Talk:Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Syriac Christianity work group. (with unknown importance)
This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. See also the Eastern Christianity Portal. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] POV

This article claims that the decision of the Catholic Church that the Liturgy of Addai and Mari is valid even though it lacks an explicit statement of the words of institution "completely overthrows the sacramental theology ratified by the Council of Trent." The author explains that the Council teaches that for a sacrament to be valid, the matter, the form, and the intention must be legitimate. The author goes on to say that the Church's argument that the form of the sacrament is present is "not good enough." He promises to explain why, but no explanation is given. The article would be less biased if its judgements about the legitimacy of the Church's rulings were expressed as opinions rather than facts. Bill8025 20:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed the POV after modifying section in question, leaving only two sentences, both of which need citations. --Midnite Critic 21:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Traditional Catholic Reaction

The POV in the above text has returned. I have modified it.Please edit if you feel the changes aren't satisfactory. Cheers.--Gazzster 06:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

An editor has reverted my edit to the last POV version. I propose placing a POV tag on this section.--Gazzster 07:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A personal opinion

As one who has frequently attended the Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari according to the usage of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church and who has read an English translation of the Malayalam text, I believe that there can be no real doubt that the Holy Qurbana would be valid even without the Words of Institution. My reason for saying that is that the offertory prayers are logically equivalent to the Words of Institution. I have been meaning to type them up, but can not lay my hands on the text at the moment. But it is something like the following...

First the priest silently consecrates the wine saying something like...

The Precious Blood of Christ is poured into the chalice in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Then the priest silently consecrates the bread saying something like...

The Precious Body of Christ is placed on the paten in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

At this point the priest says a prayer thanking God for the grace of his ordination. Then follows the declaration...

I waited confidently for the Lord. - The poor shall eat and be satisfied. The body of Christ and his precious blood are on the holy altar. In awe and love let us all draw near to him. And with the angels let us cry aloud unto him, Holy, holy, holy Lord God.


In my humble opinion, this is "a coherent narrative," not something expressed in a "dispersed euchological way." One can argue whether these words really do express what Christ said at the Mystical Supper. My most humble opinion is that they do. To deny that places in doubt many Sacramental formulas. Even the formula used in the Tridentine Mass is not a direct quotation from the New Testament, but one attested to by traditions no more sound than those behind the Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari. Indeed, all that is required -- according to the Roman Catholic Church is that the words are logically equivalent to what the Roman Church uses. Clearly these words are logically equivalent, clearly expressing that which the Sacred Mystery signifies. In that sense they satisfy what the Catechism of the Council of Trent said.

If I can ever manage to find my copy I will supply the exact text, etc.

--Sophroniscus 01:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see that when you do. Does the priest say these words as he's physically pouring the wine into the chalice and placing the bread onto the paten? Or is he using "poured" and "placed" symbolically at that point, by way of something like an epiklesis? (Or both?)
Plainly the Words of Institution are not required for a valid Eucharist anyway, otherwise we'd have to consider a number of ancient anaphoras, including the one tersely summarized in the Didache, as invalid. (The Didache probably is a summary, but if the Words of Institution were so indispensable it would hardly fail to mention them anyway.)
I don't think any of the traditional churches quote any of the Gospels directly at that point; not in the Roman rite or anywhere else. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, according to the text I have read, the priest says these words as he does the actions which they describe.

Admittedly, what I have read is in regard to the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, and not the Assyrian Church of the East. I can not say what their practice is. I suppose they say something roughly equivalent.

In any event, there are truly radical differences between the sacramental forms used by some churches and those used by the Roman Catholic Church. In the Byzantine Catholic Church, for example, the form for Holy Chrism is "The sign of the seal of the Holy Spirit." That is not even close to what the Roman Church uses. But the Roman Church clearly acknowledges its validity, because it expresses that which Holy Chrism signifies. It is the same with the Holy Qurbana.

The only reason I can see for doubting the validity of the Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari is scrupulosity plain and simple.

--Sophroniscus 02:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

In the context of other Eastern liturgies, this is pretty unusual. Not only is the bread and wine considered the Body and Blood of Christ as soon as they're placed on the altar, but the change happens before the Sanctus.
(Odd what you said about the Byzantine Catholic Chrismation. In Greek it's "Σφραγίς δωρεάς Πνεύματος Αγίου. Αμήν," The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit. Amen. It's the same in Slavonic -- which isn't straightforward to write here.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, the declaration I refer to comes very early, before the Creed of Constantinople. Perhaps that is one reason people doubt it's validity. It is said quietly without bells and whistles.

As to my comment regarding Holy Chrism... I know neither Greek nor Church Slavonic. I do know that the prayers of the Ruthenian Catholic Church tend to follow those of the Russian Orthodox Church. And I do know that Peter the Great tried to Westernize their liturgies -- for example, the absolution used in Holy Penance was Westernized. Perhaps that is part of the explanation. But I am not a liturgist, so I can not really explain its derivation. --Sophroniscus 17:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Why bells in church are perfectly acceptable! Whistles on the other hand... ;)
That means the Symbol comes after the Sanctus too. I suppose the anemnesis comes after the Symbol, or is that said closer to the time for communion?
The differences you're thinking of weren't instigated by Peter the Great, but mostly came along in the Nikonian reforms. The formula for absolution is a singular, anomalous instance, possibly owing more to the "Latin Captivity" than anything else, and that predates Peter as well. There were other issues along those lines that eventually resolved -- mostly -- along traditional Eastern lines, and this is almost the last holdout.
The Byzantine Catholics have modernized their rubrics but for the most part use the pre-Nikonian texts -- which incidentally can complicate using prostopinije in a Russian parish even in Slavonic since even there the words are different at times. (The rector told me the old Slavonic was OK to use, but I was afraid some of the Russians would think it was simply wrong.) But many of the textual changes were by way of improving the translation from the Greek (which was successful for the most part, if incremental), so I suppose it's possible for "sign of the seal" to have been pre-Nikonian. But I don't have access to an Old Rite or Byzantine Catholic trebnik in Slavonic. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
CIX! Just two points...
The absolution formula - I've heard a scholar say once that the earliest reference he found to the first-person absolution was in a Serbian/Bosniak Trebnik that predates all of these. If this is true, it complicates things greatly. I must check that...
I wouldn't quite agree that the textual changes were an improvement. The pre-Nikonian texts are generally far easier to read, using fewer complex clauses and participles. As I understand it, Church Slavonic does not lend itself well to long sentences with multiple subordinate clauses the way Greek does, and the Nikonian texts were an attempt to slavishly copy Greek word order. Then there's the silly random replacement of khram with tserkov and vice versa, Syn with Khristos, and so on. InfernoXV 03:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I said it was a better translation. I didn't say it was better Slavonic. Although that's an opinion I formed from various sources, not from my own comparison of the texts. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid you are way beyond me. I'm just a simple hillbilly. In any event, we are getting far removed from Syriac Christianity with all the references to Greek and Slavonic. Right now I am trying to figure out Malayalam.

--Sophroniscus 22:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe I'm wrong?

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

--Sophroniscus 22:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)