English translation: A. GELSTON, The Eucharistic Prayer of Addai and Mari, Clarendon Press, Oxford , 1. THE ANAPHORA OF THE APOSTLES. I suspect that Pray Tell readers may find some of the liturgical Does your church celebrate the liturgy using the anaphora of Addai and Mari?. “The validity of the Eucharist celebrated with the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, This ancient Eastern Orthodox liturgy, attributed to a Pope(!), omits all of the.
|Published (Last):||23 February 2005|
|PDF File Size:||9.22 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||3.87 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Inseven years after the Vatican’s common declaration of faith with the formerly Nestorian Assyrian Church of the East, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity issued its Guidelines for admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the Eastin order to improve relations between Catholics and schismatics of the Chaldean rite.
This document is most noted for its surprising affrimation of the sacramental validity of the Assyrian anaphora of Addai and Mari, a Eucharistic Prayer that does not literally recount the words of Christ at the Last Supper. The product of years of careful analysis, this declaration has been widely misinterpreted, though understandably, as denying the Church’s millennial doctrine that the words of Christ spoken by the priest are the form of the sacrament that effects transubstantiation.
To correct such misinterpretations, and to appreciate the real value of this document, we need only examine the Pontifical Council’s words more carefully, in light of what is known about the anaphora in question. First of all, the Council does not say that the anaphora lacks an Institution Narrative, only that it lacks a ” coherent Institution Narrative”. The Council acknowledges that scholars are uncertain whether the Anaphora of Addai and Mari originally contained a more coherent Institution Narrative.
We will examine this question ourselves later, but the Council does not presume to decide this intractable historical question. Msri from setting aside the Church’s traditional doctrine, the Pontifical Council explicitly cites the Council of Florence: A priest speaking in the person of Christ effects this sacrament.
For, in virtue of those words, the substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ and the substance of wine into his blood. While the Church has no power to change the substance of the sacraments, “the Church does have the power to determine their concrete shaping, regarding both their sacramental sign materia and their words of administration forma ,” assuming such changes do an alter the substance of the sacrament.
Consecration in the Anaphora of Addai & Mari
The doctrinal question before the Pontifical Council is whether the anf verbal form of the anaphora’s Institution Narrative retains the substance of the sacrament. The Council decides that the “the words of the Litrgy are not absent in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, but explicitly mentioned in a dispersed way, from the beginning to the end, in the most important passages of the Anaphora.
The oddity of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is that these words are dispersed throughout the liturgy, but are nonetheless explicitly present. Having affirmed the traditional principle requiring wnd explicit Institution Narrative, we can examine whether the actual text of the anaphora is consistent with this principle.
The essence of litugy Institution Narrative is the words of Christ which declared that the sacramental bread and wine are truly His Body and Blood, offered unto the remission of sins. This declaration can be made in the third person, as in the Anaphora of St. Xystus Pope Sixtus II:. And with these He added this admonition, saying: So often as You partake of these, make remembrance of My death, My burial and My resurrection until I come.
This ancient Eastern Orthodox liturgy, attributed to a Pope! Nonetheless, this Institution Narrative retains what is essential, explicitly declaring that the blessed bread is now “His propitiatory Body for adddai eternal”, and the content of the cup is now “His propitiatory Blood for life eternal.
The priest acts in persona Christi not by reciting Christ’s words in the first person, but by performing the same act of consecration that Christ performed at the Last Supper. In the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, the Institution Narrative is dispersed throughout the Liturgy, rather than concentrated in one place.
Maru, we will find that it contains the same essential verbal elements of the valid rite of Pope Sixtus. One of the anaphora’s central prayers opens:. O my Lord, in thy manifold and ineffable mercies, make a good and maei remembrance for all the upright and just fathers who were pleasing before thee, aand the commemoration of the body and blood of thy Christ, which we offer to thee upon the pure and holy altar, as thou hast taught us.
This explicitly indicates that the Body and Blood of Christ are being offered to the Lord as an altar sacrifice. The phrase “as thou hast taught us” can only refer to the Last Supper discourse.
Liturgy of Addai and Mari
Although the words of Jesus’ discourse are not recited, they are expressly referenced in this prayer, which claims to act in accordance with our Lord’s command to commemorate His sacrifice.
Elsewhere, the anaphora removes any doubt as to the meaning of this sacrificial offering:. Glory to you, my Lord, for you have called me, even feeble me, in your grace, and have brought me near unto you in your compassion, and have established me as a designated member in the adxai body of your holy catholic church, to offer before you this living, holy, and acceptable sacrifice, which is the memorial of the passion, death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord wnd Savior, Jesus Christ, – through whom you were well-pleased and reconciled to forgive the sins of all men.
The priest acknowledges that he is specially chosen to mmari the living Sacrifice, in memorial of Christ’s passion, death and resurrection. Having affirmed the sacrificial character of the priesthood, the advai clearly indicates the purpose of the sacrifice in its Epiklesisor invocation of the Holy Spirit:. And let thy Holy Spirit come, O my Lord, and rest upon this offering of thy servants, and bless it and sanctify it that it my be to us, O my Lord, for the pardon of sins, and for the forgiveness of shortcomings, and for the great hope of the resurrection from the dead, and for new life in the kingdom of heaven with all who have been pleasing before thee.
The combination of these and similar passages constitute a valid Institutional Narrative that expresses the substance of what is being done, who is doing it, and why it is being done.
This Sacrifice is offered unto the forgiveness of sins and the hope of everlasting life, in commemoration of our Lord’s passion, death and resurrection. Thus litugry Pontifical Council is amply justified in its conclusion that ” the words of the Institution are not absent in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, but explicitly mentioned in a dispersed way, from the beginning to the end, in the most important passages of the Anaphora.
The source of confusion had been that the Institution Narrative is presented “in a dispersed way”, not that any of its components are missing. In light of the Vatican’s decision, the Anaphora of Addai and Mari now occupies a unique position among valid Eucharistic axdai, being the only such rite that lacks a coherent Institutional Narrative.
Since the Catholic Church has traditionally held that transubstantiation occurs at the moment the words of Institution are pronounced, this creates a difficult theoretical problem of when transubstantiation occurs in this Assyrian rite, where the words of Institution are dispersed throughout the liturgy.
First, we must reject the patently erroneous opinion that the Church has abandoned her belief that the words of Institution effect consecration of the Host and Chalice. If this were the case, it would be inexplicable that the Pontifical Council should ans so much effort looking for elements of an Institutional Narrative in the anaphora. Directly citing the doctrine of the Council of Florence, the Pontifical Council considers explicit words of Institution to be essential to a rite’s validity.
Second, we must reject on logical grounds the absurd opinion that there is no moment of consecration. When the eucharistic bread is first baked, and the wine fermented, all the ancient churches agree that they are but bread and wine, not the Body and Blood of the Lord.
Similarly, all agree that by the end of the liturgy, when the priest receives communion, he truly receives the Body and Blood of the Lord. By these two admissions, all have tacitly admitted that it is meaningful to speak of the consecrated or unconsecrated state of the species with respect to time.
Without pretending to decide the question with infinite precision, it is meaningful to ask what is the earliest moment in the liturgy when the priest could consume the species and be truly receiving the Body and Blood of Christ.
To deny that such a moment even exists as distinct from knowing when that moment is would be to effectively deny that there is any difference between receiving the Body and Blood of Christ or consuming bread and wine. Since the presence of Christ in the Host and Chalice is a Real Presence, it makes a real difference whether we consume the species before or after liturgj.
It will not suffice to say that God cannot be contained in time, for we are not speaking of God in His Essence, but as He is manifested in the species of bread and wine that are confined by space and time. Just as God spoke to Moses at a certain time and place, and walked the earth as Jesus at a certain time and place, so does His miraculous conversion of bread and wine into His Body and Blood manifest itself in a confined place and time, lest we should say that the bread and wine are always the Body and Blood of Addaj, or even more heretically, that all things are the Body and Blood of Christ, since God cannot be contained by space.
It is true that God cannot be confined by time or space, and from His perspective, which is the way things really are, all is Here and Now. Nonetheless, this does not preclude special manifestations of His Divinity in ways that are confined by space and time from our human perspective, as the examples cited prove. Although logic requires that there exist some moment when the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ a gradual change would be impossible, since Divinity cannot be subdividedoff does not necessarily follow that we can obtain practical knowledge of that moment.
All of the ancient liturgies of the Church are ambiguous at various points in their verbal forms as lifurgy whether the species are to be regarded as consecrated or not. Evidently, Christians in the earliest era were not concerned with attempting to indicate such a moment, but rather they regarded the entire Eucharistic Prayer in its integrity as effecting the consecration, without trying to systematically define which aspects of the liturgy were essential.
This neglect of the problem had no practical consequences, since priests performed the liturgy in all its parts, essential and non-essential, so that there could be no question as to its validity, and none received communion until the latter part of the liturgy. Since the fifth century, two parts of the liturgy in particular have been generally regarded as effecting consecration: As we have noted, it is Catholic dogma that the words of Institution are essential to the Sacrament, but in the East the more common opinion is that the Epiklesis, or invocation of the Holy Spirit, is what effects consecration.
This disagreement has had little practical consequence, since all the valid rites contain both an Institution Narrative and and Epiklesis. The origin of the Institution needs no explanation; by its own profession, it is based on Christ’s command at the Last Supper to imitate His offering of His Body and Blood unto the remission of sins, in commemoration of His passion, death, and resurrection.
All of the ancient rites, without exception, contain an Institution Narrative, using explicitly sacrificial language, as we have seen even in the extremely irregular example of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari. It is unsurprising that all should contain such a narrative, since the very purpose of the Eucharistic Liturgy was defined by the words of Institution our Lord spoke.
The Epiklesis or Invocation is also common to all valid liturgies, though in the Roman Canon it is in a highly irregular form. In all Eastern luturgy, the Epiklesis comes at some point after the Institution, and asks the Holy Spirit to consecrate the offerings.
Following the plain meaning of the language, many Eastern clerics from the fifth century onward litkrgy that the consecration must take place at that point, and venerated the Sacrament accordingly. Notwithstanding this opinion, most Eastern liturgies also refer to the species as the Body and Mair before the Epiklesis, so we cannot decide the question on the basis of verbal liturgical forms that were defined at a time when Christians were unconcerned with specifying the moment of consecration.
Many Eastern Orthodox decline to specify a moment of consecration, but instead define those elements that are essential to a liturgy. If all these elements are performed, then the consecration will be effected at a moment known only to God, but certainly before the priest receives communion. Most Eastern Orthodox hold that both the Institution and Epiklesis are necessary elements of the liturgy.
The Roman rite originally included an Epiklesis, as mentioned by Pope Gelasiusbut by the time of Gregory the Great it was abandoned. The Greeks nonetheless recognize the Roman rite as valid, considering the prayer ” Supplices te rogamus ” to addaii an Epiklesis. This invocation is translated as follows:.
We must humbly beseech Thee, almighty God, command these offerings to be borne by the hands of Thy holy Angels to Thine altar on high, in the sight of Thy divine Majesty.
This Epiklesis, if it can truly be regarded as such, makes no explicit reference to the Holy Spirit, nor does it request a consecration of the gifts. Rather, it is a request that the offering be accepted. The true Lf had been discarded by the Romans at an early date in reflection of the Latin belief shared by some Eastern fathers such as St. John Chrysostom that the words of Institution effected consecration.
The Assyrian Church, like the rest of the East, emphasizes the importance of the Epiklesis, so it is possible that, by a process analogous to that of the Roman Mqri loss of the Epiklesis, a more coherent form of the Institution Narrative was dropped at an early date from the Anaphora of Addai and Mari.
We cannot hope to specify when such an omission occurred from documentary evidence alone, since it was common practice, for example in the Gallican, Mozarabic, and Maronite rites, to deliberately omit the sacred words of Institution from the written liturgy, even though we know from other sources that those words were certainly spoken. The eminent liturgical scholar Dom Botte has argued that the original Institution Narrative of Addai and Mari can be found in another of the Assyrian Church’s liturgies, the Anaphora of Theodore of Mopsuestia.
This liturgy contains a standard Institution Narrative similar to the Byzantine and Roman forms, spoken in the first person, and ending with the command: The last phrase of the Anaphora of Theodore’s Institution Narrative matches up perfectly with the otherwise peculiar opening of this prayer in the liturgy of Addai and Mari: Conveniently enough, this probable location of the original Institution Narrative immediately precedes the Epiklesis, enabling us to pinpoint the moment of consecration with some precision.
The consecrating prayer, the Gehanthamay be constructed as follows, with the words of Institution in bold face: O my Lord, in your many ineffable mercies [ repeat ], make a good and acceptable memorial for all the just and righteous fathers who were well-pleasing before you through the commemoration of the body and blood of your Christ which we offer you upon your pure and holy altar, as you taught us.
Bring to pass your tranquillity and peace in us all the days of the world. Peace be with us. May he bless it and hallow it, and may it be for us, O my Lord, for the pardon of debts, the forgiveness of sins, the great hope of resurrection from the dead, and for new life in the madi of heaven with all who have been well-pleasing before you.
And for all this great and marvelous dispensation towards us we will give thanks to you and praise you without ceasing in your church, which is madi by the precious blood of your Christ The Pontifical Council did not specify which of these words of Institution are absolutely essential to complete the consecration. We can be reasonably certain that the words of the first part of the prayer do not suffice to effect consecration, since they precede the probable location of the original Institution Narrative.
Thus, the consecration must take place at some point afterward.
Addai, Mari, and Me – PrayTellBlog
The first and second parts of the prayer combined, from “O my Lord, in Thy many ineffable mercies The Epiklesis, nonetheless, may also be considered part of the Institution Narrative, since it contains explicit reference to the forgiveness of sins, in analogy with the latter phrases of the Latin llturgy of the Chalice. Thomas Aquinas, the Church has held that the entire consecration formula of the Chalice, including the references to the Passion and the liurgy of sins, is necessary to complete consecration.
Therefore the Epiklesis itself completes the consecration in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari.