www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Anaphora of Addai and Mari

Philip, it seems clear from the liturgical history that the Chaldean institution narrative was added only after reunion was established, in the fairly recent past (last few hundred years).

The question is not "the overthrowing the classic Latin sacramental theology" from my Eastern perspective at all. First of all, these people are not Latin at all, and do not share that liturgical perspective.

I see this much more a matter of concern for Latin interference when the Latin liturgical house is often in chaos.

This involves a major difference in liturgical emphasis due to the received tradition. The liturgical emphasis is epicletic, and that of the Latin liturgy is on institution with the lesser emphasis epicletic (supplices te rogamus).

Why is it that allowing another tradition to actually stay faithful to its received tradition and actually return to a more historically true obeservance of that tradition is perceived with warning signs by the Latin traditionalists?

They should rather be happy that one of the oldest anaphroae in existence to stay faithful to its more ancient received tradition than advocating a change? I don't quite understand the liturgical insecurity here. I would think this would rather be another precident for the Latins to champion the cause of restoration of their own liturgical tradition rather than concern.

In the Tridentine Liturgy, there are still those who refuse to use the 1962 Latin liturgy because of the addition of St. Joseph, etc. into the Canon. As an Eastern Catholic I have no problem with those Latins who desire to use their older version of the Canon.

I don't quite follow how we should be concerned with alleged or perceived attempts to use this as a standard for Latin liturgists to change their own liturgy in some drastic way. Especially considering the multitude of approved Eucharistic Prayers in the New Mass which are already in use, as well as the immemorial protection of the Tridentine liturgy.

From the Eastern perspective, we rather see this as a frightening case of Roman liturgical meddling, more meddling from a Roman church that has created its own liturgical disasters by just what we are discussing, tampering with traditional liturgies for the purposes of "clarification".

The Latins should be cleaning their own house liturgically before presuming to direct others of venerable tradition how to manage their own. Latin classical sacramental theology is just that, Latin, and should not de facto be expected to be projected onto other traditions who do not share that expression of theology while keeping their own uniquely particular apostolic traditions which are not been questioned as to "sacramental validity".

The issue seems to have been settled. The institution is optional and NOT an integral and required part of the traditional anaphora of Addai and Mari, one of the oldest existing. The last 40 years in the Roman church should show any Eastern church to very carefully consider this.

The Magesterium has already decided centuries ago that there is no question of the validity of Assyrian sacraments, as they are of Apostolic Succession. Since that is true, it further makes some of your arguments a bit puzzling to me.

Are you implying that "classical Latin sacramentology" should de facto take precidence? That is what we Easterns call "praestantia ritus latinae" which has been categorically refuted by Leo XIII all the way to the current Pope.

The modernist Latin theologians don't need the Assyrians to justify their positions. They haven't yet, anyway, (as most of these use Protestant models and have little time for anything of valid Apostolic succession and traditional liturgical usage) and will find little there in the Assyrian tradition to justify themselves.

One certainly won't find any justification for the ordination of women or other similar liturgical horrors in the venerable Christian traditions of the Assyrian East.

What is so diffucult about just letting a church be faithful to restoring her received tradition?

Randy, my brother,

Well said. If I had read your erudite post before submitting mine, I probably would not have even bothered.

Many years,

Neil

Philip,

I think it's rather a leap on your part - and more than a bit of Latin triumphalism - to believe that the Assyrians have as an agenda to overthrow Latin sacramental theology. I'd be more inclined to view the seizure of the issue by Latin liturgists as an effort to find an argument that they can use to bolster their position against whatever speculation may be floating around the Latin liturgical community regarding the "Eucharist without Institution Narrative" hobbyhorse to which you refer.

Although Macomber has also written that "it is recognized that individual churches have some power for establishing the essential elements of the sacraments, even though it is limited.", turing this into a premise that accepting the Anaphora of Addai and Mari could be the touchstone that results in acceptance of females as appropriate candidates for holy orders, strikes me as a reach.

Many years,

Neil, who is bemused that Latin traditionalists have decided that Eastern Churches once again represent a threat to the Latins

Diak & Neil, thank you for your replies, which give me the opportunity to express myself clearer on a few points.

The historical question is not as settled as Fr Taft suggests. I don't think it's at all clear that the institution narrative was added to Addai and Mari only after the various reunion attempts, i.e. from the sixteenth century onwards. In fact, I think there is enough evidence from the East Syrian liturgical commentators (esp. Gabriel Qatraya) to suggest that Addai and Mari had the narrative long before. Moreover, the other two anaphoras still in use in the Church of the East, those of Theodore of Mopsuestia and of Nestorius, have the narrative.

I completely agree that the Latin-rite liturgy is in a mess and that we should be cleaning our own house. However, I cannot agree with you on the following point:

Yes, the Magisterium decided century ago that the Assyrian sacraments were valid - but in the case of Addai and Mari it absolutetly insisted on the presence of the institution narrative.

And, as I see, it the presence of the institution narrative is essential to the celebration of the Eucharist - while there are differences in the theological emphasis, as you note.


They have little time for traditional liturgical usage and they won't find a justification for their position in the Assyrian tradition, I agree. But the Roman document provides them with a theological rationale for their cause, as I've tried to explain on my previous post.

Neil, I don't think the Eastern Churches are a threat to Latins. Not at all. I think it's a problem among the Latins.

You think I'm completely over the top? It's already happening in German publications, and my guess is it won't be long before this is picked up in the English-speaking world.

One thing seems clear to me: the issue is not settled, and the debate is going on.

Philip,

It is noted in the [i]Provision Between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East[/i] [vatican.va] that no documentation exists that, during the Catholic Patriarchate of Sulaka (late 16th - early 17th centuries), there was any demand made by Rome for insertion of explicit Words of Institution into the Anaphora of Addai and Mari.

Additionally, the Anaphoras of Nestorius and of Theodore of Mopsuestia are both several centuries more recent in origin than is that of Addai and Mari.

A further understanding of the lack of need for explicit Words of Institution lies in the Assyrian practice of reserved and renewed Holy Leaven that is distributed each year on Holy Thursday. The continuity thus held to exist from time immemorial, tracing back to Christ's institution of the Eucharist, is perceived by Assyrians as providing a link that is unbroken.

Many years,

Neil

Although I am not a traditionalist Latin (and actually prefer the Norvus Ordo to the Latin Mass), I have great empathy for Philip here.

I don't think he, or other traditionalists, are trying to "Latinize" the Eastern Liturgies by questioning the validity of the Assyrian liturgy. Nor do they think that anyone in the East is trying to overthrow Latin sacramental theology. The concern is with what people in the West will do with this decision. When you live in the Roman Church, you have experienced 40 years of constant battering of the Latin Liturgy, and your antena are always up checking to make sure the fundamentals of the Mass (at the very least) are maintained. Remember, we have experieced things like "wonder bread" Masses. Needless to say, it engenders great "liturgical insecurity". If the Roman Church will recognize a Liturgy that doesn't have an Institution Prayer, this contradicts many, many years of Roman teaching - that it is the words of institution that confect the Eucharist. Now it may be that this Roman theology may need to be updated and expanded to include such situations as the Assyrian practice. But the fear, I believe, is that this going to be perverted by Western liberals (I mean that in the negative sense in regards to Tradition) for illegitimate purposes. All of this is not to deny the Eastern emphasis on the epiclesis; but in fact all the other Eastern liturgies have the institution prayer, so the point is moot in those cases.

Again, I'm torn on this one. I'm disgusted by much of the push in the Western Church to overthrow centuries of tradition, and actually change the fundamentals of the Mass, and I suspect many of the worst suspects will use decisions such as this one to further their illegitimate designs. But at the same time, I want to be respectful of ALL legitimate traditions, not just the Latin one.

I'm still sratching my head on this one.

Phillip,

This matter has been studied for years and has been an object of intense scrutiny since Vatican II. All the available manuscripts have been looked at by the Vatican's top liturgical scholars. Rome has ruled the Anaphora of Mar Addai and Mari is valid. The case is closed. That some Latin theologians disagree does not matter.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Francis,

"But the fear, I believe, is that this going to be perverted by Western liberals (I mean that in the negative sense in regards to Tradition) for illegitimate purposes."

This same arguement, and ones like it, are the same that were used to deny us a married priesthood in the US and continue to be used by some against us. Legititmate diversity cannot be suppressed so Latins can remain in their comfort zone.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr. Deacon,

However, Mr. Allen at NCR (who is the height of unbiased reporting, in my opinion [which is quite a contrast to the rest of NCR]) suggests that the fact that a major Vatican publication opened the debate on this publicly means that the case is not "closed", and in fact could be reversed. Not likely, but not impossible either.

This is precisely the point! Thank you, Francis.

Fr Deacon, I am convincend that this is not a question of legitimate diversity, but of the essential elements of the Eucharist (see the quote from St Basil the Great in my first post).

And, with all due respect, this is certainly not a case of Roma locuta, causa finita.

Dear Philip,

This Philip asks you to please define "institution narrative". While there are Syriac anaphorae which include the words of institution, there are others that do not explicitly include them, but still have some sort of institution narrative. Below are some examples:

http://sor.cua.edu/Liturgy/Anaphora/Peter.html

http://sor.cua.edu/Liturgy/Anaphora/John.html

http://sor.cua.edu/Liturgy/Anaphora/Xystus.html

http://sor.cua.edu/Liturgy/Anaphora/BarSalibi.html

Mor Ephrem,

Glad to see that there are still threads that will bring you back to our screen, my brother.

Many years,

Neil

Mor, it is good to see you back indeed.

It is ironic to me that Latin traditionalists who vehemently oppose even the mention of tampering with a Eucharistic anaphora of ancient usage would side with later post-Tridentine Latin (in my opinion misdirected) scholarship with one of the oldest anaphorae in existence.

While the institution may have been informally in existence (that even seems to lack substantive compelling evidence), it was never "mandated" until the Chaldeans suffered very strong latinizations in especially the 18th and 19th centuries.

There is to my knowledge no de fide conciliar or other document with Papal seal which (1) mandates the addition of an institution narrative to the Anaphora of Addai and Mari for validity, (2) questions the validity of Assyrian sacraments in general and (3) specifically questions the efficacy of an Assyrian Quorbano using strictly the epicletic anaphora without an institution narrative.

Mor, I understand that in the Syriac tradition the Sundays of the Christmas fast all have commemorations of the events before the Incarnation, starting with the annunciation to Zachariah.

Thanks, Neil and Diak, for your kind words. I lurk for the most part, but feel compelled to post once in a blue moon.

Obviously, I don't think that the "words of institution" (in the specific Latin sense) are strictly speaking necessary in order to confect the Eucharist (or else several Liturgies I've attended were invalid!). However, even in the ones above with no such words, there is some sort of "institution narrative" (I don't know if Philip would agree, but I make a distinction between the two). Although the anaphorae of Theodore of Mopsuestia and of Nestorius have both, the anaphora of Addai and Mari doesn't seem to have either one (I've only read the one found at www.cired.org, [cired.org,] and that was some time ago, so I may not be remembering well).

I think it would be odd to have an anaphora without some sort of institution narrative (although with an epiclesis) because I would think that the epiclesis was a later addition, and the institution narrative, as the "memorial" or part of it, would be found more often. And yet, there is an old anaphora, perhaps the oldest, that is just so. Maybe the conventional wisdom is right and there never was any institution narrative. But maybe Philip is right in thinking that there may have been something like this at one early point based on certain commentators. If I was a Latin, I probably would want to look into this possibility carefully in order to salvage my own theological history. I am not well read enough to weigh in on the question. I'm just a first-year seminarian.

Yes! There is a lot of emphasis in our "Advent" on the first coming of Christ. The Sundays before Christmas re-tell the story of the events immediately preceding the Nativity in sequence. The sixth Sunday before Christmas commemorates the Annunciation to Zechariah (Lk. 1.5-25), the fifth, the Annunciation to Our Lady (Lk. 1.26-38), the fourth, the Visitation (Lk. 1.39-56), the third, the birth of St. John the Baptist (Lk. 1.57-80), the second, the dream of St. Joseph (Mt. 1.18-25), and the first Sunday before Christmas is simply called "Genealogy Sunday" because of the reading of Christ's genealogy (Mt. 1.1-17). Every week at the Liturgy, one experiences these events in sequence through the Gospel readings, and my personal experience is that one really finds himself waiting for the coming of Christ with expectation, imitating in some way the expectation of the people of Israel for the coming of the Messiah. The Latin experience of Advent seems a little different, as it concentrates first on Christ's Second Coming, and then switches gears to the recollection of His first coming (the Gospels read at Mass between 17-24 December seem to correspond to our Sunday Gospels). While studying at St. Vlad's, I have the ability to experience the pre-Christmas period in the Byzantine tradition, and while I see some emphasis on the first coming of Christ in the services so far (singing "Christ is born" during the Canon at Matins during the Vigil the other night being one example), it still does not compare to the Syriac experience. Sorry!

Ephrem's link for the Assyrian site doesn't work because a comma got included at the end, rather than the period that should be there. The correct link is:

www.cired.org. [cired.org,]

Many years,

Neil