www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology StuartK and the Assyrians

Dear Stuart,

I'm beginning this with you as you know the Assyrians in a way I don't think the Assyrians do!

Could you comment on the Assyrian liturgical tradition and on the absence of the Words of Institution in it?

Rome has changed its view of this in recent times, has it not?

What does such an absence signify liturgically? What does it say about the Assyrian liturgical tradition and others' ability/inability to relate to it before now?

Alex

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:

>>>Could you comment on the Assyrian liturgical tradition and on the absence of the Words of Institution in it?<<<

There are several liturgies in use by the Church of the East, of which the Liturgy of Addai and Mari is the oldest (probably dating to the middle of the third century), and tracing its origins to Edessa via Antioch. The liturgical language of the Assyrians was originally Aramaic, though more modern Syriac has replaced this in some instances.

In shape, the Qurbana according to Addai and Mari is very primitive, and elements which are found in later Antiochene liturgies, including early versions of Chrysostom and of Nestorius, are either missing or present in a very basic form.

As noted, there is no institution narrative, and it is not at all clear that this was unusual in early liturgies. Certainly, there is no mention of an institution narrative in Justin Martyr or Hippolytus of Rome. Mar Bawai Soro rationalized this to me in the following manner: "We prefer to do as Christ did [i.e., the blessing, breaking, and distributing of the Bread, the blessing and sharing of the Chalice] than to say what Christ said".

Likewise, the epiclesis is very vague and general--an invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the Gifts and the people present, without any specific mention of transformation. Yet it is quite clear that the overall understanding of the Church of the East is that the elements are transformed. It is just that the entire anaphora, as an holistic ritual, constitutes a single uninterrupted consecratory moment. This is undoubtedly the oldest stratum of Tradition extant today, unchanged by the Eucharistic or pneumatological controversies that caused greater specificity and emphasis in the "Western" liturgies.

>>>Rome has changed its view of this in recent times, has it not?<<<

I do not know enough to say whether the insertion of an institution narrative in the version of Addai and Mari used by the Chaldean Catholics was imposed or merely adopted out of a misguided sense of "romanitas". But it is quite clear that a Eucharistic liturgy lacking an institution narrative would not be valid according to the Tridentine and Scholastic understanding of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. The fact that Rome now accepts the original form of the liturgy and allows its use by Chaldean Catholics is another example of how a so-called "dogmatic" definition turns out to be merely the particular mode of doctrinal expression of one particular Church.

>>>What does such an absence signify liturgically?<<<

That Addai and Mari is really, really OLD.

>>>What does it say about the Assyrian liturgical tradition and others' ability/inability to relate to it before now?<<<

That liturgies are organic entities that evolve over time in response to particular doctrinal challenges or pastoral needs, and that in Churches which are pressurized by oppression and which lack resources, liturgy is preserved as the primary, if not the only medium for the transfer of the faith from one generation to the next.

Dear Stuart,

Thank you for taking time out of what I know is a busy day to respond to these queries in your usual comprehensive, in-depth manner!

Just one further issue, that of the Assyrian veneration of Nestorius, who was, as I understand it, condemned by Ecumenical Council.

Would this be an issue in any ecumenical rapprochement?

Why or why not?

If I can't give good answers on subjects, at least I can ask some good questions, no?

And you wouldn't happen to know where one might obtain an English translation of the Assyrian Horologion?

Alex

[ 07-02-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
[qb]Dear Stuart,

Just one further issue, that of the Assyrian veneration of Nestorius, who was, as I understand it, condemned by Ecumenical Council.

Would this be an issue in any ecumenical rapprochement?

Why or why not?<<<

Well, the Assyrians still venerate Nestorius, and I can tell you that several of his prayers are incorporated into the Qurbana (as "Prayers of Mar Nestorius"). As the Catholic Church has signed a formal Joint Christological Statement with the Church of the East, and as communicatio in sacris exists between the Assyrian Church of the East and the Chaldean Catholic Church, I would say it does not pose an impediment. My own perception of the Council of Ephesus is that Nestorius was railroaded by Cyril of Alexandria, who really did not understand, or want to understand, the Antiochene exegetical Tradition. Stripped of its excesses, and as epitomized by John Chrysostom, it represents a necessary anodyne to the purely allegorical exegesis developed by the Church of Alexandria. It is significant that in the fourth, fifth and sixth Ecumenical Councils, a synthesis was necessary to avoid the exaggerations of both Traditions.

>>>If I can't give good answers on subjects, at least I can ask some good questions, no?

And you wouldn't happen to know where one might obtain an English translation of the Assyrian Horologion?<<<

You might want to try contacting the Church of the East directly, though I do not know if they have translated the Horologion into English yet. How's your Aramaic?

[ 07-02-2002: Message edited by: StuartK ]

Hi Stuart.

I was wondering if you could describe the liturgical uses of the Church of the East?
What do their churches traditionaly look like?
What vestments do they use?
Is the altar freestanding? Do they use a curtain?

I have their Liturgy Book, but it doesn't describe any of these things.

With Thanks,

Michael

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sarum:
[qb]Hi Stuart.

>>>I was wondering if you could describe the liturgical uses of the Church of the East?
What do their churches traditionaly look like?
What vestments do they use?
Is the altar freestanding? Do they use a curtain?

I have their Liturgy Book, but it doesn't describe any of these things.<<<

The Assyrian Church of the East has, since the late Middle Ages, existed under conditions of continuing persecution and extreme poverty--quite a come down when you realize that in the 12th century it was the single largest Church in the world (larger than the Latin Church), with territory that spanned Mesopotamia to western China. Because of its extreme degradation, its churches today tend to be small, its ornaments and vestments for the most part hand-me-down.

Because it separated from the Church within the Roman Empire in the 5th century, before the development of the iconostasis (which really dates to the 9th century, though earlier icons were already being hung from the pillars that separated the sanctuary from the nave), the Assyrians like the Copts do not have an icon screen, but rather use a veil to cover the sanctuary at various times during their liturgies. According to Mar Bawai, Assyrian iconography has been attenuated due to Muslim objections to religious images, and in its place they have developed a very fine hymnography and poetry (something at which the Syrian Church likewise excelled). Vestments today tend to mirror Latin styles, but more traditional vestments are making a comeback as funding permits. These basically consist of the sticharion and phelonion, though a lot of the imperial regalia that got incorporated into Byzantine vestments is missing. When I served Liturgy for Mar Bawai, he was wearing a white sticharion, and a white phelonion similar in cut to Byzantine (Greek) style, with very simple decoration. The epitrachalion was closed at the front in the Byzantine manner. I do not think he wore cuffs, nor did he have an epigonation. Since Mar Bawai is a bishop, it is significant that he didn't have an omophorion or wear the sakkos, both of which are fairly late developments.

That's the best I can do, given my limited exposure to the rite.

[ 07-02-2002: Message edited by: StuartK ]

Now, if I ever form a band, it will have to be "StuartK and the Assyrians". We'll do weddings, baptisms, funerals and bar mitvot.

You can order the video tape of the Eucharistic Liturgy that Mar Bawai Soro celebrated for us at the Orientale Lumen conference last year. I got one myself, and it is very fine. Definitely the high point of the whole conference.


There are also several audio tapes of Mar Bawai's talks. There is one on the Virgin Mary. and one on the Papacy.

Contact Eastern Christian Publications, http://www.ecpubs.com

(The catalog shown is not up to date, but you could ask about these items. The prices are very reasonable, and the quality is very good.)

With respect to Nestorius, Mar Bawai was emphatic that Nestorius did not affirm textbook Nestorianism. He said that if Nestorius had indeed taught such things, "We would have excommunicated him ourselves." So anathematizing Nestorius is not an option for the ACE.

Vicki

CIX!

Dear Stuart,

Could you use a Lute? I play jazz on it quite convincingly :p

Edward

Dear Band-leader Stuart,

The only thing better than having you back is for me to have the honour of tickling the sense of humour of someone so intellectually exalted!!

I know a Chaldean priest who regularly has Assyrian priests join him in concelebrating the Liturgy.

They celebrate in a Basilian chapel where the priest regularly annoys our Basilian Fathers by telling them that Nestorius was a Basilian too . . .

The antiquity of the Assyrian Church is also attested to by their Judaic practices, is it not?

I understand they refer to their priests as "Rabbi" rather than "Father."

But getting back to the "Nestorian" controversy that you and Vicki raised, later Assyrian creeds and teaching made much use of the word "Prosopon" that we have traditionally understood to mean "Person."

Clearly, and from your lucid commentary, this understanding is flawed, that is, that in Christ there are two "prosopa" or, as we have usually understood this, "Persons" - which would be truly heretical.

How can we understand "prosopon" in a more enlightened way?

Also, Pope Honorius who, as you yourself stated elsewhere, Professor, fell into heresy on the issue of Monothelitism, taught there was one Will in Christ.

And yet, the Assyrian Patriarch of Seleucia-Ctesiphon came to agree with him on this matter and unity of the Church appeared imminent, were it not for "trouble-makers" like St Maximos the Confessor . . .

What was in the so-called "Nestorian" Christology that would have prompted such a positive reaction in the Assyrians toward Pope Honorius' views?

Alex