Words of Insitution in Chaldean Rite

[jimkhong]

If the Chaldean Rite does not have the words of the institution explicitly, at which point are the bread and wine considered to be consecrated?

 

[Denho]

If the Chaldean Rite does not have the words of the institution explicitly, at which point are the bread and wine considered to be consecrated?

The Chaldean Catholic Qurbana has the Institution Narrative inserted in its Anaphora of Addai and Mari. The other two anaphorae, if i recall correctly, already had the Institution Narrative included.

The Assyrian/Ancient Church of the East does not always include the Institution Narrative in its version of Addai and Mari.

As with all other Eastern and Oriental Churches, there is no “exact” moment of Consecration that we can point to. The idea of a “moment of Consecration” is very Latin and foreign to our theology.

If you must have an answer, it would be “It begins from the Rite of Preparation at the beginning of the Qurbana and is accomplished by the end of the Anaphora.” That is the most specific you can really get.

 

[SyroMalankara]

The Anaphoro of Mar Addai and Mari is not the only one without the explicit words of Institution. The Anaphoro of Mor Dionysius Saliba used in the Syro-Malankara Church does not include the words “this is My Body”, “this is My Blood” either. It does have a very explicit Epiclesis.

 

[Denho]

The Anaphoro of Mar Addai and Mari is not the only one without the explicit words of Institution. The Anaphoro of Mor Dionysius Saliba used in the Syro-Malankara Church does not include the words “this is My Body”, “this is My Blood” either. It does have a very explicit Epiclesis.

Indeed, I’ve seen in English translation a number of Western anaphorae that have interesting takes on the narrative.

The Syriac Orthodox Resources page here: sor.cua.edu/Liturgy/Anaphora/

The one you mention has it rendered:
Anaphora of Mar Dionysius Jacob Bar Salibi:

When He prepared for the redemptive passion, he took bread and blessed + + and sanctified + and broke, and called it His Holy Body for eternal life for those who receive it.

And also the cup blended of wine and water, He blessed + + and sanctified + and** completed as His Precious Blood** of eternal life for those who receive it.

Anaphora of St. Peter:

When He willed to taste death on our behalf and to fulfill the Paschal feast, in the evening He took bread in His hands. He Blessed + + and sanctified + and broke and gave the group of His apostles, and said: Take, eat of it for the forgiveness of sins and for life eternal.

Likewise, the cup blended with wine and water, He blessed + + and sanctified + and gave to His holy apostles, and said: Take, drink of it all of you for the remission of offenses and for life eternal.

Anaphora of St. Sixtus:

When he was prepared for the redemptive passion, in the bread which by Him was blessed + + +, broken and divided unto His holy apostles, He gave us His propitiatory Body for life eternal.

Likewise, also in the cup which by Him was signed, sanctified + + + and and given to His holy apostles, He gave us His propitiatory Blood for life eternal.

 

[malphono]

The Anaphoro of Mar Addai and Mari is not the only one without the explicit words of Institution. The Anaphoro of Mor Dionysius Saliba used in the Syro-Malankara Church does not include the words “this is My Body”, “this is My Blood” either. It does have a very explicit Epiclesis.

From an Oriental perspective, I don’t think those words are 100% required for it to be considered explicit. The samples already cited by [post=11142118]Denho[/post] are pretty explicit to me.

The difference with the ACoE recension of Addai & Mari is that it has nothing of the kind, and there’s no question that the Anaphora is consecratory in nature. The Institution is implicit in the Anaphora as a unit. It’s similar to how the Roman Canon has not an explicit Epiklesis. But it’s there implicitly (when looked at from an Oriental perspective, and the usual – and very stale – objections of hard-line EO notwithstanding).

 

[MorEphrem]

I would just like to make note that the ever-knowledgable Pope Benedict wrote on this matter. The way he referred to it being not necessarily about an explicit magic phrase but the implicit narrative seems to point to the commonly Eastern idea that we don’t know when (what Latins call) Transubstantiation occurs, and in my opinion that is not particularly important. Hence why it’s called a Mystery.

Plus, anyway, not to spark a theological debate but if the institution narrative was all that was minimally sufficient why even bother for the utilitarian Catholics to have the extra load of an epiclesis and fraction rite?

 

[jimkhong]

Thanks Denho for the explanation. Being schooled in Latin theology, it is not easy to try to break out into Greek thinking, much as I yearn for it.

Isn’t there a movement in Chaldean and Syro-Malabarese liturgies to move back to the anaphora without the words of institution inserted? I believe there was a document from Rome some time ago clarifying that it is OK to do so.

The Anaphoro of Mar Addai and Mari is not the only one without the explicit words of Institution. The Anaphoro of Mor Dionysius Saliba used in the Syro-Malankara Church does not include the words “this is My Body”, “this is My Blood” either. It does have a very explicit Epiclesis.

I probably need to be corrected on this. I always thought that SyroMalankara liturgy is derived from Antioch and not Babylon. Was the Syro-Malabarese liturgy then retained during the break and when you were getting your bishops (but not the liturgy) from Antioch? And thus your liturgy is similar to Syro-Malabarese today, without the words of institution? (sorry if I am steping into a gunfight here )

 

[MorEphrem]

Being schooled in Latin theology, it is not easy to try to break out into Greek thinking, much as I yearn for it.

Questions are always a good thing and the EC forum is always welcoming. Small correction though, not to nitpick, but Syriacs don’t have “Greek thinking;” to my understanding, Greeks have a philosophic view of theology whereas Syriacs approach it poetically.

jimkhong:

Isn’t there a movement in Chaldean and Syro-Malabarese liturgies to move back to the anaphora without the words of institution inserted? I believe there was a document from Rome some time ago clarifying that it is OK to do so.

I’ve heard before of there being at least some support for a restoration of it. You are in fact right that Pope Benedict wrote about how the communion the Chaldeans had received from the Assyrians was indeed valid due to the implicit “narrative” within the overall anaphora of Addai and Mari.

I don’t personally see it as a necessary restoration but it’s really none of my business as neither an East Syriac or bishop.

 

[malphono]

I’ve heard before of there being at least some support for a restoration of it. You are in fact right that Pope Benedict wrote about how the communion the Chaldeans had received from the Assyrians was indeed valid due to the implicit “narrative” within the overall anaphora of Addai and Mari.

As I understand things, this was discussed at length during the process of the reform, and it was decided to retain the Institution Narrative. It (i.e, the Narrative) was, however, shifted to a slightly later position in the Anaphora, in conformity with its position in the other two Chaldean anaphorae that are used on occasion.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I probably need to be corrected on this. I always thought that SyroMalankara liturgy is derived from Antioch and not Babylon. Was the Syro-Malabarese liturgy then retained during the break and when you were getting your bishops (but not the liturgy) from Antioch? And thus your liturgy is similar to Syro-Malabarese today, without the words of institution? (sorry if I am steping into a gunfight here )

Yes, the Malankara Liturgy is West Syrian from Antioch. From 52AD to 1653, all Christians in Malabar-Malankara used the Chaldean/Syro-Malabar Liturgy. The West Syriac Liturgy emerged after the Portuguese interference in India, which led to a break with the Chaldean Church (there were issues in that Church due to politics and Islamic problems, as well). The Indians wrote letters all over to another Apostolic bishop to come to India, the Patriarch of Antioch sent Mor Gregorios of Jerusalem of the Syriac Orthodox Church. The communities which came under Antioch (32 of 116) used the same Liturgy as the Catholic communities (84 of 116) for over 100 years. However, over time, the West Syriac replaced the East Syriac in the non-Catholic communities. This community divided first among those loyal to Antioch (Syriac Orthodox) and those who chose protestant doctrine (Marthoma), then those who remained in union with Antioch (Syriac Orthodox) and those who accepted union with Rome (Syro-Malankara Catholic), and those who claimed an autocephalous Catholicos (Malankara Orthodox). The Syriac Orthodox, Malankara Orthodox, and Syro-Malankara Catholics essentially have the same Liturgy, Traditions, Patristics, etc. The Marthoma is basically Malankara Anglicans.

The Liturgy of the Malankara Church is essentially West Syriac, there are almost no traces of East Syriac influence. The Anaphoro without Institution are in Antioch as well, they were not borrowed from the Malabar-Chaldean Church.

 

[jimkhong]

Thanks Syro-Malakara for a clear explanation, which even my Latin-Rite Malayalee friends are unable to muster!

Does this mean that the West Syriac liturgies also do not have the words of institution and not just the anaphora of Addai & Mari? Does this also include the Maronite as well?

 

[malphono]

Does this mean that the West Syriac liturgies also do not have the words of institution and not just the anaphora of Addai & Mari? Does this also include the Maronite as well?

No. Please have a second look at earlier posts by both Denho and myself.

 

[jimkhong]

No. Please have a second look at earlier posts by both Denho and myself.

If not, then why does the Syro-Malankarese liturgy that purportedly is fully West Syriac with no vestige of East Syriac has no words of the institution? Where then does the absence of the words of the institution in the Syro-Malakarese liturgy come from?

 

[malphono]

If not, then why does the Syro-Malankarese liturgy that purportedly is fully West Syriac with no vestige of East Syriac has no words of the institution? Where then does the absence of the words of the institution in the Syro-Malakarese liturgy come from?

If you look at the quoted text from the Anahphora of Dionysios Bar Salibi that Denho provided, you’ll see that there is an Institution Narrative. As I said earlier, just because it lacks the specific words used in the Latin formula doesn’t mean what is there isn’t explicit. Now, in the ACoE recension of Addai & Mari, there is no Institution Narrative at all, yet the Anaphora is consecratory by its very nature, since the Institution is considered to be implicit when the Anaphora is taken as a whole. That’s the difference.

 

[jimkhong]

If you look at the quoted text from the Anahphora of Dionysios Bar Salibi that Denho provided, you’ll see that there is an Institution Narrative. As I said earlier, just because it lacks the specific words used in the Latin formula doesn’t mean what is there isn’t explicit. Now, in the ACoE recension of Addai & Mari, there is no Institution Narrative at all, yet the Anaphora is consecratory by its very nature, since the Institution is considered to be implicit when the Anaphora is taken as a whole. That’s the difference.

Thanks, malphono, that was my understanding all along. My confusion is in SyroMalankara’s assertion that the Syro-Malankarese liturgy is West Syriac but has no words of institution. If the Syro-Malakarese liturgy has no vestiges of East Syriac liturgies as he asserts, then where does the absence of the words of institution comes from?

 

[malphono]

Thanks, malphono, that was my understanding all along. My confusion is in SyroMalankara’s assertion that the Syro-Malankarese liturgy is West Syriac but has no words of institution. If the Syro-Malakarese liturgy has no vestiges of East Syriac liturgies as he asserts, then where does the absence of the words of institution comes from?

It seems to me that he is saying that certain of the West Syriac Anaphorae lack the words “This is My …” and is equating that with there being no Institution. The fact is that, while those specific words may absent in some cases, there is, nonetheless, an explicit Institution Narrative, i.e, a clear telling (narration) of what took place. The one Anaphora that lacks an explicit Institution Narrative is East Syriac, i.e. the ACoE recension of Addai & Mari.

 

[jimkhong]

It seems to me that he is saying that certain of the West Syriac Anaphorae lack the words “This is My …” and is equating that with there being no Institution. The fact is that, while those specific words may absent in some cases, there is, nonetheless, an explicit Institution Narrative, i.e, a clear telling (narration) of what took place. The one Anaphora that lacks an explicit Institution Narrative is East Syriac, i.e. the ACoE recension of Addai & Mari.

OK, that makes sense. Thanks.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Thanks, malphono, that was my understanding all along. My confusion is in SyroMalankara’s assertion that the Syro-Malankarese liturgy is West Syriac but has no words of institution. If the Syro-Malakarese liturgy has no vestiges of East Syriac liturgies as he asserts, then where does the absence of the words of institution comes from?

As my Syriac brother Malphono clarified, I meant that the words “This is My Body”, “This is My Blood” as was thought within Latin scholastic circles as ‘required’ are not always present in all West Syriac Anaphoro. It should be noted that there are over 70 known, and many unknown Anaphoro used by the Syriac Churches. The Syriac Church allowed bishops, theologians (such as Mor Ephrem), and monastics to compose Anaphoro, and many bishops would use their own within their community. There was no controversy in this. The majority of Anaphoro do contain the words “This is My Body”, “This is My Blood”, some do not. What is certain is that what was formerly bread and wine became essentially transformed into Christ’s Body and Blood when the priest memorialized Christ’s action, perfected by the Holy Spirit, and received by God the Father. These words “the live coal of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, is given to the true believer for forgiveness of sins and life everlasting, in both worlds, forever” are said by the priest when distributing the Holy Qurbono (Eucharist).

 

[jimkhong]

As my Syriac brother Malphono clarified, I meant that the words “This is My Body”, “This is My Blood” as was thought within Latin scholastic circles as ‘required’ are not always present in all West Syriac Anaphoro. It should be noted that there are over 70 known, and many unknown Anaphoro used by the Syriac Churches. The Syriac Church allowed bishops, theologians (such as Mor Ephrem), and monastics to compose Anaphoro, and many bishops would use their own within their community. There was no controversy in this. The majority of Anaphoro do contain the words “This is My Body”, “This is My Blood”, some do not. What is certain is that what was formerly bread and wine became essentially transformed into Christ’s Body and Blood when the priest memorialized Christ’s action, perfected by the Holy Spirit, and received by God the Father. These words “the live coal of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, is given to the true believer for forgiveness of sins and life everlasting, in both worlds, forever” are said by the priest when distributing the Holy Qurbono (Eucharist).

Thanks for clarifying.

My takeaway from all the (name removed by moderator)uts is that to the Eastern mind, the precise point of consecration is not so important in Eastern divine liturgies as long as it is clear to everyone that the bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Christ at the point of consumption.

No hands-wringing like among the Latins over at which point in the mass can the priest drop dead and yet we still have consecrated bread.

 

[Peter_J]

Yes, the Malankara Liturgy is West Syrian from Antioch. From 52AD to 1653, all Christians in Malabar-Malankara used the Chaldean/Syro-Malabar Liturgy. The West Syriac Liturgy emerged after the Portuguese interference in India, which led to a break with the Chaldean Church (there were issues in that Church due to politics and Islamic problems, as well). The Indians wrote letters all over to another Apostolic bishop to come to India, the Patriarch of Antioch sent Mor Gregorios of Jerusalem of the Syriac Orthodox Church. The communities which came under Antioch (32 of 116) used the same Liturgy as the Catholic communities (84 of 116) for over 100 years. However, over time, the West Syriac replaced the East Syriac in the non-Catholic communities. This community divided first among those loyal to Antioch (Syriac Orthodox) and those who chose protestant doctrine (Marthoma), then those who remained in union with Antioch (Syriac Orthodox) and those who accepted union with Rome (Syro-Malankara Catholic), and those who claimed an autocephalous Catholicos (Malankara Orthodox). The Syriac Orthodox, Malankara Orthodox, and Syro-Malankara Catholics essentially have the same Liturgy, Traditions, Patristics, etc. The Marthoma is basically Malankara Anglicans.

The Liturgy of the Malankara Church is essentially West Syriac, there are almost no traces of East Syriac influence. The Anaphoro without Institution are in Antioch as well, they were not borrowed from the Malabar-Chaldean Church.

Forgive me if this is too random, but your post got me thinking: It goes to show that the concept of “counterpart churches”, although certainly useful, is not really an exact concept.

For example, we say that the Syro-Malankara Orthodox Church and the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church are counterparts of each other; we don’t also say that the Syro-Malankara Orthodox Church and the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church are counterparts of each other. I understand the reasoning behind that: when the Syro-Malankara Orthodox Church separated from the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church it was WestSyrianized (or whatever we want to call it ). But the point is, that’s hardly ironclad reasoning, it seems to me, given that many EC church are Latinized.