Is there an eastern rite with no words to the consecration?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarcusAndreas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MarcusAndreas

Guest
I recall hearing something like this, is it true that there is an eastern rite that does not have any words to consecrate the bread and wine?
 
What you are likely think of is the Anaphora of Mari Addai & Mari as used by the ACoE. It does not contain a specific Institution Narrative.
 
malphono said:
What you are likely think of is the Anaphora of Mari Addai & Mari as used by the ACoE. It does not contain a specific Institution Narrative.
Click to expand...
So when exactly is the consecration? (I know, eastern theology isn’t about to put exact moments on anything but when is the bread and wine considered to have been consecrated?)
 
Malphono - can you describe what you’re talking about? I’m not familiar with those names or the acronymn you used. Thanks!
 
I’ve read somewher that the Chaldeans have reformed their Liturgy to include the words of institution even though the Vatican has acknowledged that the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is legit.

This is what the Church has to say about the Anaphora of Addai and Mari
The Anaphora of Addai and Mari
Click to expand...
The principal issue for the Catholic Church in agreeing to this request, related to the question of the validity of the Eucharist celebrated with the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, one of the three Anaphoras traditionally used by the Assyrian Church of the East. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari is notable because, from time immemorial, it has been used without a recitation of the Institution Narrative. As the Catholic Church considers the words of the Eucharistic Institution a constitutive and therefore indispensable part of the Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer, a long and careful study was undertaken of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, from a historical, liturgical and theological perspective, at the end of which the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith on January 17th, 2001 concluded that this Anaphora can be considered valid. H.H. Pope John Paul II has approved this decision. This conclusion rests on three major arguments.
Click to expand...
In the first place, the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is one of the most ancient Anaphoras, dating back to the time of the very early Church; it was composed and used with the clear intention of celebrating the Eucharist in full continuity with the Last Supper and according to the intention of the Church; its validity was never officially contested, neither in the Christian East nor in the Christian West.
Click to expand...
Secondly, the Catholic Church recognises the Assyrian Church of the East as a true particular Church, built upon orthodox faith and apostolic succession. The Assyrian Church of the East has also preserved full Eucharistic faith in the presence of our Lord under the species of bread and wine and in the sacrificial character of the Eucharist. In the Assyrian Church of the East, though not in full communion with the Catholic Church, are thus to be found “true sacraments, and above all, by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist” (U.R., n. 15). Secondly, the Catholic Church recognises the Assyrian Church of the East as a true particular Church, built upon orthodox faith and apostolic succession. The Assyrian Church of the East has also preserved full Eucharistic faith in the presence of our Lord under the species of bread and wine and in the sacrificial character of the Eucharist. In the Assyrian Church of the East, though not in full communion with the Catholic Church, are thus to be found “true sacraments, and above all, by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist” (U.R., n. 15).
Click to expand...
further…
Finally, it must be observed that the eastern and western Eucharistic Anaphoras, while expressing the same mystery, have different theological, ritual and linguistic traditions. The words of the Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in a coherent way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological way, that is, integrated in prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession. All these elements constitute a “quasi-narrative” of the Eucharistic Institution. In the central part of the Anaphora, together with the Epiclesis, explicit references are made to the eucharistic Body and Blood of Jesus Christ (“O my Lord, in thy manifold and ineffable mercies, make a good and gracious remembrance for all the upright and just fathers who were pleasing before thee, in 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”), to the life-giving mystery of Jesus’ passion, death and resurrection, which is actually commemorated and celebrated (“that all the inhabitants of the world may know thee … and we also, O my Lord, thy unworthy, frail and miserable servants who are gathered and stand before thee, and have received by tradition the example which is from thee, rejoicing and glorifying and exalting and commemorating and celebrating this great and awesome mystery of the passion and death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ”), to the eucharistic offering for the forgiveness of the sins, to the eschatological dimension of the eucharistic celebration and to the Lord’s command to ‘do this in memory of me’ (“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”). So 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. It is also clear that the passages cited above express the full conviction of commemorating the Lord’s paschal mystery, in the strong sense of making it present; that is, the intention to carry out in practice precisely what Christ established by his words and actions in instituting the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
A long and careful study was undertaken of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, from a theological, liturgical and historical perspective, at the end of which the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith on January 17th, 2001 concluded that this Anaphora can be considered valid. Pope John Paul II subsequently approved this decision.
Click to expand...
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html
 
dcointin said:
Malphono - can you describe what you’re talking about? I’m not familiar with those names or the acronymn you used. Thanks!
Click to expand...
The Anaphora in question is that attributed to Ss Addai & Mari. I’d be happy to say more but I’m not sure what you mean. :confused:
 
MarcusAndreas said:
So when exactly is the consecration? (I know, eastern theology isn’t about to put exact moments on anything but when is the bread and wine considered to have been consecrated?)
Click to expand...
No, there’s no “magic moment” in Oriental theology. 😉 There is, however, a school of thought in the Orient, (to which I happen to adhere), that says the “consecration” is effected by the Anaphora as a whole, at least including the Epiklesis and up to the communion. Does that help?
 
malphono said:
ACoE = Assyrian (or Ancient) Church of the East.

Ss Addai & Mari were disciples of S Thomas. 🙂
Click to expand...
I thought St. Addai was the disciple of St. Thomas, and St. Mari was the disciple of St. Addai?
 
I thought St. Addai was the disciple of St. Thomas, and St. Mari was the disciple of St. Addai?
Click to expand...
Ultimately, it’s the same thing, isn’t it?
 
malphono said:
Ultimately, it’s the same thing, isn’t it?
Click to expand...
I guess in a way. But is it the same as saying that St. Peter and St. Mark are disciples of Jesus, or just that St. Peter is a disciple of Jesus and St. Mark is a disciple of St. Peter? Saying that you’re a disciple of someone is just a clear way of indicating who it was who directly taught you. Kinda like Master and Apprentice thing.
 
I guess in a way. But is it the same as saying that St. Peter and St. Mark are disciples of Jesus, or just that St. Peter is a disciple of Jesus and St. Mark is a disciple of St. Peter? Saying that you’re a disciple of someone is just a clear way of indicating who it was who directly taught you. Kinda like Master and Apprentice thing.
Click to expand...
Well, apparently the Church has traditionally regarded it as pretty much the same: for example, while S Peter is not known to have ever resided there, Alexandria is considered a “Petrine See” by virtue of S Mark.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top