Rorate Caeli

Declaration on the Anaphora of Addai and Mari
FOLLOW-UP: It was once condemned

Did the Roman Curia ever condemn the fact that one of the "Eastern Anaphoras" did not contain the Institution Narrative? A new portion of the article "Historical and Theological Argumentation in Favour Of Anaphoras without Institution Narrative: A Critical Appraisal" - of which we had posted just a few excerpts due to possible copyright restrictions - may help clarify the very interesting debate:

A bishop from the Church of the East arrived in Rome in the 16th century; he asked for and obtained ecclesiastical communion from the Pope, who recognized him as Patriarch. This was the return of a part of the Church of the East to full communion with the See of Peter; it would come to be called the Chaldean Church, inheritor of the catholicity of the pre-Council of Ephesus Church of the East. One Cardinal Amulius made a report to the Council of Trent about the “Chaldeans’” faith and sacraments, and his outline of their Mass specifically mentions the Narrative of the Institution and the words of consecration as a part of their Eucharistic liturgy.

This indicates the cardinal’s presumption that at least from the time of the Patriarch’s request for communion with Rome he and the clergy in union with him would henceforth recite the Institution Narrative. Even though no condemnation was issued against the Anaphora of Addai and Mari without Institution Narrative, it is significant that when Rome received a portion of the Church of the East into her communion it was presumed by Cardinal Amulius that their Eucharist would be celebrated with the Institution Narrative.
By the late 19th century it was becoming known in the Christian West that some liturgical manuscripts from the Assyrian Church lacked the Institution Narrative. It was at this time that an instruction of the Holy See’s Congregatio de Propaganda Fide to Catholic missionaries in the Near East instructed them to uproot the “incredible abuse” of Mass without the words of consecration and to instruct about the true form of the sacrament of the Eucharist. [RORATE Note: this is followed by a footnote with the following Italian text, translated by us: "Abolish the incredible abuse of not pronouncing the sacramental words at the Consecration in the Mass called 'of the Apostles', which is the most frequent one. Instruct on the true formula of Consecration." Letter dated 31 July 1902, in Codicis Juris Canonici fontes, ed. P. Gasparri and J. Serédi, vol. V, Rome, 1935, 546.]

One wonders whether the experts consulted for the 2001 letter [of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, available here] were aware of this letter of
Propaganda Fide (...). At the very least, we can say that the Anaphora of Addai and Mari was once presumed worthy of condemnation by an organ of the Holy See.

54 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think it's important to remember that the CDF only said that the anaphora "can" be considered valid. They did not say that it "must."

Whether it is valid remains an open theological question. Given that the validity is uncertain, wouldn't it make sense to insert the words of institution "just in case"?

JAT

schoolman said...

JAT, that's a great point. I don't think this was presented as a "definitive" declaration by the Holy See -- but rather as a kind of limited prudential application. The document does call for the explicit narrative to be used in the anophora -- an option that exists today.

Petrus Radii said...

How could Kasper's crew possibly have known about some obscure, 19th Century example of overly somatic thinking? Definitive teachings only began in December 1962. I thought every one knew that! ;-)

schoolman said...

"Abolish the incredible abuse of not pronouncing the sacramental words at the Consecration in the Mass called 'of the Apostles', which is the most frequent one. Instruct on the true formula of Consecration." Letter dated 31 July 1902, in Codicis Juris Canonici fontes, ed. P. Gasparri and J. Serédi, vol. V, Rome, 1935, 546.]
====================

A couple points of interest here. Fisrt, this would seem to be directed at those communities already in full communion with the Holy See -- hence the "abuse" of the ligurgical norm. Secondly, it does not seem evident that the "abuse" in question invalidates the validity of mass, as such. Now if validity were at stake, then it would seem that the congregation would have addressed the point in addition to the "abuse" against the liturgical norm. Thoughts?

Anonymous said...

I posted this on the other thread, but perhaps it belongs here too.

As Fr. Cekada himself correctly said in his otherwise flawed study of the validity of the new rite of ordination: What determines a valid form is "the words recited actually produce the sacramental effect."

The specific words - "this is my body" - do this. Even though the one uttering the words is not personally Christ, by repeating the words after the commandment of Christ and by the power of ordination to act "in persona Christi," the effect nevertheless takes place. When Fr. Cekada says, "Hoc est corpus meum" the host is not transubstantiated into the body of Fr. Cekada, but into the body of Christ.

The Anaphora of Addai and Mari contains a declaration, the meaning of which is unmistakable: "The body of Christ and his precious blood are on the holy altar."

Does this declaration confect the meaning of the words? Well, that's kind of like asking whether the one uttering the words is a priest or not.

Perhaps I'm confused, but I don't understand the controversy: The anaphora is valid.

"Assyrian Apologist"

Anonymous said...

The insertion of the institutional narrative does NOT constitute a "condemnation" of the Anaphora or even a declaration of nullity. It was designed to allay the anxieties of those who do not realize the same meaning can be contained in different words.

"The addition is at worst redundant but at best it secures sacramental validity." That's the sort of probabilistic reasoning that determined that decision. But now, we're trying to extrapolate a condemnation and declaration of nullity? Am I the only one who sees that as absurd?

Respectfully,

"Assyrian Apologist"

schoolman said...

Apologist, I see your point. I think we have seen condemnation for "abuse" against Catholic norms. Yet this does not add up to nullity -- and that is really the question at hand. All of this seems to lend more weight to the argument that the anaphora "can" be considered valid -- even if considered an "abuse" for Catholics.

Anonymous said...

...All of this seems to lend more weight to the argument that the anaphora "can" be considered valid -- even if considered an "abuse" for Catholics.

Sounds like more post-Vatican II mumbo-jumbo to me. It seems that the only thing that was condemned since that lamentable Council was clear Catholic doctrine (replacing it with modernist double talk to be interpreted "in light of tradition")! Maybe we should get a definitive definition of "can." After all we were to believe that "many" and "all" meant the same thing too...

schoolman said...

Ultimately the question of validity centers around whether the "words" of the anaphora signify the sacramental "effect". Of course, the literal institution narrative does the job without question. But can other words be formulated that signify the same effect -- a quasi-narrative, for example? Does the following signify the effect:

"The body of Christ and his precious blood are on the holy altar."

Anonymous said...

Tradition? The Anaphora predates the Nestorian schism. It may date as far back as first century. How dat for "tradition"?

Why do Catholic traditionalists stick every issue into this silly discourse about Vatican II and "modernism"? This issue is simply about the correct interpretation of your dogmas about Eucharistic consecration.

"Assyrian Apologist"

Jordan Potter said...

I dunno. It doesn't seem like "incredible abuse" would be the right words if the anaphora had been presumed to be valid even without an Institution Narrative. Those are pretty strong words, . even if they’re not a formal declaration of the supreme magisterium (just as the supreme magisterium has not declared that an Institution Narrative-less anaphora can be considered valid). There can be no doubt that in the past the Holy See regarded as invalid form any anaphora that lacked an Institution Narrative (and the Assyrian Anaphora of Addai and Mari is, as far as we know, the only such anaphora that has ever existed).

It may date as far back as first century.

Perhaps it is that old, though there’s no good reason to believe that it lacked an Institution Narrative in those days.

Anonymous said...

Without question for whom? Can't an argument be made from the sort of literalism that many of you folks advocate that the words "this is my body" only confect the sacrament if Christ is the person consecrating the Eucharist???

Now, I'm not actually advocating this sort of interpretation. I accept the validity of the traditional Latin formula and the various components of its doctrinal justification (e.g. "in persona Christi," etc). It is simply obvious however that the words, "This is the body of Christ" would be clearer than a third party adopt the first-person pronoun "my."

I'd say the Assyrian declaration is much clearer in its Eucharistic meaning. The body of Christ is on the altar. What's so obscure about that?

"Assyrian Apologist"

PS. It appears to me - speaking as an outsider - that this emphasis on the exact phraseology seems to have more in common with protestant fundamentalism than with your own Catholic tradition.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps it is that old, though there’s no good reason to believe that it lacked an Institution Narrative in those days.

Neither is there reason to believe that it had an Institution. The fact that its earliest recorded expressions lacked the institutional narrative is not conclusive, but prima facia evidence that it lacked the words you're looking for.

Incredible abuse

I am sympathetic to this declaration. It would be an incredible abuse in the eyes of one who doubts (even if not totally rationally) the validity of the sacrament, especially when the validity could be assured by the "extra" insertion of the words of the institutional narrative.

But I'd also ask you to be equally sympathetic of those who feel that imposing this addition into the text is another all-too-typical Latin interference into an ancient Assyrian tradition. You traditionalists don't usually appreciate these sorts of changes for yourselves, do you?

"Assyrian Apologist"

Anonymous said...

Letter dated 31 July 1902, in Codicis Juris Canonici fontes, ed. P. Gasparri and J. Serédi, vol. V, Rome, 1935, 546.

Actually that is Volume VII not Volume 5

schoolman said...

Incredible abuse

I don't this relates to a question of validity, as such. Rather, it appears to simply refer to a deviation from Catholic liturgical norms that called for the insertion of the institution narrative. Catholic priests who failed to adhere to the norms in effect would be commiting an abuse.

schoolman said...

St. Thomas considers the question: "Whether determinate words are required in the sacraments?" (ST, iii, 60, 7)

In the final analysis the words must carry the same significance (having the same sense) relative to the effect signified. Although St. Thomas is dealing here primarily with problems of language and pronunciation the principles involved seem to have application here.

Anonymous said...

Schoolman and Assyrian Apologist,

Consider the Roman Canon, or Eucharistic Prayer I. Omit the words of consecration, and leave everything else.

What remains certainly contains prayers richly implying the real presence, transubstantiation, etc.

So is the Roman Canon, minus the words of consecration, valid?

Anonymous said...

By way of comparison, using grape juice instead of wine, or a sugar cookie instead of unleaved bread, would also be an "incredible abuse." It would also be invalid.

Anonymous said...

Eastern liturgical theology places more emphasis on context, meaning, gestures and understanding; the written and spoken word have never had the same significance as they have had for Latin Catholics since the late patristic, early medieval period. For a variety of reasons, the Latin Church places a very strict and formal emphasis on the matter and form. It's a question of focus. Matter and form exist for the East, but they are regarded more mystically, more mysteriously.

I understand and am extremely sympathetic to the theology that gives such strict and formal attention to the sacramental form. It makes a great deal of sense given the anti-sacramental heresies that have afflicted Western Church history.

That's why I say that, according to your own principles, you ought to recognize the validity of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari. Without question or equivocation, the words themselves declare the conversion of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.

Setting aside the question of "magisteriality," my limited understanding of Latin dogmatic theology suggests that this ought to be quite enough for all of you to be certain that the form is valid.

"Assyrian Apologist"

Anonymous said...

Is the Roman Canon, minus the words of consecration, valid

Applying what I understand to be the Latin doctrine of sacramental form, I would have greater doubt than in the case of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari.

Even with the Institutional Narrative, the Roman Canon does not have a declaration as clear as "The body of Christ and his precious blood are on the holy altar."

Still, perhaps we can find a valid form in the words, "this holy and perfect sacrifice: the bread of life and the cup of eternal salvation." Unless we apply a very distorted theology, these words seem to clearly indicate the conversion of mere bread and wine into Christ's body and blood.

At the same time, the Western Church has dealt with many distorted theologies that would reduce the rich realities of the "Bread of Life" and the "Cup of Eternal Salvation" into mere symbols. Therefore, you are justly skeptical of these terms, which - to Eastern ears - clearly indicate the reality of the Eucharist.

"Assyrian Apologist"

Anonymous said...

By way of comparison, using grape juice instead of wine, or a sugar cookie instead of unleavened bread, would also be an "incredible abuse." It would also be invalid.

This is hardly analogous. The Eastern Churches have studiously maintained their traditions for centuries. Easterners accuse Westerners of novelties. Westerners defend these novelties as expressing the original truth of the Gospel. Then Westerners accuse Eastern theology of being stagnant.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that the accusation is so - Eastern theology is sometimes stagnant - it is still unfair to compare a centuries old liturgical tradition with a silly novelty like "grape juice" or "sugar cookies."

"Assyrian Apologist"

Anonymous said...

One wonders whether the experts consulted for the 2001 letter [of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, available here] were aware of this letter of Propaganda Fide (...). At the very least, we can say that the Anaphora of Addai and Mari was once presumed worthy of condemnation by an organ of the Holy See.

New Catholic, allow me to respectfully submit that Propaganda Fide gave less attention and study to the Anaphora than the PCPCU. My guess is that the absence of the Institutional Narrative suggested that the Anaphora did not contain a valid form.

This is an extremely understandable conclusion for a Latin Catholic to draw, but it doesn't hold water if the prayer is carefully studied and judiciously considered. Propaganda Fide, unlike the more recent agency, demonstrates no evidence of such study and consideration.

"Assyrian Apologist"

schoolman said...

"So is the Roman Canon, minus the words of consecration, valid?"
=====================

The problem here is that in the Roman Canon the proper intention is distinctly linked to the institution narrative. The situation with the anaphora of Addai and Mari seems more complex insofar as the proper intention applies in a broader way to the entire liturgy with all of its symbols and signs -- rather than the distinct words of the institution narrative.

Stanislas said...

Schoolman (a typical pro-Vatican II propagandist appearing everywhere but answering nothing) and "Assyrian Apologist" all evade the question:

Is the Roman Canon without the Words of Institution (Consecration) valid or invalid? Would the "Quam oblationem" prayer consecrate the matter and qualify as a valid form? Of course not.

The words "incredible abuse" do not state anything about the validity, but I presume that "incredible" pretty much indicates this Nestorian liturgical defect invalidates the sacrament, and is therefore incredible, as simulating a valid eucharist with splendour, but without a valid form, would be indeed incredible to us who are denigratingly called "Latin Catholics". I can tell you too, that this "incredible abuse" happened probably among the Chaldean clergy sociologically close to the heretical Nestorian church and its clergy, or were uniate ex-Nestorian clergy not yet fully informed.

The sentence "The Body and the Holy Blood of Christ are on the Altar" are an expression of a fact and factual location, not one of transsubstantiation or of change of the matter.

I very much fear that in the Nestorianist heresies and due to Islamic persecution and low-levels of education, the Nestorian formulae were decapitated or mutilated and even at occasions invalidated (not if the other institution containing anaphora was used).

Anonymous said...

"Assyrian Apologist"...evade[s] the question: Is the Roman Canon without the Words of Institution (Consecration) valid or invalid?

I did answer the question. I said I don't know and proceeded to give my opinion on the matter. Whether a mutilated Roman Canon is valid is a separate issue from whether the Anaphora is valid.

Schoolman also answered your question, stating that omitting the institutional narrative would indicate a defect of intention (thus invalidating the sacrament). So that while the words might in themselves be adequate, they wouldn't confect the sacrament.

The sentence "The Body and the Holy Blood of Christ are on the Altar" are an expression of a fact and factual location, not one of transsubstantiation or of change of the matter.

The same can be said of "This is my body." It is a statement of fact that does not, in itself, indicate a change, such as "This at my command will become my body...right....NOW!"

The statement of fact is what makes it so, when placed on the mouth of a priest who acts in the capacity of Christ. When a priest states the fact, "your sins are forgiven" it becomes so. When the priest states the fact, "I baptize you" it becomes so.

"Assyrian Apologist"

Anonymous said...

us who are denigratingly called "Latin Catholics".

I will denigrate the slovenly use of your own language ("us who"!), but I mean nothing derogatory by the phrase "Latin Catholics." Latins have an extremely rich liturgical and doctrinal history and tradition.

All I am saying is that your own struggles with materialistic heresies that deprive the divine mysteries (i.e. sacraments) of their full meaning and power have colored your treatment of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari.

I should hope that such an obvious historical fact should not be offensive to you.

"Assyrian Apologist"

Anonymous said...

I find it difficult to fathom the arguments of the "Assyrian Apologist" and "schoolman." The consecretory formula of the Eucharist are as vital and necessary as the Baptismal formula for a valid Baptism. There is NOTHING in the history of traditional Catholic theology which would argue otherwise.

Stop the nonsense.

father anthony cekada said...

Schoolman's: claim:

"The situation with the anaphora of Addai and Mari seems more complex insofar as the proper intention applies in a broader way to the entire liturgy with all of its symbols and signs -- rather than the distinct words of the institution narrative."

Translation of mumbo-jumbo:

1. Traditional teaching on essential sacramental form = toast.

2. Host after recitation of Anaphora of Addai and Marai = still toast.

Truly, post-Vatican II theology, as Cardinal Ratzinger said in another context, has moved on to a new "substantial anchorage."

In the case of Addai and Marai, however, the anchorage doesn't seem to be transubstantial!

Anonymous said...

father anthony cekada said...
Schoolman's: claim:

"The situation with the anaphora of Addai and Mari seems more complex insofar as the proper intention applies in a broader way to the entire liturgy with all of its symbols and signs -- rather than the distinct words of the institution narrative."

Translation of mumbo-jumbo:

1. Traditional teaching on essential sacramental form = toast.

2. Host after recitation of Anaphora of Addai and Marai = still toast.

Truly, post-Vatican II theology, as Cardinal Ratzinger said in another context, has moved on to a new "substantial anchorage."

In the case of Addai and Marai, however, the anchorage doesn't seem to be transubstantial!

Thank you, Father, for de-coding the nonsense. Each time a more audaciously daring assault is made on the received tradition, I am just shocked by the ridiculous lengths people will go to that they may justify it, indeed, proclaim it to be traditional. The shamelessness takes my breath away! A Mass with no consecration: no problem, Trent be damned, no form necessary. Can someone please tell me which episode of the twilight zone this is into which I, unwittingly, have walked?

Anchorage? Papal whim canonized (only for the moment)by papal positivism.

by "unsquared circle"

Jordan Potter said...

Can't an argument be made from the sort of literalism that many of you folks advocate that the words "this is my body" only confect the sacrament if Christ is the person consecrating the Eucharist???

Well, the Church does insist that the priest consecrating the Eucharist acts "in persona Christi," so in a real sense it is true that the words of consecration only confect the sacrament if Christ is the person consecrating the Eucharist.

It is simply obvious however that the words, "This is the body of Christ" would be clearer than a third party adopt the first-person pronoun "my."

But making a statement that something is the Body of Christ isn't necessarily the same as consecrating bread so that by the Holy Spirit it substantially is no longer bread but is instead Christ.

I'd say the Assyrian declaration is much clearer in its Eucharistic meaning. The body of Christ is on the altar. What's so obscure about that?

You're confusing the issue. It's not, "Which is the clearer statement?" It's, "What is required for an anaphora to be valid form?" and, "Can an anaphora that lacks an Institution Narrative validly confect the sacrament even though every other known anaphora has an Institution Narrative?"

PS. It appears to me - speaking as an outsider - that this emphasis on the exact phraseology seems to have more in common with protestant fundamentalism than with your own Catholic tradition.

Speaking for myself, I am not aware that anyone here is emphasising "exact phraseology." Also, speaking as a former fundamentalist Protestant, I can assure you that fundamentalists have no interest at all in exact phraseology in prayer and liturgy -- quite the opposite, they loath exact phraseology and require extemporaneous and free composition. Indeed, it's your own observation about Catholics who emphasise exact phraseology that has much more in common with Protestant Fundamentalism than with any Catholic tradition or rite. It's a common fundamentalist anti-Catholic canard that Catholic sacramental theology boils down to pagan magic, and emphasis on set liturgical forms and tradition boils down to "vain repetitions."

Schoolman said: Incredible abuse -- I don't think this relates to a question of validity, as such. Rather, it appears to simply refer to a deviation from Catholic liturgical norms that called for the insertion of the institution narrative. Catholic priests who failed to adhere to the norms in effect would be commiting an abuse.

Your interpretation would be possible if we didn't already know that at that time in the Catholic Church, it was unquestioned that an Institution Narrative was required for validity. Therefore the obvious interpretation of "incredible abuse" is that it was believed that an anaphora without an Institution Narrative would not be valid form.

Jordan Potter said...

Schoolman, look at the instruction again:

"Abolish the incredible abuse of not pronouncing the sacramental words at the Consecration in the Mass called 'of the Apostles', which is the most frequent one. Instruct on the true formula of Consecration."

If sacramental words are not pronounced, then there is no sacrament -- i.e., the anaphora is invalid. "True formula of Consecration" is pretty clear -- the Words of Institution were regarded as necessary for a valid consecration. Hence, the absence of those words would be an "incredible abuse."

So, whether or not you agree with that judgment, and whether or not that judgment was correct, there can be no question what the judgment was -- that the lack of the Institution Narrative rendered the Anaphora of Addai and Mari invalid.

schoolman said...

"Translation of mumbo-jumbo:

1. Traditional teaching on essential sacramental form = toast."
===================

Fr. Cekada, I think you will find Adrian Fortesque speaking the same "mumbo-jumbo". In his detailed history of the "Epiklesis" we find early examples of the "consecration prayer" that do not include the words of institution, as such. In such cases the words of institution did not consecrate..."Rather the whole Barakhah consecrated..." (Cf. Adrian Fortesque, The Mass, Loreto, 2003, pp. 402-407)

This does not undermine essential form in any way...except for maybe un extreme univocal conception of it.

Jordan Potter said...

Neither is there reason to believe that it had an Institution.

Sure there is. For one thing, every other known Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer includes an Institution Narrative, so we have to wonder why only the Anaphora of Addai and Mari lacks one. For another thing, Catholic doctrine on the sacraments, and a survey of traditional teaching on this subject, would suggest that an Institution Narrative is necessary for validity. This is a very ancient anaphora, one that is a used by a church that preserved apostolic succession and valid sacraments even when it went into schism and heresy. To me, that would be some good grounds for believing that the Anaphora originally included an Institution Narrative.

The fact that its earliest recorded expressions lacked the institutional narrative is not conclusive, but prima facia evidence that it lacked the words you're looking for.

Not necessarily, as the earliest recorded expressions aren't really early enough for us to be able to regard them as prima facie evidence that it lacked an Institution Narrative in earliest times. Also, as I observed previously, even though the Institution Narrative was seen as very important in Eastern sacramental discourse, nobody seemed to have noticed that one of the oldest Eastern anaphorae didn't have an Institution Narrative. Kind of odd, that. Surely such a difference would have been noticed and commented on by somebody, if there really were such a difference.

schoolman said...

Fortesque explains as follows why the Epiklesis was eventually removed from the Roman form around the 6th century:

"The Invocation was removed at Rome, apparently deliberately, because of the growing Western insistence on the words of institution as the Consecrating form...As soon as people began to ask what is exactly the "form" of the Sacrament they answered, at any rate in the West, that it is the words of Christ which "operate what they state," as theologians put it. So a later prayer for consecration seemed unecessary and misleading." (op. cit., pp. 406-407)

Jordan Potter said...

In his detailed history of the "Epiklesis" we find early examples of the "consecration prayer" that do not include the words of institution, as such.

But how do we know that those are really examples of "consecration prayers"? Are they complete anaphorae, or just fragments, quotes, or excerpts? I think you'll find that he's dealing with fragments, quotes, and excerpts -- i.e., insufficient data to draw any form conclusions.

Jordan Potter said...

When the priest states the fact, "I baptize you" it becomes so.

Only if it's a Trinitarian baptism. Merely applying water and saying, "I baptise you," is not enough. Also needed are valid form and proper intent.

The consecretory formula of the Eucharist are as vital and necessary as the Baptismal formula for a valid Baptism.

Or, as I observed previously, if it is sufficient for validity that an anaphora merely refer obliquely to the Institution of the Eucharist, then we could conclude that a baptism need not invoke the Trinity, but need only refer obliquely to Christ's command to baptise.

Jordan Potter said...

Fortesque explains as follows why the Epiklesis was eventually removed from the Roman form around the 6th century:

I wouldn't call it an "explanation" as much as a speculation or a possible explanation. There's really no way to know if or when an epiclesis was removed from the ancient Roman Eucharistic Prayer. Anyway, there is still a prayer in the traditional Roman Mass that is epiclesis-like if not an epiclesis. True, it appears before the Canon begins, but it's still there.

Really, historians of the liturgy will be debating and speculating about these things till Kingdom come. Church doctrine can't be founded on speculations and theories of liturgical historians. If we want to look to history for guidance in this matter, then we should look to history to find out what the Church has believed and taught on this question, and use that as a guide to interpret the fragmentary historical data on the development of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari.

Archbishop Lefebvre said...

I would be most wary of accepting anything a sedevacantist says since they already deny a defined dogma that states we will have a perpetual succession in the primacy of St. Peter until the end of time.

father anthony cekada said...

Archbishop Lefebvre, you have a bad memory because you also told a group of us sedevacantists over dinner in New York in August 1978:

"I do not say that the pope is not the pope; but I do not say you cannot say that the pope is not the pope."

And as for your take on Vatican I's statement about "perpetual successors," Monsigneur, I suggest you read the article on the issue written by Fr. Martin Stepanich, OFM, STD, and posted on www.traditionalmass.org

But you're getting us WAY off topic here, so let's get back to Addai and Marai.

Nice to hear from you anyway, Monsigneur!

Joannes Christophorus said...

What of this analogy?

"I baptize you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
"The servant of God, N., is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

"This is My Body. . . . This is My Blood."
"The body of Christ and his precious blood are on the holy altar."

The validity of the second baptismal formula (used by many Eastern Churches) is certain. We know, therefore, that, in themselves, words in the third person can sacramentally effect what they signify, just as well as words in the first person.

I don't claim this as a definitive answer, but it is food for thought.

Joshua said...

Perhaps the last comment, and the initial comment by Assyrian Apologist, square the circle:

'The Anaphora of Addai and Mari contains a declaration, the meaning of which is unmistakable: "The body of Christ and his precious blood are on the holy altar."
Does this declaration confect the meaning of the words?'

Here perhaps is the crux of the matter.

All would agree that, of the many valid formulae of consecration, according to the different Anaphorai of the Eastern Rites and the various Western forms, the minimum words needed for validity are "This is my Body/Blood" (whether further words, signifying the sacrifice - e.g. "which will be shed for remission of sins - are necessary is less certain, is that so?).

Is then the double formula "This/These is/are my Body and (this is my) Blood" potentially valid? Possibly indeed.

Is then the formula in the third person valid - "Those are the Body and Blood of Christ"?

Recall the certainly valid Eastern declaratory formula for absolution: not "I absolve thee" but "The servant of God N. is absolved".

Can we draw an analogy between these and see perhaps the Assyrian phrase "The body of Christ and his precious blood are on the holy altar" to be acceptable as a valid form? All hinges on reading "are" as not merely the copula but as a performative verb, effecting what it signifies in the mouth of the priest standing at the altar as alter Christus.

We need to know from a linguist whether the Aramaic original can convey this meaning.

Anonymous said...

Fr. Cekada- Truly, post-Vatican II theology, as Cardinal Ratzinger said in another context, has moved on to a new "substantial anchorage."

In the case of Addai and Marai, however, the anchorage doesn't seem to be transubstantial!


I am familiar with your works and the issues of sedevacantism, but I ask you to try to view this as a separate issue.

What constitutes a valid form is that the words signify the effect that is taking place. The words mean the same thing regardless of the exact phraseology.

Does "This is my body" mean the same thing as "The body of Christ is on the altar"?

By "my" do you mean "Christ's"? Yes, clearly you do.

By "this" do you mean "the host"? Yes, clearly you do.

In describing what is on the altar, do we mean "the host"? Yes, clearly we do.

Do both parties intend to confect a change from mere bread into the sacred body of Christ? Yes, at least on a general doctrinal ecclesiastical level, we do (an individual priest is another question).

The same logic obviously applies to the blood as well.

I don't have any interest in getting absorbed in the question of Vatican II and post-conciliar authority. Those of you who defend this authority should count this as an indication of the truth of your authority. Those of you who oppose this authority should merely admit that even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

"Assyrian Apologist"

father anthony cekada said...

Josua said:

"Perhaps the last comment, and the initial comment by Assyrian Apologist, square the circle:

'The Anaphora of Addai and Mari contains a declaration, the meaning of which is unmistakable: "The body of Christ and his precious blood are on the holy altar."
Does this declaration confect the meaning of the words?'"

=====

Not according to what Cappello teaches (de Sacramentis 1:287):

"On the contrary, the consecration would be INVALID if the priest would say 'Hic (adverbially) est corpus meum." (i.e., my body is "in this place," or "here")

In ascertaining whether a change in a sacramental form has rendered it invalid, the issue is always SUBSTANTIAL change — i.e., whether the meaning is different in name and reality from what Christ determined.

schoolman said...

"In ascertaining whether a change in a sacramental form has rendered it invalid, the issue is always SUBSTANTIAL change — i.e., whether the meaning is different in name and reality from what Christ determined."
======================

Fr. Cekada, according to this principle we must be constrained to admit that the anaphora of Addai and Mari can be considered valid:

"The body of Christ and his precious blood are on the holy altar."

father anthony cekada said...

GRR!

The phrase "here on the altar" IS adverbial, and identical in meaning to "hic" — "in this place," "here," etc. (Glare, Oxford Latin Dictionary)

According to the principle Cappello laid down, the phrase CANNOT be a valid form. The change IS substantial.

schoolman said...

"According to the principle Cappello laid down, the phrase CANNOT be a valid form. The change IS substantial."
=====================

No, I think you are referring here to Cappello's APPLICATION of principle (not the principle in itself!) -- and most likely in relation to the Roman rite. But the same PRINCIPLE will find a different APPLICATION in the case of the anaphora of A&M (and other Eastern rite liturgies) insofar as the intention to do what the Church does is not linked to the institution narrative, as such. (CF. Fortuesque)

bedwere said...

If a priest omitted the Epiclesis of the Holy Spirit in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, would that make the form invalid?

father anthony cekada said...

Schoolman said:

"No, I think you are referring here to Cappello's APPLICATION of principle (not the principle in itself!)"

===

Fine. Then learn from its application: an adverb of place — ""here on the altar" — doesn't work.

=======

"But the same PRINCIPLE will find a different APPLICATION in the case of the anaphora of A&M (and other Eastern rite liturgies) insofar as the intention to do what the Church does is not linked to the institution narrative, as such."

=======

Modernist humbug — the general principles Catholic moral theology employs for judging the validity of sacramental forms are the same for ALL rites, whether eastern or western.

But enough on this. Now, I'm off to another thread to deal with the Jewish question…

schoolman said...

"...But enough on this. Now, I'm off to another thread to deal with the Jewish question…"
==============

Ok, Father...have fun.

Anonymous said...

Typical Fr. Cekada. Quote a canonist, pretend its a dogma and then fly off to greener pastures.

Honestly, though, I didn't know cicadas could growl. I thought it was more of a "tzzzz" than a "grr."

JAT

Anonymous said...

Schoolman,

You haven't really addressed my
question about omiting the words
of consecration in the Roman Missal. You thought this
would imply a defect of intention, invalidating it. It usually would, of course.

But that does not address the question about the form itself.

Imagine a scenario where a priest, because of illness, and fully intending to celebrate Mass according to the Church, forgets to say the words of consecration.

According to your principles, he would have consecrated anyway,
because the Roman Missal certainly contains prayers indicating the real presence.

And if a priest forget to say the
words of baptism, well the baptismal right certainly indicates all the effects of baptism. So there's baptism anyway.

This line of argument, to me, seems to dispense with the necessity for any sacramental form.

Considering the Christ gave us the forms of the Eucharist and Baptism,
it seems highly temarious to omit them.

Would a baptism without water, but lots of prayers signifying water, be a valid baptism?

So the matter is most necessary, but the form is dispensable? That seems highly doubtful.

And I fail to see how, when Christ gives us the very form of the Sacrament, we can get away with saying that the Church can dispense with the words entirely.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Typical Fr. Cekada. Quote a canonist, pretend its a dogma and then fly off to greener pastures.

I don't think he has to pretend. It's the uneducated that pretend to know more than they do. But this is a typical response of those who have no answer to his arguments!

At least the good Father has a philosophical base for his arguments, which is more than can be said of many others.

Anonymous said...

I don't think he has to pretend. It's the uneducated that pretend to know more than they do. But this is a typical response of those who have no answer to his arguments!

I've known Fr. Cekada for a long time now and have given him many answers to his arguments. You want an answer? Well, here's one from Pope Pius XII: "If one day (we say this as a mere hypothesis) material Rome were to crumble, if ever this very Vatican Basillica, the symbol of the one invincible Catholic Church, were to bury beneath its ruins the historical treasures, the sacred tombs it encloses, even then the Church would not crumble or crack, Christ's promise to Peter would always remain true, the Papacy, the one indestructible Church founded on the Pope alive at that moment, would always endure." (Address, 30 January 1949). What an interesting thing for the supposedly last valid pope to say. Here we've still got the Vatican Basillica, but not the promise of Christ? Cute.

At least the good Father has a philosophical base for his arguments, which is more than can be said of many others.

Contradiction is an extremely poor "philosophical base" for arguments.

Ask Fr. Cekada why he violates the 1917 Code of Canon Law by rejecting the Holy Week reforms promulgated by Pope Pius XII. You will find out that he is a very dishonest man who is leading souls - including his own - to ruin.

JAT

PS. If my accusation was false, why are you left to defend Fr. Cekada. Where's he? Greener pastures...

The young fogey said...

Propaganda Fide's instruction was not an infallible definition of doctrine and all latinisations of the Oriental rites are a mistake.

With its anaphora as handed down the oldest such still in use, the Assyrian Church obviously intends to do what the universal church does when celebrating the Liturgy.