The Orthodoxy of "Nestorian" Christology

[Elvis_George]

Next, we have the Ministry of the Word of God.
This section starts with the Trisagion (Qandisha Alaha or Holy God.)
The Trisagion does not contain the phrase “he who was crucified for us” or any added phrase as this practice was a miaphysite practice, which was in stark contrast to “Nestorian” Christology. Our Patriarch-Catholicos Timothy I states that he is Patriarch of the Church of the East, encompassing China, Persia, and India, and not a single church used the expression “he who was crucified for us.” The relationship between the 2 churches has, however, improved. The Trisagion is a prayer that is based on Isaiah 6:3 and Revelation 4:8. A notable difference between the East Syriac Trisagion and the Byzantine Trisagion is the fact that the East Syriac Trisagion starts with the Deacon’s invitation to proclaim the Trisagion out loud. The Trisagion is a prayer in which we learn more about God and in which we praise him for his holiness.

Readings:
For a normal, Sunday Qurbana there are 2 readings and a Suraya (Hymn of Praise)
The Suraya commemorates the Saint of the day and is based on Psalms 19:1-2 (2-3 is other versions.) The Suraya is sung in between the 2 readings.

Evangelion Reading:
The Priest goes up to the Madbha, incenses the Evangelion, and walks down to the Bema in procession. The Evangelion covers the face of the celebrant, representing Jesus himself coming down to teach the community. He then reads the Gospel passage, which represents Jesus teaching the crowds.

Homily:

Karozuza (Prayers of Proclamation):
The Karozuza prayers are intercessory prayers that change per season. Unlike the Latin tradition, the Karozuza prayers aren’t just petitions. They reflect the theme of the season. So for example, we are in the Seasons of Elijah, the Cross, and Moses. The Karozuza prayers of this season are often about reaching the Heavenly Paradise, just like Moses did with the Earthly Paradise.

 

[Elvis_George]

Doesn’t seem accurate…

 

[Alexandria2020]

from Mar Thoma Margam Liturgy - Theology of the SyroMalabar Qurbana:
by Rev.Dr. Pauly Maniyattu

“The puqdankon in the Syro-Malabar Qurbana is a very important element emphasizing the role of the lay faithful in the Eucharistic celebration. The liturgical assembly as the Church takes the initiative for the celebration of the Qurbana. The priest as the head of the assembly reminds the assembly of its grave responsibility to be aware of the command of Christ with regard to the celebration of the Eucharist. There is an interpretation of puqdankon as asking the permission of the assembly to begin the celebration. Asking the permission of the assembly reflects the social custom among St. Thomas Christians of asking permission of the assembly before any important social action. Such an interpretation to puqdankon is relevant in the context of the history of Thomas Christians. The lay faithful enjoyed such a great power in the Church that it was seen obligatory to get their permission for the important activities of the Church. The bishop would ordain a person only after getting the desakkuri of the palliyogam. Thus there might have been the need to get the permission of the assembly for the celebration of the Eucharist. If there is even an indirect reference to such a permission associated with puqdankon, it declares the fact that the liturgy is of the entire people of God.” (pg 50/51)

 

[Alexandria2020]

@Elvis_George
of course the original Puqdankon in Syriac is pretty short.
it’s just Puqdankon and the response Puqdan d’Mishihah.
the “Anna Pesaha” long version Malayalam translation first appears in the 1986 taksa (missal). And it’s English translation is “As Our Lord Commanded…”
(I’m told the “Anna Pesaha…” translation doesn’t do justice to the original by some people)

 

[Alexandria2020]

Attaching the recent Syriac Qurbana liturgical book published by SyroMalabar Church. @Elvis_George Original Syriac text, Malayalam translation, Malayalam transliteration and English translation are included in this book.

As you can see it translates the actual meaning of the Puqdankon to English. And doesn’t have “As Our Lord commanded…”

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Alexandria2020]

@Elvis_George

The focus on the Syro Malabar Qurbana is on the Resurrection of Esho M’shiha (Jesus Christ).

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Elvis_George]

yes this is very true…The consecration doesn’t represent anything, as it was put because the Portuguese believed a Qurbana without the words of institution we invalid… and the last supper is represented by the Holy Malka, which has been dormant for the past 100s of years

 

[Margaret_Ann]

The consecration doesn’t represent anything, as it was put because the Portuguese believed a Qurbana without the words of institution we invalid…

1. The separate consecration of each Species shows the Death of Christ upon the altar.
   All 3 Synoptic Evangelists (Sts. Matthew, Mark & Luke) have the words of consecration in their Gospels. Why would the Qurbana not have it?
2. At what point do the species of bread and wine become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ if there is no consecration of the bread and wine? We do not adore mere bread and wine. Rather, we adore Christ Who is really, truly and substantially present under the appearances of bread and wine.
3. How is that in accord with Mysterium fidei by Pope Paul VI?

I totally understand about being more faithful to your Tradition but to be quite frank, I’d vote for keeping the consecration of the bread and wine in the Qurbana. Imo, that’s not a latinization; rather it’s being more faithful to the Gospel.

 

[Alexandria2020]

I totally understand about being more faithful to your Tradition but to be quite frank, I’d vote for keeping the consecration of the bread and wine in the Qurbana. Imo, that’s not a latinization; rather it’s being more faithful to the Gospel.

Well it’s in the Syro-Malabar Holy Qurbana, to match with your 3 points and also since we are in communion with Rome.

But the fact is… the institution narrative was never a part of the East Syriac tradition. Which I know the Latins, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox would find odd. In a sense the East Syriac tradition is the odd one out of the 6 rites.

Below are the words from the “Guidelines for admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East”
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...uni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html

In the first place, the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is one of the most ancient Eucharistic Prayers, dating back to the time of the very early Church and the first liturgical regulations. It was composed and used with the clear intention of celebrating the Eucharist in full continuity with the Last Supper, in obedience to the command of the Lord, and according to the intention of the Church. The absence of a coherent Institution Narrative represents, indeed, an exception in comparison with Byzantine and Roman traditions, as developed in the 4th and 5th century. This exception, however, may be due to its very early origin and to the later isolation of the Assyrian Church of the East. The validity of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, in fact, was never officially contested.

The Assyrian Church of the East also practices the so called sacrament or mystery (Rasà) of Holy Leaven. From times immemorial, the Assyrian tradition relates that from the bread Jesus took in his hands, which He blessed, broke and gave to his disciples, He gave two pieces to St. John. Jesus asked St. John to eat one piece and to carefully keep the other one. After Jesus’ death, St. John dipped that piece of bread into the blood that proceeded from Jesus’ side. Hence the name of “Holy Leaven”, given to this consecrated bread, dipped into the blood of Jesus. Until this day, Holy Leaven has been kept and renewed annually in the Assyrian Church of the East. The local bishop renews it every year on Holy Thursday, mixing a remainder of the old Leaven within the new one. This is distributed to all parishes of his diocese, to be used during one year in each bread, specially prepared by the priest before the Eucharist. No priest is allowed to celebrate Eucharist using eucharistic bread without Holy Leaven. This tradition of the sacrament or mystery of Holy Leaven, which precedes the actual Eucharistic celebration, is certainly to be seen as a visible sign of historic and symbolic continuity between the present Eucharistic celebration and the institution of the Eucharist by Jesus.

 

[Alexandria2020]

@Margaret_Ann
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.

 

[Alexandria2020]

The separate consecration of each Species shows the Death of Christ upon the altar.

Very appropriately the words of institution are placed right after the third g’hantha prayers (eucharistic prayer) in the Syro-Malabar Holy Qurbana.

the third g’hantha prayers focus on the passion and death.

“Lord, Our God! Together with the heavenly hosts we give You
thanks. We glorify and bless God the Word, hidden offspring from
Your bosom. He is Your own likeness and splendor, and the Image
of Your own Being. Setting aside His equality with you,/ He emptied
Himself, taking the form of a servant. Born of a woman, He became
a complete human being with a rational, intelligent, and immortal
soul, and a mortal body. He subjected Himself to the law, in order to
redeem those who were under the law. He left for us the memorial
of our salvation, this redemptive mystery, which we now offer before
You.”

 

[Elvis_George]

Not only that, but the whole order will be messed up. The present Consecration is after the 1st Ghantha. This messes the order up because, after the 1st Ghantha, the celebrant folds the sosappa. This represents Jesus’s burial. Why have the consecration after his burial? Do it after the Epiclesis, that’ll be an obvious Latinization plus, the consecration would be right before the Resurrection. Also does not make sense either. If we say it during the “offertory,” it would make a bit more sense but then it wouldn’t be in the Anaphora like it is in other traditions.

 

[Alexandria2020]

The present Consecration is after the 1st Ghantha.

Ohh really ? I thought we had words of institution after the 3rd G’hantha prayers?

the first G’hantha reminds us that we are unworthy to receive the Sacred Mysteries. after this we have the exchange of peace - at this time or right after the priest wraps the chalice veil around the Sacred Mysteries. This represents Jesus’s burial has been complete. In the second G’hantha we thank God for creating the world and all the creatures dwelling in it. the third G’hantha is about Christ’s passion and death. then we have the words of institution. afterwards we continue the third G’hantha which becomes then like a anamensis. then after that is the 4th G’hantha which is a prayer in remembrance of the Virgin Mary and Saints. after this is the epiclesis - the anaphora ends with the epiclesis or invocation of the Holy Spirit.

right after the epiclesis, the Host is broken, and the celebrant elevates the Holy Mysteries. This represents the Resurrection.

 

[Elvis_George]

Ohh really ? I thought we had words of institution after the 3rd G’hantha prayers?

The 3rd Ghantha is still after the 1st Ghantha…all I meant is that fact that the consecration is after the burial of christ, which is after the 1st ghantha, which is weird

 

[Alexandria2020]

The 3rd Ghantha is still after the 1st Ghantha…all I meant is that fact that the consecration is after the burial of christ, which is after the 1st ghantha, which is weird

so your saying that order is weird? a 3rd G’hantha reflecting on the passion and death, after the 1st G’hantha which just had a representation of the burial of Christ.

a comparison of the 1962 taksa (missal) vs the 1986 one. @Elvis_George

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Alexandria2020]

@Elvis_George from “Integration and Deification of the Holy Qurbana” by Fr Geo Pallikunnel CMI

"In the Epiclesis, which comes at the end of the fourth G’hantha, the Holy Spirit comes down on the offering and changes it to the pneumatic Body and Blood of Christ. This signifies the resurrection of our Lord in the Holy Qurbana. On the Epiclesis, Theodore of Mopsuestia says, “But by virtue of the sacramental actions, this is the moment appointed for Christ our Lord to rise from the dead and pour out his grace upon us all”. By commemorating and celebrating the awesome mysteries in the Holy Qurbana the community participates in the death and resurrection of Our Lord and is sanctified and deified by the power of the Holy Spirit. "

 

[Elvis_George]

so your saying that order is weird? a 3rd G’hantha reflecting on the passion and death, after the 1st G’hantha which just had a representation of the burial of Christ.

at least in my point of view, the Ghantha’s are reflections, which is the basis of my rational, besides the fact that the representations happen much before these reflections

 

[Alexandria2020]

at least in my point of view, the Ghantha’s are reflections, which is the basis of my rational, besides the fact that the representations happen much before these reflections

So in your opinion, what would be a better order?

 

[Elvis_George]

either not having the words of institution at all (which many prominent bishops like Mar George Alenchery say) or just say the institution narrative during the offertory or even during the Holy Malkha (we must revive this first tho)

 

[Alexandria2020]

either not having the words of institution at all (which many prominent bishops like Mar George Alenchery say)

Wow even Mar Alencherry is supportive?

In that case I feel like the whole land/scam case from 2 years ago might be something cooked up by the pro-Latin factions within the Archeparchy of Ernakulam-Angamaly to trap him? :frowning_face_with_open_mouth: so that they can get another archbishop in.