www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Anaphora of Addai and Mari

Casimir Kucharek in his book, The Byzantine Slav Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom with respect to the anaphora of Addai and Mari states:



Does anyone know what in particular now supports the claim that the ancient anaphora never did in fact contain the institution narrative?

The GUIDELINES FOR ADMISSION TO THE EUCHARIST BETWEEN
THE CHALDEAN CHURCH AND THE ASSYRIAN CHURCH OF THE EAST issued by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity do not set forth the reason for the conclusion.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUASCH.HTM

This website does not seem to have the best transcription, but see here [americancatholicpress.org] Taft:

Father Casimir Kucharek was a valued friend and Father Archimandrite Robert Taft is a valued friend. But in terms of liturgical scholarship there is no contest; Father Archimandrite wins hands down. Father Casimir did not know Syro-Aramaic and had not the faintest claim to expertise in the area of the Liturgy of Saints Addai and Mari.

Fr. Serge

This doesn't quite answer my question. I am wondering why the consensus is such. Is it simply that there is agreement that the oldest text does not have the narrative of institution? Apparently so. How does one judge that the written text is in fact consistent with the oral pratice for a text that is so ancient?

I have had quite a lot of professional experience with a fairly ancient, but still living culture here in the U.S. which had no written language until very recently. In fact, it was because of this unwritten language that the Japanese were unable to crack our communication in the battles of the Pacific during World War II. When the "time immemorial" "arguments" were used by those arguing certain positions from "history," (but which seemed to me quite modern) my response (flippant perhaps, but to the point) would be, "but who could remember?"

I appreciate Fr. Taft's well reasoned argument, but find that it has its own theological bias which is perhaps best set forth by this statement from the article:



This is rather troubling to say the least.

Balancing Fr. Taft's arguments (and particularly his comment about "magisterial teachings"), it should be noted that the final official document from Rome states:



Hardly a magisterial teaching. In fact, it probably doesn't even rise to the magisterial level of Liturgiam Authenticam.

Finally, I should note that the best (and most interesting) theological argument I have read in favor of the ancient Anaphora was written by a Thomistic theologian based upon principles set forth in the Summa Theologiae. The author makes the point --- in agreement with an important distinction made by Fr. Taft -- that reducing transubstantiation to a matter/form distinction only in the bare words of consecration taken out of the context of the Anaphora is a misguided approach. Reducing things to their essences has the unfortunate result of leaving people with the idea that if the essence is there, all of the "non-essentials" are up for grabs. And we all know what that leads to....

I think it is a preponderance of written evidence conclusion. I only quoted Taft's point #3 in part; he goes on there to give a list of references. Later he writes
Whether the oldest textual evidence (and there is such unlike the purely oral - Navajo? - case) is the same as the oldest/older oral tradition -- who can say. The point is that the known textual and oral tradition indicates that no explicit institution narrative is the case and it was evaluated to be legitimate.


Those quotes are the disciplinary part of the agreement; the doctrinal part that I presume Taft has in mind he gives (with all the curious transcription typos) as:
My agreement with the decision is expressed in my post on a different topic, but if the words of institution were removed from what I wrote there, my argument and point would still remain the same. Even that dogma-curmudgeon Ludwig Ott provides some latitude here.

Also, I'd like to know more about the mentioned Thomist.

I think discipline and doctrine go hand in hand. In this case, both involve a somewhat tentative position based upon historical evidence that could change with later archeaological findings. Hence my misgivings about this being the most important magisterial document since Vatican II.

It would seem that a document addressed to the whole Church and dealing with a universal teaching would hold the place of "most important."

Traditionalist Latin Christians say that this open recognition of the validity of this Anaphora demolishes the Catholic theology of the Eucharist.

This is not exclusively because the Anaphora does not include the words of consecration requiered for validiy according to Latin theology, but because the Epiclesis itself is weak and does not openly state that it calls for the transformation of the gifts.

They say that this could open the door for more liturgical abuses in the Western Church (the "Neo-Catecumenal" way might in their do-it-yourself liturgies exclude the words and still say that they're valid), and for Protestant groups to seek recognition from Rome.

The document stated that Assyrians are invited to insert the words when Catholics are present. However, I've been told that the opposite thing is actually happening and that Chaldeans have started to ommit the words themselves.

Wasn't it much better to ask the Assyrian Church to insert the words in the Anaphora as one of the steps for unity? I don't think they had any reason to refuse this as a part of an agreement with Rome. But the opposite thing happened and its consequences weren't positive. We already saw the bad results it had within RC circles. And in the case of the Assyrian Church, the group of Mar Bawai Soro nevertheless left to join the Catholic Church.

Here's a side-by-side Comparison of the Anaphora of Mar Addai (St. Jude) and Mari with the Anaphora of Mar Petros III:
http://www.kaldu.org/3_chaldean_culture/TheAnaphora_ApostlesAddai_Mari.html

In addition of the above, Daniel Castellano addresses this quite admirably: http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/catholic/addai.htm

It should be remembered that the Anaphora of Mar Addai and Mari is not the only Anaphora missing the Institution Narrative. The Anaphora of Peter III and 3 other Syriac Anaphorae don't have it at all and 8 others have it in a form that Scholastics would deem unacceptable.

I think the idea here is that even if the specific words are not said, the intent is present. I am not a liturgist, but this seems to be more of a liturgical issue than a doctrinal one.

here is an article that appeared a while ago about this.

http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/111601/111601g.htm#TOP

As I read this article by Allen flags start going up regarding his facts (though some of the issues may not be significant in themselves).

One point where I need clarification is where he says:
To what, where, in Mystici corporis is he referring?

Also, he reports:
I take issue with the caricature presented by Taft - "magic words" - and the recklessness in making such an unwarranted, injudicious statement. To the extent that a theology, medieval or otherwise, gives certain words a consecratory effect, whether rightly or not, does not imply magic. What is this medieval source that advanced a "theology of magic words"?

You might wish to consider this: Luther reduced the Canon of the Mass down to nothing but the Institution Narrative. Now why do you suppose he did that?

Fr. Serge

You will have to tell me since I don't believed that correctly conveys what he did. In the German Mass and Order of Divine Service of Jan. 1526 he so reordered and abridged the whole order that the result is a very different form of service from the traditional liturgy. He shows himself there as if a liturgist gone wild in throwing away tradition and creating a service of his choosing according to his understanding of how it should have been done. Whatever his theological faults, however, and they are legion, I do think that if someone accused him of advancing a "theology of magic words" he would have punched him in the nose. What stands out to me is his acting out of the scriptural account, thus:Now why do you suppose he did that?

I think the point that Taft was trying to make was that it isn't the words that cause the gifts to be transformed into the Body and Blood of our Lord, it is the intent of the minister to confect the sacrament.

because this prayer is an ancient one, it is part of the tradition of the Church, and the intent is the central focus in this particular case.

I am not certain. It is possible that he is referring to either paragraph 27 or paragraph 82 in Mystici.