Sunteți pe pagina 1din 7

Keep the Faith, Inc.

70 Lake Street
Ramsey, NJ 07446-2546
Non-Prot
U.S. Postage
PAID
Permit No. 181
Gordonsville, VA
22942
See Inside for Excellent Catholic Books, Tapes and DVDs
Great Christmas Gifts!! And there's a FREE audiotape with every order!
This year marks the 25th
anniversary of the death
of the beloved Archbishop
Fulton J. Sheen
on December 9, 1979
See the inside back cover for a
selection of his best materials
S
a
i
n
t

C
e
c
i
l
i
a

a
n
d

a
n

A
n
g
e
l
O
r
a
z
i
o
G
e
n
t
i
l
e
s
c
h
i
a
n
d
G
i
o
v
a
n
n
i
I
a
n
I
r
a
n
c
o

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
G
a
l
l
e
r
y
o
I
A
r
t
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
,
D
.
C
.
G
e
t

M
e
l


G
i
b
s
o
n
'
s

m
o
v
i
e
F
R
E
E
w
ith
3
-
y
e
a
r s
u
b
s
c
rip
tio
n
s
e
e
in
s
id
e
b
a
c
k
c
o
v
e
r
&
m
a
ile
r fo
r d
e
ta
ils
Fall 2004
Publisher: Keep the Faith, Inc.
Editor-in-Chief: Father James McLucas
Managing Editor: John W. Blewett
Associate Editor: Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Art Director: Ronald W. Lawson
Contributing Editors
Father Calvin Goodwin, FSSP
Ronald P. McArthur
Contributors
Elizabeth Altham Matthew M. Anger Father William Ashley
Father Ignacio Barreiro Bishop Eugenijus Bartulis
Father David R. Becker James Bemis
Father Jerome Bertram, O.P. Laura Berquist
Marie Siobhan Boland Patrick Buchanan
Father James B. Buckley, FSSP Neri Capponi
Francis Carey Matthew Childs John Clark
William Coulson Thomas J. Craughwell H.W. Crocker, III
Leo Darroch Michael Davies Michael de Tar, M.D.
Brett Decker Patrick Delaney William Doino, Jr.
Thomas A. Droleskey Father Raymond V. Dunn
Alice Thomas Ellis Father Evaristus Eshiowu Edwin Faust
Christopher Ferrara Father Sean Finnegan
Father Kevin Fitzpatrick James K. Fitzpatrick
Father Robert Fromageot, FSSP John Galvin
Anne Barbeau Gardiner Lord Brian Gill
Cecile Bolling von Goetz Richard Cowden Guido
Norris Harrington Father Brian Harrison, O.S.
Father Ignatius Harrison Kathleen Howley
Kenneth Jones Father Peter Joseph Hermann Kelly
Thaddeus Kozinski Joseph Kung Edward G. Lengel
Susan Lloyd James Lothian Dino Marcantonio
Thomas McArdle Andrew J. McCauley D. Q. McInerny
Diane Moczar Father John Mole, O.M.I. Thomas Molnar
John Muggeridge Anne Roche Muggeridge
Father Gerald Murray George Neumayr John Neumayr
Steve OBrien Julia Ann OSullivan James Patrick
Father John Perricone Jonathan Peters
Robert Phillips Father Joseph Ponessa John C. Rao
Father Chad Ripperger, FSSP Bishop Fernando Rifan
Michael Rose Jeffrey Rubin Claudio R. Salvucci
Msgr. Rudolf Michael Schmitz Msgr. Richard J. Schuler
Virginia Seuffert Janet Smith Father Russell E. Smith
Thomas Gordon Smith Joseph Sobran James Spencer
Alfons Cardinal Stickler Donna Steichen Duncan Stroik
Robert A. Sungenis Steven Terenzio Jeffrey Tucker
Daniel Van Slyke Alice von Hildebrand
Tom J. Walsh, M.D. Bruce Walters, M.D. David White
Father Alan Wilders David Williams
Father W. Ray Williams Charles M. Wilson
Kieron Wood John Wooten Alessandro Zangrando
The Latin Mass: A Journal of Catholic Culture is published
quarterly in March, June, September and December
by Keep the Faith Inc. Donations to The Latin Mass are
tax-deductible in the United States. Simply make out a
check to Keep the Faith, Inc., and write The Latin Mass on
the memo line. The views expressed by The Latin Mass
contributors are not necessarily those of the publisher, the
editors or Keep the Faith, Inc. Please address all subscrip-
tion requests or questions to:
The Latin Mass Keep the Faith, Inc.
70 Lake Street, Ramsey, NJ 07446-2546
Phone (201j 327-5900 Fax (201j 327-7618
Subscription Rates:
1 year - $28.95 (four issuesj in Canada $50.00 U.S.
2 years - $57.90 (eight issuesj in Canada $85.00 U.S.
3 years - $86.95 (twelve issuesj in Canada $125 U.S.
Overseas: $50.00/year (U.S. dollars)
Single copy price: $7.25 (includes rst class postage)
Letters and articles: Address all editorial mail,
submissions, letters to the editor, advertising inquiries to:
The Latin Mass
391 E. Virginia Terrace
Santa Paula, CA 93060
E-Mail: jwblewett@msn.com
Manuscripts should be submitted in manuscript and if pos-
sible in electronic format as a Microsoft Word document.
We do not return unsolicited manuscripts. Letters to the
editor may be edited for length or clarity.
Copyright 2004 Keep the Faith, Inc.
On the cover and inside the back cover:
Saint Cecilia and an Angel by Orazio Gentileschi
and Giovanni Lanfranco. The reproduction on the
inside back cover is designed for display.
Fall 2004
Contents
Features
4 Roman Landscape
by Alessandro Zangrando
6 The Myth of Secularist Neutrality
by Joseph Sobran
12 The Catechism of Beaver Cleaver
by Edwin Faust
18 Seeking the Fair Land
by James Bemis
24 Sacred Tradition A Many Splendored Thing (Part 5)
by Father Chad Ripperger, FSSP
Departments
30 Scripture: Scripture Study in this Faithless Generation
by Salvatore J. Ciresi
34 Sermon: The Lessons of Compiegne
by Father Calvin Goodwin, FSSP
38 Liturgy: Ecumenical Agendas and Liturgical Anarchy?
by Father Romano Tommasi
44 Philosophy: Eclipsing the Son: John Rawls and American Catholicism
by Thaddeus Kozinski
50 Science: The Church and the Birth of Modern Science (Part 3)
by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
54 History: The Church in the Dark Ages
by Diane Moczar
60 History: Catholic Thought and Culture: The Dark Ages
by Diane Moczar
64 Cinema: Tolkien and the Herd of Ideologues
by T. Renee Kozinski
68 Biography: Shooting the Cardinal
by Steve OBrien
72 Book Reviews
72 The Church of England as Viewed by Newman by Father Stanley L. Jaki
reviewed by Anne Barbeau Gardiner
74 Reform of the Reform? by Father Thomas M. Kosic; reviewed by Father Frank Parrinello
76 The Church Confronts Modernity by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
reviewed by Richard Cowden Guido
78 Marcel Lefebvre by Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais; reviewed by Father Frank Parrinello
80 Where the Right Went Wrong by Patrick J. Buchanan; reviewed by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
82 The Unmasking of Oscar Wilde by Joseph Pearce; reviewed by Matthew Anger
Homeschooling
86 Character Formation: Educating the Light of the World
by Laura Berquist
90 Family Prayer: An Occasion of Sin?
by Susan Lloyd
93 FYI on the SATs
by Marie Siobhan Boland
A Final Thought
94 Soldiers of Christ in the Communion of Saints
by John W. Blewett
Fall 2004 38
by Father Romano Tommasi
Liturgy
In the Spring of 2004, the Pontical
Council for Promoting Christian
Unity issued a controversial docu-
ment regarding a Eucharistic Prayer
used in the liturgy of a heretical sect
of Christians found mostly in the
Near East. The article that follows
is an attempt to raise important
questions in regard both to
the methodology and the
possible effects of the decree
Guidelines for Admission
to the Eucharist between the
Chaldean Church and the
Assyrian Church of the East.
The article is rigorous but
well worth the struggle!
I
n a recent document
published by the Holy See
under the auspices of the
Pontical Council for the
Promotion of Christian Unity,
an innovation has manifested
itself once again in the Ro-
man Church. The document advanced
the worrisome proposition that the
words of institution (This is My
Body/Blood) are not at all necessary
in the valid composition of Eucharistic
prayers (the Eastern equivalent of the
Roman Canon). The Pontical Coun-
cil, which lacked sufcient magisterial
authority in its own right, did in fact
consult and receive approval from the
Congregation of the Doctrine of the
Faith to advance the newest and most
the consecration of bread and wine for
the valid celebration of the Sacrice
of the Mass.
1
The document addresses speci-
cally the Assyrian Church of the East
(Nestorians), which currently has a
valid priesthood and sacraments and
coexists with Catholics (Chaldeans)
in present-day Iraq, Iran,
India and some other loca-
tions including diasporas in
the United States. For the
reader unfamiliar with the
Assyrian (Nestorian) Church,
it is a Church that originated
in the period of controversy
following the publication of
the Canons of the Council of
Ephesus (431).
Perhaps the most out-
standing divergence between
Assyrians and pro-Ephesus
(orthodox) Christians is that
the Nestorians refuse our
Lady the title of Mother
of God (Theotokos). The
theological controversy between
orthodox Churches and the Nesto-
rian Church is most apparent in
comparing each ones respective
The Pontical Council, which lacked
sufcient magisterial authority in its
own right, did in fact consult and receive
approval from the Congregation of
the Doctrine of the Faith to advance
the newest and most disturbing of the
novelties that the Church has yet known
in the post-conciliar era. The words
of institution are no longer considered
essential in the consecration of bread
and wine for the valid celebration of the
Sacrice of the Mass.
Ecumenical Agendas and
Liturgical Anarchy?
P
o
p
e

J
o
h
n

P
a
u
l

I
I

m
e
e
t
s

A
s
s
y
r
i
a
n

P
a
t
r
i
a
r
c
h

M
a
r

K
h

n
a
n
y
a

D
i
n
k
a

I
V
disturbing of the novelties that the
Church has yet known in the post-
conciliar era. The words of institution
are no longer considered essential in
39 Fall 2004
Liturgy Ecumenical Agendas and Liturgical Anarchy?
understanding of the Incarnation.
Assyrian-Nestorian classical theol-
ogy emphasized the separateness
or moral union between God and
man, while the orthodox Christians
emphasized that the union resulted
in one divine person, inseparable
and indivisible. As a result of the
political and religious conict fol-
lowing the Council of Ephesus, the
Nestorian Church formed a schis-
matic patriarchate and eventually
evangelized as far as China and India
until the Mongol invasions all but
destroyed the Nestorian Church by
the thirteenth century.
2

The feature of the present-day
Assyrian-Nestorian Church ad-
dressed by the Pontical Council is in
regards to its main Eucharistic prayer
that dates at least from the eleventh
century in its current form, which
contains no words of institution. This
Eucharistic prayer is known by the
title Anaphora of Addai and Mari.
The Holy See formerly required
all Chaldeans (convert-Nestorians)
simply to add an institution narra-
tive in order to validate the words of
consecration.
During the Middle Ages it seems
there was little known or recorded
of the Nestorian Church other than
information derived from a tempo-
rary union between Rome and the
Nestorians and the journals of some
missionaries.
3
The current contro-
versy confusing the minds of many
Catholics is in relation to two ponti-
cal ofces in the Vatican (presumably
with the permission of the Holy
Father) that have nuanced, perhaps
even ignored, traditional criteria of
validity for a Eucharistic prayer. It
is yet unclear whether this prayer, if
used by priests in union with Rome,
would be considered invalid. Histori-
cally, from the time of the Council of
Florence until the year 2001, it would
undoubtedly have been rejected by
the Church as lacking proper form.
The obscurity of Nestorian liturgical
praxis and the ignorance of the West
in regard to the Nestorian liturgy
would seem to account for the lack of
any comment whatsoever in regard to
this controversial Eucharistic prayer.
There are principally three
arguments produced by the Ponti-
cal Council to validate the current
Assyrian practice of omitting words
of institution from some of their
liturgies that entail about 200 days
of their liturgical year. There are a
total of three Eucharistic prayers that
have recognized
usage in the As-
syrian practice
of today. It is
the last Eucha-
ristic prayer
among these,
that of Addai
and Mari, that
alone omits the
words of institu-
tion.
The rst ar-
gument for va-
lidity proposed
by the Pontical
Council can be
summed up as
follows:
[T]he Anapho-
ra of Addai
and Mari is
one of the
most ancient
Eucharistic
prayers.
This excep-
tion [absence
of words of
institution],
however, may
be due to its very early origin and
to the later isolation of the Assyrian
Church of the East. The valid-
ity of the Anaphora of Addai and
Mari, in fact, was never ofcially
contested. In conscience of faith,
the Assyrian Church of the East was
always convinced to celebrate the
Eucharist validly. She expressed
this conscience of faithindepen-
dent from the fact that only the
rst two Anaphoras, of later origin,
contain the Institution narrative.
Unfortunately, logic is completely
lacking in this argument for validity,
for the same document produced by
the Pontical Council also notes:
For many years, scholars discussed
which version of
the Anaphora of
Addai and Mari
might have been
the original one.
Some scholars
argued that the
original formula
of the Anaphora
of Addai and
Mari was longer
and did contain
an Institution
Narrative. Other
scholars are
convinced that
the Anaphora of
Addai and Mari
did not contain a
coherent Institu-
tion Narrative
and that the
short version is
consequently
the original
one. Nowadays,
most scholars
argue that it is
highly probable
that the second
hypothesis is
the right one.
Anyhow, this historical question
cannot be resolved with absolute
certainty, due to the scarcity or
absence of contemporary sources.
The validity of the Eucharist cel-
ebrated with the Anaphora of Addai
and Mari, therefore, should not be
The title church can be
applied to the Assyrian-
Nestorians because of their
retention of the sacramental
system and a valid hierarchy
within a confession of faith.
This, however, does not
guarantee infallibility in
matters liturgical.
Fall 2004 40
based on historical but on doctrinal
arguments.
First of all, the second citation
immediately above makes clear that
historical arguments fail to justify
the validity of this Eucharistic prayer.
Yet the rst proof for validity
given by the Pontical Council in the
very same document is an historical
argument: (a) most scholars currently
hold this text to be from among the
most ancient of the known historical
sources; (b) absence of the words of
institution may be due to its probable
ancient origin; (c) this form of the
Eucharistic prayer is never histori-
cally known to have been ofcially
contested.
The rst non-sequitur is the propo-
sition that this Eucharistic prayer
without the words of consecration
is most ancient. The citation of the
Pontical Council is very clear that
scholars currently debate what the
ancient form even looked like. There-
fore, if we dont know whether or
not the current text
is the same as the
authentic ancient
form, how can we
build an argument
on the presumption
that the current
construction is the
ancient form?
Further, it would
seem that conclu-
sions that favor
the position that
the original prayer
did not contain the
words of conse-
cration, which is
merely a hypoth-
esis, are probable
in the eyes of todays scholars. It is
a mischaracterization to say that the
original form cannot be known with
absolute certainty. The original
form cannot be known even with
certainty. Neither can it be known
as a theory, but purely as a hy-
pothesis. Ironically, the conclusion
inferred by the Pontical Council is
that when current scholars believe
that one hypothesis is more probable
than another hypothesis, their conclu-
sion ranks just short of absolute
certainty!
Also, the document frankly admits
to a huge lacuna in regard to sources.
Without sources (manuscripts and
testimonies) to authenticate this
prayer forms ancient roots, the
argument that this prayer is ancient is
arguing in a circle since the question
is not whether or not the prayer is
ancient, but whether or not its ancient
form did or did not contain the words
of institution, which cannot be known
through the means of currently
available data. Therefore the lack of
words of institution may be due to
its ancient origin or may be due to
another cause (for example a scribal
error, etc.).
Lastly, just because an error by
a schismatic-heretical (separated)
Church has never
been explicitly
described and con-
demned by Rome, it
does not necessarily
follow that no error
exists. If the Assyr-
ian Church was so
isolated until the
most recent times,
its texts were then
inaccessible to the
West.
Its important to
mention that even
today the organiza-
tion and liturgical
books in the As-
syrian Church are
still very confused and primitive. It is
much like the situation with liturgi-
cal texts before Trent. Everything
essential is more or less there, but not
always. Truly the comment regard-
ing the conscience of the Assyrian
Church is silly. A Church that can
conscientiously maintain that there
were two persons in Jesus Christ can
certainly make other doctrinal, moral,
and liturgical errors that are lower in
the hierarchy of truths.
The second argument is short and
to the point: Secondly, the Catholic
Church recognizes the Assyrian
Church of the East as a true particu-
lar Church, built upon orthodox faith
and apostolic succession. The Assyr-
ian Church of the East also preserved
full Eucharistic faithin the sacri-
cial character of the Eucharist.
Notice that the document refers to
the Assyrian Church and mentions
its being built on orthodox faith
and apostolic succession. Presum-
ably, the Pontical Council under-
stands that these references require
nuance. The Assyrian Christians con-
sider themselves orthodox because
of their rejection of the heresy of
Arianism (which denied the divinity
and consubstantial nature of Jesus
Christ to the Father). Meanwhile,
they themselves remain heretical
Nestorians (holding that there are two
persons in Christ not one divine
person possessing two natures, the
nature of God and the nature of man).
The title church can be applied
to the Assyrian-Nestorians because
of their retention of the sacramental
system and a valid hierarchy within
a confession of faith. This, however,
does not guarantee infallibility in
matters liturgical. Since we cannot
demonstrate that the absence of the
words of institution occurred before
the Middle Ages, it seems danger-
ous to assume that the Assyrian
liturgical tradition is accurate simply
because the Church was historically
apostolic. Those who are familiar
with the Oriental churches know
that historically some of them have
handed on defective translations of
Scripture that they consider authori-
tative even in their current liturgies,
along with giving uninspired texts
The current mode
of scholarship is
ecumenical and does
not, a priori, apply the
Churchs dogmatic
understanding of
necessary matter and
form when discussing
these issues. The
analogy of faith is often
ignored in deference
to a nebulous new
ecclesiology.
Liturgy Ecumenical Agendas and Liturgical Anarchy?
41 Fall 2004
(3 Machabees, Enoch) deutero-ca-
nonical Scripture status. Some of the
Orthodox churches, on the opposite
end, reject the deutero-canonicals.
Simply because these churches are
apostolic does not mean we need
to reopen the question of the Canon
of Scripture due to their decient
traditions.
Another and more ominous in-
novation inheres in this Chaldean
development. There is a new sacra-
mental theological distinction being
made between ad litteram (literal)
and dispersed explicit euchological
modes of expressing the same truth.
An explicit euchological dispersion
seems to mean that, in place of the
exact or near-exact words of Christ,
the Eucharistic prayer as a whole
explicitly expresses the same theo-
logical and sacramental concepts as
the Lords precise words, but over
the course of a lengthy prayer (rather
than in the direct words of institu-
tion). This is defended as a cultural
mode of literary expression employed
by the Chaldeans in place of the
Semitic mode of expression as found
in the Bible.
Against this supposition would be
the fact that the liturgical languages
used by the Assyrians previous to the
Arab invasions of the seventh century
were predominantly either Aramaic
or Syriac, both of which languages
are themselves Semitic. Secondly,
there is the problem that the majority
of the Scriptures are of Semitic ori-
gin. Even the New Testament is heav-
ily inuenced by Semitic thought and
expression, and some text transla-
tions may be from a Semitic original.
Culturally, the Lord Himself, St.
Paul, and the manuscript tradition
within the Assyrian Church itself
(Anaphora of Nestorius, Anaphora of
Theodore of Mopsuestia)
4
have all,
as Semitic persons and institutions,
historically chosen the same mode
of confecting the Eucharist: namely,
containing the words of institution.
Therefore, it
seems that this
argument can-
not be upheld
on cultural
grounds.
What about
the theological
proposal of
explicit eucho-
logical disper-
sion? If this
hypothesis is
extended to the
sacraments in
general, which
the Pontical
Council implies is possible, then
what is the result? The danger is
that all sacraments could take on any
form whatsoever according to the
mind of the minister, provided that
the theological integrity of the sacra-
ment is preserved within the connes
of some sacramental formula as a
whole. Remember, it is not an ex-
traordinary use of the apostolic keys
of Peter that concedes the possibility
of omitting the words of institution,
but the argument of the Pontical
Council which seems to assume the
absolute changeable nature of the
form of sacraments.
The fear is that the door is being
left open to enable the change or
omission of any sacramental formula,
provided that the euchologically
explicit dispersion of the same con-
cept is found in the new composition.
Father Richard
McBrien, com-
menting in the
National Cath-
olic Reporter,
pointed to that
very conclu-
sion soon after
the Holy Sees
publication of
the document
under discus-
sion.
Perhaps it
would be help-
ful to summa-
rize the status
questionis of the Eucharistic prayer
of Addai and Mari for the sake of the
reader, in order to see how tenuous
the matter really is.
1. The previously earliest form of these
manuscripts had been found in two
sixteenth-century texts and four from
the seventeenth. W.F. Macomber was
responsible for publishing a text that
seems to be from the tenth or elev-
enth century. This is the unique text
containing the omission of the words
of institution within the Eucharistic
prayer, and has been available only
since it was edited and published in
1966.
5
2.There is missing from this Eucharis-
tic prayer a key verb from a sentence
within the main paragraph that ren-
ders any translation of the sentence
This document, Guidelines for
Admission to the Eucharist
between the Chaldean
Church and the Assyrian
Church of the East, presumes
far too much and until
the presuppositions are
scrutinized sufciently, the
fear among many is that it will
serve to accelerate theological
and liturgical anarchy.
Members of the Assyrian-Chaldean Joint Commission for Unity (standing) with both Patriarchs (seated)
Liturgy Ecumenical Agendas and Liturgical Anarchy?
Fall 2004 42
extremely problematical. Secondly,
there seems to be a lack of context
and coherence in the individual sen-
tences that make up the paragraph,
which may indicate textual omis-
sions where the institution narrative
was originally located. Numerous
hypotheses have been proposed that
offer alternative solutions that would
contradict the conclusion that the
Eucharistic prayer did not originally
contain an institutional narrative.
6
The cur-
rent mode of
scholarship is
ecumenical
and does not,
a priori, apply
the Churchs
dogmatic
understanding
of necessary
matter and form
when discussing
these issues. The
analogy of faith
is often ignored
in deference to
a nebulous new
ecclesiology.
The presumption is that objective
scholarship exists only by ignoring
ones confessional lines. This is ideal-
ized by the celebrated scholar Robert
Taft, SJ, in his assumption that Unita-
tis Redintegratio recognizes not only
the value and legitimacy of the Ori-
ental Churches, but also authenticates
the tendency toward accepting these
Churches national or ecclesial tradi-
tions, granting them the presumption
of apostolicity, even if in the case of
Addai and Mari it cannot be demon-
strated that this prayers current form
predates the Middle Ages.
Father Taft (see note 7) argues the
same point as the Congregation. In
summary: This prayer is ancient and
apostolic; therefore it is valid. But
the question is: Which form of the
prayer is both apostolic and valid?
Furthermore, this general ap-
proach is emblematic of pluralistic
ideology that chooses to ignore
the historically heretical and schis-
matic nature of certain churches and
theologies, as if their errors did not
either contribute to or detract from a
respective Churchs liturgical praxis
and rites.
7

In his summation of arguments in
support of the Pontical Councils
decision, Father Taft also makes oth-
er assumptions.
For instance he
argues that the
Didache
8
of the
rst or second
century con-
tained no words
of institution,
not mentioning
the fact that
not all scholars
of note have
accepted the
pertinent prayer
as a consecra-
tory formula.
9

He references
ancient Eucha-
ristic prayers
that also lack these words, like the
Gospel of Thomas or the Apos-
tolic Constitutions. Should it be a
surprise that the former, a Gnostic
gospel, lacks not only those words,
but also any reference in the entire
Eucharistic prayer that the Eucharist
is a participation in the death or
sacrice of the cross?
10
As regards
the Apostolic Constitutions, alterna-
tive explanations are not unknown.
11

Fragments that he references with-
out words of institution also are of
questionable authority since they do
not represent a complete prayer and
require a lot of inference and guess-
work. Lastly, he argues that other
later compositions of the Syrian
Church also are missing words of
institution all of which are subject
to various explanatory hypotheses
that cannot be addressed here.
This document, Guidelines for Ad-
mission to the Eucharist between the
Chaldean Church and the Assyrian
Church of the East, presumes far too
much and until the presuppositions
are scrutinized sufciently, the fear
among many is that it will serve to
accelerate theological and liturgical
anarchy.

Notes
1. Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist Between
the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of
the East, Pontical Council for Promoting Christian
Unity. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/
pontical_councils/chrstuni/documents/
rc_pc_chrstuni_do, May 4, 2004.
2. For a fuller discussion of the history of the Nestorian
Church, see Warren H Carroll, The Building of
Christendom (Front Royal, Va.: Christendom Press,
1987).
3. Archdale A. King, The Rites of Eastern Christendom
(Rome: Catholic Book Agency, Tipograa Poliglotta
Vaticana, 1948), vol. 2, pp. 417 et seq.
4. Although these two prayer were originally translated
from Greek. Stephen B. Wilson, Essays on Early
Eucharistic Prayers (Collegeville, Minn.: The
Liturgical Press, 1997), p. 20.
5. Essays on Early Eucharistic Prayers, ed. Paul F.
Bradshaw (ed.) (Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical
Press, 1997), p. 24.
6. Ibid., pp. 22-23.
7. Robert Taft, Mass Without the Consecration? The
Historic Agreement on the Eucharist Between the
Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East
Promulgated 26 October 2001, Paul Wattson-Lurana
White Lecture at the Centro pro Unione, Rome,
2002.
8. Early Church disciplinary document that is probably
a compilation of sources and which until recently
was debated as to its date and the nature of its
individual texts.
9. Liturgia eucaristica. Mistagogia della Messa: dalla
storia e dalla teologia alla postorale practica (BEL,
100), CLV-Edizioni Liturgiche (Ed. 2a), Roma
2003, pp. 412-446. For a modern non-sacramental
interpretation, the distinction is made between
Eucharistia maior et minor among some scholars.
10. Prex Eucharistica, Textus e variis liturgiis antiquiori-
bus selecti, Albert Gerhards et Heinzgerd Brakmann
(editio tertia), vol. 1 , Universittsverlag Freiburg
Schweiz, 1998, pp. 76, 78. Mentions the resurrec-
tion and deeds of Christ explicitly but ignores the
passion, cross, and sacrice for sin.
11. Liturgia eucaristica. Mistagogia della Messa: dalla
storia e dalla teologia alla postorale practica, 594-
600.
Liturgy Ecumenical Agendas and Liturgical Anarchy?
Father Romano Tommasi received his
Licentiate in Sacred Theology (S.T.L.)
from the Pontical University of San
Anselmo in Rome.
Father Robert Taft, SJ

S-ar putea să vă placă și