to be ascended to the Heavenly Altar, “need the hand of an Angel (ἀγγέλου χειρὸς),” for the reason that the hierarchy is human (ἱεραρχίας τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης), like the second (δευτέρας), needs the help of the angelic hierarchy, that is, the first hierarchy (τῆς πρώτης ἱεραρχίας τῶν ἀγγέλων) 77 . In conclusion, we note that the fact that Cabasilas was familiar with the Western theological tradition (for example, St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas 78, as well as the “Sentences” of Peter of Lombardy) allows us to doubt his dependence exclusively on the Areopagite in the interpretation of “Supplices Te rogamus”. However, we do not have any objective grounds to assert the dependence of Cabasilas on the Latin tradition in the interpretation of “Supplices Te rogamus”. Moreover, in the writings of Thomas Aquinas, which Cabasilas undoubtedly read, we do not find any attempt to explain the concept of the “Altar in Heaven” in the context of the theological meaning of the prayer “Supplices Te rogamus” 79. As we have seen, very early, already in the 4th century, in the Christian West, the petition for the consecration of gifts at the Eucharist begins to be expressed in the language of metaphors and takes on an allegorical form: the Church prays for the Angel to lay gifts on the Most Heavenly Altar. This is how the prayers “Et petimus et praecamur” (Mediolan anaphora), “Supplices Te rogamus” (canon of the Roman Mass) appear. Western Christian writers of the patristic period and the beginning of the High Middle Ages understood the words of the prayer “Supplices Te rogamus” about the placing of gifts by the Angel on the Most Heavenly Altar as a prayer for their consecration. The absence of any interpretation of the prayer “Supplices Te rogamus” in the Christian West can be explained by the fact that the meaning of this prayer was intuitively clear to everyone. However, over time, by the end of the 13th century, this obvious meaning of the prayer “Supplices Te rogamus” began to fall into oblivion, as St. Nikolai Kavasila. It was the ambiguity, inaccuracy, and rather even the figurative, poetic form of expressing the idea of ​​​​the consecration of gifts that was the main reason for this. Therefore, Cabasilas, in his discussion with the Latins, focuses all his attention precisely on this point, on the interpretation of the prayer “Supplices Te rogamus”. So St. Nicholas Cabasilus became the first Byzantine theologian who tried to turn the attention of contemporary Latin theologians to their centuries-old Western tradition of understanding the prayer “Supplices Te rogamus” as a prayer to God for the consecration of gifts. The key concept in the prayer “Supplices Te rogamus”, on which Cabasilas focused special attention, was the concept of the “Heavenly Altar”. St. Nicholas, relying on a single quotation from the Areopagite and on the words from the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 23:19), for the first time in the history of Byzantine theology, interprets the concept of the “Heavenly Altar” in the Eucharistic context. According to Cabasilas, in the "Supplices Te rogamus" the "Heavenly Altar" is Christ Himself, while the "Angel", as a representative of the "first hierarchy", is the mediator between God and the earthly Church, the "second hierarchy". Christ, as the Source of holiness, imparts it to everything with which it comes into contact. As a consequence, the expressions: “to be sanctified by Christ” or “to be placed on the [Heavenly] Altar” are one and the same. That is why the Church’s prayer to God for the ascension by the hand of an Angel of the offered gifts (bread and wine) to the Most Heavenly Altar is a prayer for their consecration. Despite the fact that the Catholic Church subsequently accepted the doctrine of the sanctification of the gifts in establishing words, such prominent Catholic theologians of the 20th century as Severian Salaville 80 , Louis Marie Olivier Duchesne 81 , Dom Cabrol 82 , Maurice de la Taille 83 recognize that “Supplices Te rogamus” is nothing more than a prayer to God for the sanctification of the Gifts, and also note the significance of Cabasilia’s arguments in benefit of this thesis. Algerus Leodiensis. De sacrificio missae // PL. 180. Col. 853–856. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De sacramentis // PL. 16. Col. 417–462. Catenae Graecorum patrum in Novum Testamentum / ed. J. A. Cramer. T. 8. Oxoniae: Typographeo Academico, 1844. Decretum de consecratione // Glossa ordinaria. Rome, 1582. Vol. II. Dionysii bar Salibi. Expositio Liturgiae / Ed., lat. interpr. H. Labourt. P., 1903. (CSCO; 13–14. Syr.; 93). Florus Lugdunensis. De expositione missae // PL. 119. Col. 15–72. Germani archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani. Historia ecclesiastica et mystica contemplation // PG. 98. Col. 384–453. Gezo Dertonensis. De corpore et sanguine Christi LXX // PL. 137. Col. 371–406D. Gregorius I. Liber sacramentorum // PL. 78. Col. 25–264. Honorius Augustodunensis. Gemma animae // PL. 172. Col. 541–738B. Innocentius III. Mysteria evangelicae legis et sacramenti eucharistiae // PL 217. Col. 763–915. Joannes Chrysostomus. De proditione Judae // PG. 49. Col. 373–392. Joannes Chrysostomus. Homiliae in Epistulam secundam ad Corinthios // PG. 61. Col. 381–610. Joannes Chrysostomus. Homiliae in Oziam seu de Seraphinis // PG. 56. Col. 97–142. Isidorus hispalensis. De ecclesiasticis officiis // PL. 83. Col. 737–826. Johannes Teutonicus. Glossa ordinaria ad Decretum Gratiani // Will E. Decreti Gratiani Incunabula: Beschreibendes Gesamtverzeichnis der Wiegendrucke des Gratianischen Dekretes. Bologna, 1959. P. 1–280. (Studia Gratiana; 6) Mansi J. D. Sacroruni conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio. Venetia. 1798. T. 31. Nicetas Stethatus. Opuscules et lettres/ed. J. Darrouzes. Paris: Les editions du cerf, 1961. (Sources chrétiennes, 81). Nicolas Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio/ed. S. Salaville. Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1967. (Sources chrétiennes; 4). Paschasius Radbertus. In Lamentationes Ieremiae // PL. 120. Col. 1059–1256. Paschasius Radbertus. Liber de corpore et sanguine Domini, XII, 1 // PL 120. Col. 1255C–1350D. Petrus Lombardus. Sententiae: In IV Libris distinctae // PL. 192. Col. 521–962. Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita. De ecclesiastica hierarchia // PG 3. Col. 369–584. Thomas Aquinas. Sancti Thomae Aquinatis doctoris angelici ordinis praedicatorum opera omnia. Commentum in quatuor libros sententiarum magistri Petri Lombardi. T. 7. Parmae: Fiaccadori, 1858. The Rite of the Mass or Divine Liturgy of the Roman Rite according to the Roman Missal of Pope Paul the Sixth. Rome, 1979. Borner R. Byzantine interpretations of the 7th–15th centuries on the Divine Liturgy. M.: PSTGU Publishing House, 2015. Volkov A. A. Narration of the Last Supper in the anaphora of the Spanish-Mozarabic rite // Bulletin of PSTGU I: Theology. Philosophy. 2011. Issue. 2 (34). pp. 20–33. Elimanov V. E. Eucharistology of St. Nikolai Kavasila: general overview and assessment of modern research // Metaphrast. 2020. No. 1 (3). pp. 174–204. Taft R. F. Ecumenical science and the Catholic-Orthodox dispute about epiclesis // Articles / Robert Francis Taft; [transl. from English S.V. Golovanova]. Omsk: Golovanov, 2010. T. I: Liturgics. 2010. pp. 87–122. Tkachenko A. A. Canon of the Mass // Orthodox Encyclopedia. 2017. T. 30. pp. 258–267. Biedermann M. Die Lehre von der Eucharistie bei Nikolaos Kabasilas // Ostkirchliche Studien. No. 3. 1954. P. 29–41. Botte V. L'épiclèse dans les liturgies syriennes orientales // Sacris Erudiri. 1954. Vol. 6. P. 69. Botte B. Le Canon de la messe romaine. Louvain: Abbaye du Mont César, 1935. Congar Y. Je crois en l'Esprit Saint. 3 vols. Paris, 1979–1980. Vol. III. P. 320–330. Congourdeau M.-H. Nicolas Cabasilas et le Palamisme // Gregorio Palamas e oltre. Studi e documenti sulle controversie teologiche del XIV secolo bizantino / ed. A. Rigo, Firenze. 2004. P. 1000–1020 (Orientalia venetiana, 16). Darrouzès J. Le mémoire de Constantin Stilbès contre les Latins // Revue des études byzantines. 1963. T. 21. P. P. 50–100. Demetracopoulos J. A. Georgios Gemistos-Plethon’s Dependence on Thomas Aquinas’ “Summa contra Gentiles” and “Summa Theologiae” // Archiv für mittelalterliche Philosophie und Kultur. No. 12. 2006. P. 276–341. Demetracopoulos J. A. The Influence of Thomas Aquinas on Late Byzantine Philosophical and Theological Thought: À propos of the Thomas de Aquino Byzantinus Project // Bulletin de Philosophie Médiévale. 2012. T. 54. S. 101–124. Duchesne L. M. Origines du culte chretien: etude sur la liturgie latine avant charlemagne. 5e ed. rev. et augm. Paris: A. Fontemoing, 1909. Geiselmann J. R. Die Abendmahlslehre an der Wende der christlichen Spätantike zum Frühmittelalter. Isidor von Sevilla und das Sakrament der Eucharistie. München, 1930. S. 198–224; Habelea C. Die Erklärung der Göttlichen Liturgie nach Nikolaos Kabasilas // Ostkirchliche Studien. 2002. Band 51. Heft 3/4. P. 249–293. Kappes C. A. New Narrative for the Reception of the Seven Sacraments into Orthodoxy: Peter Lombard’s Sentences in Nicholas Cabasilas and Symeon of Thessalonica and the Utilization of John Duns Scotus by the Holy Synaxis // Nova et Vetera, English Edition. 2017. Vol. 15. No. 2 P. 465–501. Mantovanis P. C. The Eucharistic Theology of Nicholas Cabasilas. Oxford: University of Oxford, 1984. (PhD Thesis). Mellis L. Die eucharistische Epiklese in den Werken des Nikolaos Kabasilas und des Symeon von Thessaloniki. Roma: Pontificia Università Lateranense, 1977. (Doctoraldissertation). Metso P. J. Divine Presence in the Eucharistic Theology of Nicholas Cabasilas. Joensuu: University of Eastern Finland, 2010. (PhD Thesis). Salaville S. Épiclèse eucharistique // Dictionnaire de théologie catholique. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1913. T. V. P. 194–300. Salaville S. Noutes complementaries // Nicolas Cabasilas, Explication de la divine liturgie. Introduction et traduction de S. Salaville. Paris: Les editions du cerf, 1967. (Sources Chrétiennes, 4). Taft R. Problems in Anaphoral Theology: Words of Consecration versus Consecratory Epiclesis // St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly. 2013. Vol. 57. No. 1. P. 37–65. Taille M. Esquisse du mystère de la la foi suivie de Quelques éclaircissements. Paris: G. Beauchesne, 1924. Taille M. Mysterium fidei: de augustissimo corporis et sanguinis Christi sacrificio atque sacramento; elucidationes L, in tres libros distinctae. Parisiis: Gabriel Beauchesne, 1931. Tănase N. Hesychasm and Eucharist in the Fourteenth Century: Saint Nicholas Cabasilas and Saint Gregory Palamas // Holy Eucharist and the Experience of Repentance in the Orthodox / Tradition Editura Astra Museum, Editura Partoş / Ed. Rev. Constantin Jinga, Daniel Lemenip. 2014. P. 110–139. Τρεμπέλας Π. N. Αἱ τρεῖς θεῖαι Λειτουργίαι κατά τούς ἐν Ἀθήναις κώδικας. Ἀθῆναι: ἐκδίδεται ὑπὸ τῆς Μ. Ἐπιτροπὴς πρὸς ἀναθεώρησιν καὶ ἔκδοσιν τῶν λειτουργικῶν βιβλίων, 1935. Vermeersch A., Creusen J. Epitome iuris canonici cum commentariis: ad scholas et ad usum privatum. T. 1, Libri I et II Codicis iuris canonici. Mechliniae; Romae: H. Dessain, 1927. (Museum Lessianum., Section Théologique, 5). Zheltov M., priest. The Moment of Eucharistic Consecration in Byzantine Thought // Issues in Eucharistic Praying / ed. M. E. Johnson, Collegeville (MN). 2010. P. 263–306. Interpretation of the concept of “the Most Heavenly Altar” in St. Nicholas Cabasilas ᾽ s doctrine on the Eucharist in the context of his polemic with the western view of the relationship between the instituting words and the epiclesis. assistant of the Department of Theology of the MTA postgraduate student of the Moscow Theological Academy Holy Trinity-St. Sergius Lavra, Sergiev Posad 141300, Russia In his treatise "The Explanation of the Divine Liturgy", st. Nicholas Cabasilas compares the western Christian and eastern Christian view of the problem of the relationship between the instituting words and the epiclesis. Cabasilas draws the attention of contemporary Latin theologians of the XIV century to their centuries-old western-Christian tradition of understanding the prayer “Supplices Te rogamus”. In his interpretation of “Supplices Te rogamus”, on the one hand, he follows the Latin tradition presented by many Christian writers of the patristic period and the beginning of the High Middle Ages, on the other hand, he creatively develops it and makes it a theological justification, relying on the Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. For Cabasilas, the prayer “Supplices Te rogamus” is nothing more than an epiclesis, in which the prayer to God with a request for the sanctification of gifts is invested in a figurative, poetic form. According to Cabasilas, in the prayer “Supplices Te rogamus” the Most Heavenly Altar is Christ Himself; the Angel – intermediary between God and the earthly Church; the prayer of the Church of God about the ascension offered the gifts (bread and wine) on the Most Heavenly Altar by the angel᾽s hand – a prayer of their sanctification. Vadim Evgenievich Elimanov Assistant Lecturer at the Theology Department at the Moscow Theological Academy, 141300, Moscow region, Sergiev Posad, E-mail: elimanov202@gmail.com Borner R. Byzantine interpretations of the 7th–15th centuries on the Divine Liturgy. M., 2015. P. 286. See: Mantovanis P. C. The Eucharistic Theology of Nicholas Cabasilas. Oxford, 1984 (PhD Thesis). P. VIII. See for more details: Tkachenko A. A. Canon of the Mass // Orthodox Encyclopedia. 2017. T. 30. pp. 258–267. See for example: Biedermann M. Die Lehre von der Eucharistie bei Nikolaos Kabasilas // Ostkirchliche Studien. No. 3. 1954. P. 29–41; Mellis L. Die eucharistische Epiklese in den Werken des Nikolaos Kabasilas und des Symeon von Thessaloniki (Doktoraldissertation). Roma, 1977. P. 148–196; Mantovanis P. C. The Eucharistic Theology of Nicholas Cabasilas. Oxford, 1984 (PhD Thesis). P. 285–287. Habelea C. Die Erklärung der Göttlichen Liturgie nach Nikolaos Kabasilas // Ostkirchliche Studien. 2002. Band 51. Heft 3/4. P. 278–281; Metso P. J. Divine Presence in the Eucharistic Theology of Nicholas Cabasilas. Joensuu, 2010 (PhD Thesis). P. 113–125; etc. As for the Eastern tradition, here, as S. Salaville notes, “it can be stated that, starting from the second half of the 3rd century, sanctification is simultaneously attributed to both Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit; there is evidence of epiclesis in the proper sense of the word" (Quoted from: Borner R. Byzantine interpretations of the 7th-15th centuries on the Divine Liturgy. M., 2015. P. 289.) According to Bernard Bott, “starting from the 4th century, the Eastern fathers considered the epiclesis to be as important a prayer of anaphora as the establishing words. Over time, the primacy of the epiclesis was established" (Botte B. L'épiclèse dans les liturgies syriennes orientales // Sacris Erudiri. 1954. Vol. 6. P. 69.) Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De sacramentis IV, 27 // PL. 16. Col. 0445B. "Et petimus et praecamur" corresponds in the canon of the Roman Mass to "Supra quae" and "Supplices te rogamus". See: Tkachenko A. A. Canon of the Mass // Orthodox Encyclopedia. 2017. T. 30. P. 258. As for the text of the prayer “Supplices te rogamus”, it apparently begins to take shape only in the 6th–7th centuries. We find one of the earliest versions of this prayer in the sacramentary “Liber sacramentorum”, attributed to St. Gregory Dvoeslov (†604): “Supplices te rogamus, omnipotens Deus, iube haec perferri per manus angeli tui in sublime altare tuum, in conspectu divinae Maiestatis tuae, ut, quot ex hac altaris participatione sacrosanctum Filii tui corpus, et sanguinem sumpserimus, omni benedictione coelesti, et gratia repleamur" (Gregorius I. Liber sacramentorum // PL. 78. Col. 28A). Isidorus hispalensis. De ecclesiasticis officiis I, 15. 1 // PL. 83. Col. 752A. Quote by: Taft R. F. Ecumenical science and the Catholic-Orthodox dispute about epiclesis // Articles / Robert Francis Taft; [transl. from English S.V. Golovanova]. Omsk: Golovanov, 2010. T. I: Liturgics. 2010. P. 102. Isidorus hispalensis. De ecclesiasticis officiis I, 15. 3 // PL. 83. Col. 753A. Quote by: Taft R.F. Ecumenical science and the Catholic-Orthodox dispute about epiclesis. P. 103. Taft R. F. Ecumenical science and the Catholic-Orthodox dispute about epiclesis. P. 103. For more details see: Geiselmann J. R. Die Abendmahlslehre an der Wende der christlichen Spätantike zum Frühmittelalter. Isidor von Sevilla und das Sakrament der Eucharistie. München, 1930. S. 198–224; Congar Y. Je crois en l'Esprit Saint. 3 vols. Paris, 1979–1980. Vol. III. P. 320–330. Paschasius Radbertus. In Lamentationes Ieremiae I, 2 // PL. 120. Col. 1118B. Paschasius Radbertus. Liber de corpore et sanguine Domini XII, 1 // PL. 120. Col. 1311–1312. Florus Lugdunensis. De expositione missae 66 // PL. 119. Col. 60B. "Vere etenim, et incunctanter credendum in ipsa immolationis hora ad sacerdotis precem coelos aperiri, et illud angelico ministerio in sublimi deportari altari, quod est ipse Christus, qui et pontifex et hostia contactusque illius unum fieri." Gezo Dertonensis. De corpore et sanguine Christi LXX // PL. 137. Col. 406C. "Missa" is derived from ch. “mittere” – “to send”, meaning “to send a message or material object.” Petrus Lombardus. Sententiae IV, 13 // PL. 192. Col. 868. Russian translation: Taft R. F. Ecumenical science and the Catholic-Orthodox dispute about epiclesis. P. 103. Honorius Augustodunensis. Gemma animae, liber primus, CVI // PL 172. Col. 579B. Innocentius III. Mysteria evangelicae legis et sacramenti eucharistiae, liber quintus, V // PL. 217. Col. 0891B. "Supplex interea presbyter orat Dominum, ut haec iubeat perferri per manus sancti angeli in sublime altare suum, ut sit evidens in illa hora sacramentum, illum panem uniri Dominico corpori, et eidem unius communione substantiae coaptari." See: Algerus Leodiensis. De sacrificio missae // PL. 180. Col. 856A. Vermeersch A., Creusen J. Epitome iuris canonici cum commentariis: ad scholas et ad usum privatum. T. 1, Libri I et II Codicis iuris canonici. Mechliniae; Romae, 1927. P. 34. (Series: Museum Lessianum., Section Théologique, 5). Decretum de consecratione 2, 72, // Glossa ordinaria. Rome, 1582. Vol. II. P. 1813. Quoted. by: Taft R.F. Ecumenical science and the Catholic-Orthodox dispute about epiclesis. P. 104. On this topic, see in more detail: Salaville S. Épiclèse eucharistique // Dictionnaire de théologie catholique. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1913. T. V. P. 265–270; Taille M. Esquisse du mystère de la la foi suivie de Quelques éclaircissements. Paris: G. Beauchesne, 1924. P. 79–110; Taille M. Mysterium fidei: de augustissimo corporis et sanguinis Christi sacrificio atque sacramento; elucidationes L, in tres libros distinctae. Parisiis: Gabriel Beauchesne, 1931. pp. 271–283. The French theologian Maurice de La Taille summarizes the results of his theological research in the following words: “Certainly we stand before the Roman epiclesis, responsible for the place it occupies and the meaning it has, although in its external form it does not resemble the Eastern epiclesis” (Ibid. P. 273). Darrouzès J. Le mémoire de Constantin Stilbès contre les Latins // Revue des études byzantines. 1963. T. 21. P. 65. Taft R. Problems in Anaphoral Theology: Words of Consecration versus Consecratory Epiclesis // St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly. 2013. Vol. 57. No. 1. P. 55–57. Nicolas Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio XXX, 17 // SC. 4. P. 198. Nicolas Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio XXIX, 1 // SC. 4. P. 178. This is exactly how Cabasilah presents the position of Western Christians. Ibid. P. 178–198. Joannes Chrysostomus. De proditione Judae 1, 6 // PG. 49. Col. 380. Nicolas Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio XXIX, 1 // SC. 4. P. 180. Nicolas Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio XXIX, 4 // SC. 4. P. 180–182. For literature see note five. Let us only note that Cabasilas insisted that the gifts are consecrated at the moment of epiclesis. This teaching of Cabasilas was referred to by the Orthodox side at the Ferraro-Florentine Council (Mansi J. D. Sacroruni conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio. Venetia. 1798. T. 31. Col. 1686–1697). Nicolas Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio XXVII P. 174. “According to Cabasilas, the consecration is, therefore, impossible without both the words of institution and the epiclesis, the latter being interpreted as the only possible way of “applying” the former to bread and wine.” (Zheltov M., priest. The Moment of Eucharistic Consecration in Byzantine Thought // Issues in Eucharistic Praying / ed. M. E. Johnson, Collegeville (MN). 2010. P. 276. See also: Volkov A. A. Narration of the Last Supper in the anaphora of the Spanish-Mozarabic rite // Bulletin of PSTGU I: Theology. Philosophy. 2011. Issue. 2 (34). P. 24. Nicolas Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretation XXX, 2 // SC. 4. P. 192. See: Tkachenko A. A. Canon of the Mass // Orthodox Encyclopedia. 2017. T. 30. Botte B., ed. Le Canon de la messe romaine. Louvain: Abbaye du Mont César, 1935, pp. 42–43. See also: Taft R. F. Ecumenical science and the Catholic-Orthodox dispute about epiclesis. P. 101. The Rite of the Mass or Divine Liturgy of the Roman Rite according to the Roman Missal of Pope Paul the Sixth. Rome, 1979. pp. 39–42. Petri Lombardi. Sententiarum libri IV // PL. Col. 868. Kappes C. A. New Narrative for the Reception of the Seven Sacraments into Orthodoxy: Peter Lombard’s Sentences in Nicholas Cabasilas and Symeon of Thessalonica and the Utilization of John Duns Scotus by the Holy Synaxis // Nova et Vetera, English Edition. 2017. Vol. 15. No. 2 P. 499. Nicolas Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretation XXX, 4–6 // SC. 4. P. 192–194. See: Habelea C. Die Erklärung der Göttlichen Liturgie nach Nikolaos Kabasilas // Ostkirchliche Studien. 2002. Band 51. Heft 3/4. P. 280–281. Nicolas Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretation XXX, 7 // SC. 4. P. 194. For example, Rev. Andrew of Caesarea in “Commentarii in Apocalypsin” writes: “The heavenly Altar […], which had its image in the tabernacle of Moses (οὗ ἦν τὸ ἐν τῇ παλαιᾷ σκηνῇ ἀντίτυπον)". (Catenae Graecorum patrum in Novum Testamentum / ed. J. A. Cramer. T. 8. Oxoniae: Typographeo Academico, 1844. IX, 13:17–18. P. 528.) A peculiar exception here is St. John Chrysostom. For him, the throne is both a symbol of the Body of Christ (Ioannes Chrysostomus. Homiliae in Epistulam secundam ad Corinthios 20, 4 // PG. 61. Col. 540), and an image of the Heavenly Altar (Ioannes Chrysostomus. Homiliae in Oziam seu de Seraphinis 6, 3 // PG. 56. Col. 139). Nicetas Stethatus. Opuscules et lettres V, 11, 12–13 // SC. 81. P. 258. (Nicetas Stethatus. Opuscules et lettres / ed. J. Darrouzès. Paris: Les éditions du cerf, 1961. (Sources chrétiennes, 81) Ibid. VI, 9, 17–19. P. 270. Germani archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani. Historia ecclesiastica et mystica contemplation // PG. 98. Col. 389C. Nicolas Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretation XXX, 8 // SC. 4. P. 194. Here Cabasilah actually equates the Sanctifier with that by which the Sanctifier sanctifies. Ibid. XXX, 9 // SC. 4. P. 194. It is noteworthy that we find a similar statement about Christ as Priest, Sacrifice and Altar in the Syro-Jacobite metropolitan and theologian Dionysius Bar Salibi (†1171): “His [Christ’s] body is not complete without an altar and a priest. Emmanuel is the Altar, and the Body or Sacrifice, and the Offering, and the One who makes the Sacrifice, and the One Who Offers [the Sacrifice]" (Dionysii bar Salibi. Expositio Liturgiae / Ed., lat. interpr. H. Labourt. P., 1903. P. 99. (CSCO; 13–14. Syr.; 93)) Let us note, of course, that the possibility of Cabasilah’s dependence on Dionysius Bar Salibi is unlikely; most likely, both authors had only a common theological intuition. See: Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita. De ecclesiastica hierarchia IV, 12 // PG 3. Col. 484A –485A. Nicolas Cabasilas. De vita in Christo, libri septem, III, 21, 6–7 // SC. 355. P. 258. Tănase N. Hesychasm and Eucharist in the Fourteenth Century: Saint Nicholas Cabasilas and Saint Gregory Palamas // Holy Eucharist and the Experience of Repentance in the Orthodox / Tradition Editura Astra Museum, Editura Partoş / Ed. Rev. Constantin Jinga, Daniel Lemenip. 2014. P. 138. Nicolas Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretation XXX, 13 // SC. 4. P. 196. Nicolas Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretation XXX, 12. P. 196. Nicolas Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretation XXX, 8. P. 194. Τρεμπέλας Π. N. Αἱ τρεῖς θεῖαι Λειτουργίαι κατά τούς ἐν Ἀθήναις κώδικας. Ἀθῆναι, 1935. Σ. 125. Let us note that in the rite of proskomedia there are two places in which, before the prayer of the epiclesis, there is a request to “accept” the gifts offered to the Most-Heavenly Altar: 1) in the prayer “God, our God”: “You Yourself bless this offer, and accept it into Your most-heavenly Altar” (αὐτὸς εὐλόγησον τὴν πρόθεσιν ταύτην, καὶ πρόσδεξαι (aor imperat mid 2nd SG) αὐτὴν εἰς τὸ ὑπερουράνιόν σου θυσιαστήριον) ( Τρεμπέλας Π. Ν. Αἱ τρεῖς θεῖαι Λειτουργίαι κατά τούς ἐν Ἀθήναις κώδικας Σ. 2) when extracting a particle from the prosphora in honor of the Most Holy Theotokos: “And through your prayers, accept, O Lord, this sacrifice on your most heavenly altar” (ἧς ταῖς πρεσβείαις πρόσδεξαι (aor imperat mid 2nd sg) ( Τρεμπέλας Ν. κώδικας. Cabasilas does not mention this fact. However, it is obvious that within the framework of the Orthodox tradition, these words cannot be understood as a direct request for the consecration of gifts. As such, the petition for the consecration of gifts is present in the prayer of the epiclesis. It can be concluded that the quoted fragments contain a request for the subsequent acceptance of the gifts during the epiclesis, when the direct calling of the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit on the gifts will take place. See: Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita. De ecclesiastica hierarchia V, 2 // PG. 3. Col. 501–504. Nicolas Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretation XXX, 7. P. 194. See: Congourdeau M.-H. Nicolas Cabasilas et le Palamisme // Gregorio Palamas e oltre. Studi e documenti sulle controversie teologiche del XIV secolo bizantino / ed. A. Rigo, Firenze. 2004. P. 1000–1020 (Orientalia venetiana, 16); Demetracopoulos J. A. Georgios Gemistos-Plethon’s Dependence on Thomas Aquinas’ “Summa contra Gentiles” and “Summa Theologiae” // Archiv für mittelalterliche Philosophie und Kultur. No. 12. 2006. P. 276–341; Demetracopoulos J. A. The Influence of Thomas Aquinas on Late Byzantine Philosophical and Theological Thought: À propos of the Thomas de Aquino Byzantinus Project // Bulletin de Philosophie Médiévale. 2012. T. 54. P. 114, 116–117. See for example: Thomas Aquinas. Sancti Thomae Aquinatis doctoris angelici ordinis praedicatorum opera omnia. Commentum in quatuor libros sententiarum magistri Petri Lombardi. T. 7. Parmae, 1858. P. 679. (lib. 4 d. 13 q. 2 a. 3 expos. [15987]); P. 1190. (IIIª q. 83 a. 4 arg. 9 [51150]). Severian Salaville, also comparing the eastern epiclesis and Supplices Te rogamus, notes: “The same place after the establishing words of Christ and anamnesis; the same general meaning, despite the great difference in expressions.” Salaville S. Noutes complementaries // Nicolas Cabasilas, Explication de la divine liturgie. Introduction et traduction de S. Salaville. Paris, 1967. (Sources Chrétiennes, 4). P. 323. Louis Marie Olivier Duchesne notes that if the Greek epiclesis “directly refers to grace, that is, the intervention of the Holy Spirit, for the transformation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ,” the Roman epiclesis has the same meaning, but expresses it in “symbolic form” (formes symboliques): “[In prayer we] ask that the Angel of the Lord take the offering (l’oblation) from the visible altar and lift it up to the highest heaven upon an invisible altar erected before the throne of the Divine Majesty. The symbolic ascension [from earth to heaven] does not agree with the Greek formula [epiclesis]: not the Holy Spirit descends on the offering (gifts), but this offering (gifts) is carried up to heaven by the Angel of God. However, in both cases, it is precisely after rapprochement, connection (communication) of the offering (gifts) with divine grace that one can speak of it as the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ” (Duchesne L. M. Origines du culte chretien: etude sur la liturgie latine avant charlemagne. 5e ed. rev. et augm. Paris, 1909. P. 185). See: Salaville S. Noutes complementaries. P. 319–320. The French theologian Maurice de La Taille summarizes the results of his theological studies in the following words: “Undoubtedly, we stand before the Roman epiclesis, responsible for the place it occupies and the meaning it has, although in its external form it does not resemble the Eastern epiclesis” (Taille M. Mysterium fidei: de augustissimo corporis et sanguinis Christi sacrificio atque sacramento; elucidationes L, in tres libros distinctae. Parisiis: Gabriel Beauchesne, 1931. P. 273).