Words of Insitution in Chaldean Rite

[jimkhong]

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.

There is a Chaldean Syrian Church (non-Chaldean, under the Assyrian Patriarch) which is an offshoot of the Catholic Syro-Malabarese, after another of the Latin-instigated disputes.

This will likely be the Orthodox counterpart of Syro-Malabarese, having the same liturgy and deriving its bishop from Babylon. As opposed to Orthodox Syrian Church of the East which is the counterpart to Syro-Malakarese, having the same liturgy and deriving its bishop from Antioch.

I understand there are less then 10,000 members. It has an odd position as a schism from an Eastern Church that has already reunited with Rome, and not the mother church of an Eastern Church that has subsequently reunited with Rome. A bit like (say) a schismatic group leaving the Maronites to set up its own church but retaining Apostolic Succession, doctrines and liturgy. So, does that count?

 

[malphono]

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.

I think “counterpart” means that one sprang from the other. So yes, the Syro-Malankara Church indeed does have her counterpart in the Jacobite/Malankara Orthodox.

The Coonan Cross Oath and its aftermath means that, for one or more reasons, (which brother SyroMalankara, who is far more familiar with the details than I will ever be, has already delved into a bit), a split occurred, so I really don’t see the idea of “counterpart” coming in to play there.

 

[Peter_J]

I think “counterpart” means that one sprang from the other. So yes, the Syro-Malankara Church indeed does have her counterpart in the Jacobite/Malankara Orthodox.

The Coonan Cross Oath and its aftermath means that, for one or more reasons, (which brother SyroMalankara, who is far more familiar with the details than I will ever be, has already delved into a bit), a split occurred, so I really don’t see the idea of “counterpart” coming in to play there.

Isn’t that a reason that the Jacobite/Malankara Orthodox would be considered a[nother] “counterpart” to the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church? I’m a little confused by the conclusion.

 

[Peter_J]

There is a Chaldean Syrian Church (non-Chaldean, under the Assyrian Patriarch) which is an offshoot of the Catholic Syro-Malabarese, after another of the Latin-instigated disputes.
… So, does that count?

Good point. Yes, I think those would definitely count as “counterpart” churches … although I confess I hadn’t really considered that, probably because of the Chaldean Syrian Church being so small.

 

[malphono]

Isn’t that a reason that the Jacobite/Malankara Orthodox would be considered a[nother] “counterpart” to the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church? I’m a little confused by the conclusion.

No, and precisely because of the split. After Coonan Cross, the split-off group adopted the SOC, and in doing so, renounced its East Syriac roots. IOW, they became SOC, and since the SOC is not a “counterpart” of the ACoE or Chaldeans, by extension neither can the Syro-Malankara Church (nor the Jacobite/Malankara Orthodox from which it sprang), be a “counterpart” of the Syro-Malabar.

 

[malphono]

Good point. Yes, I think those would definitely count as “counterpart” churches … although I confess I hadn’t really considered that, probably because of the Chaldean Syrian Church being so small.

Yes, even I agree it would qualify. I think the reason why it’s not often considered as such is because the ACoE was in its decline and had neglected the daughter Church in India (which is really how the Portuguese succeeded in what they did). So, this is kind of a “reverse” situation, where the “old” (i.e, renewed association with the ACoE) came from the “new” (i.e, Syro-Malabar).

 

[Peter_J]

No, and precisely because of the split. After Coonan Cross, the split-off group adopted the SOC, and in doing so, renounced its East Syriac roots. IOW, they became SOC, and since the SOC is not a “counterpart” of the ACoE or Chaldeans, by extension neither can the Syro-Malankara Church (nor the Jacobite/Malankara Orthodox from which it sprang), be a “counterpart” of the Syro-Malabar.

Thanks for clarifying. Yes, that’s pretty much how I see it too: the Jacobite/Malankara Orthodox and the Syro-Malabar Catholics are not “counterparts” to each other because the one is West Syriac (rite-wise of course) and the other is East Syriac.

 

[Filii_Dei]

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.

While that may be true to a limited extent as regards to the moment of consecration, it does not necessarily mean that our Eastern brothers are not particular about other similar details, and can be more so than the Latins, in fact. It really all depends on the context.

It may seem that the Latins are legalistic because they fuss about the moment of consecration while the Easterners do not, but if we were talking about the presence of an explicit epiclesis, the roles are switched. Those of a Byzantine heritage, in particular, may fuss about the lack of an explicit epiclesis (the calling down of the Holy Spirit upon the holy gifts) in the Roman Anaphora, while us Latins are not concerned with it. So strong is their demand for an explicit epiclesis, that when the Eastern Orthodox were formulating their own Western-rite Orthodox liturgies, they demanded that a strong epiclesis from the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom be inserted into their Anaphora. So who’s wringing their hands now?

In parting, I think it’s important not to be overly concerned with whether the Latins or Easterners are more legalistic than the other. We must realise that the all the rites can be considered “legalistic” to a certain extent, but that is really because different rites tend to emphasise different aspects as is particular to their traditions. The reason why the Latins and Easterners (if you can even lump all Eastern Christians together) do so is because their histories are not entirely the same. Different traditions develop from different causes and/or in response to different needs, and it is the culmination of all this organic development that has led us to the fruits that we bear today.

 

[malphono]

It may seem that the Latins are legalistic because they fuss about the moment of consecration while the Easterners do not, but if we were talking about the presence of an explicit epiclesis, the roles are switched. Those of a Byzantine heritage, in particular, may fuss about the lack of an explicit epiclesis (the calling down of the Holy Spirit upon the holy gifts) in the Roman Anaphora, while us Latins are not concerned with it. So strong is their demand for an explicit epiclesis, that when the Eastern Orthodox were formulating their own Western-rite Orthodox liturgies, they demanded that a strong epiclesis from the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom be inserted into their Anaphora. So who’s wringing their hands now?

That’s an interesting point and one which might be the basis of its own thread.

For the moment, at least, I’ll simply say that it seems to bear more on the “modern EO” than on any historical precedent. The Roman Canon is essentially the same as it was in the 1st Millennium, and there was no fuss about its lack of an explicit Epiklesis. But in the last 100 or so years, some factions within the EO have decided to make a big deal over it.

 

[Peter_J]

It may seem that the Latins are legalistic because they **fuss about the moment of consecration **while the Easterners do not, but if we were talking about the presence of an explicit epiclesis, the roles are switched. Those of a Byzantine heritage, in particular, may fuss about the lack of an explicit epiclesis (the calling down of the Holy Spirit upon the holy gifts) in the Roman Anaphora, while us Latins are not concerned with it. So strong is their demand for an explicit epiclesis, that when the Eastern Orthodox were formulating their own Western-rite Orthodox liturgies, they demanded that a strong epiclesis from the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom be inserted into their Anaphora. So who’s wringing their hands now?

I’m thinking the comparison would work better if you changed the highlighted words, “fuss about the moment of consecration”, to “fuss about the presence or absence of the words of institution”.

I can’t really think of anything in the East that could be compared with the Western concern over “When exactly does the change take place?”

Nevertheless, I’d say you make a good point about the explicit-epiclesis-concern.

 

[collin_nunis]

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?

Simple and direct answer, the West Syriac liturgies would have the words of institution. The Catholics that come from the West-Syriac liturgical family would obviously have them.

PS: I’m Malaysian too, but of the Melkite Rite. Nice to meet another Malaysian here!

 

[jimkhong]

Simple and direct answer, the West Syriac liturgies would have the words of institution. The Catholics that come from the West-Syriac liturgical family would obviously have them.

PS: I’m Malaysian too, but of the Melkite Rite. Nice to meet another Malaysian here!

Hi Collin, it is good to meet another Malaysian with interest in these issues.

How did you get to be Melkite? Nunis would be a very Latin-rite name.

 

[collin_nunis]

Hi Collin, it is good to meet another Malaysian with interest in these issues.

How did you get to be Melkite? Nunis would be a very Latin-rite name.

Let’s PM and exchange details.