1

Orientalium Ecclesiarum: Its Recepetion in the Syro-Malabar Church.

Missionary Orientation Center (MOC) Manganam, Kottayam 686018, Kerala,
Saturday, October 9th, 2004.

The anaphora of Addai and Mari

An Early Witness to Apostolic Tradition
Peter Hofrichter

I think I need not apologize when I don’t speak directly to the issue of this conference,
namely the Council’s decree Orientalium Ecclesiarum. The document published only three
years ago I want to present here together with its impact and its historical backgrounds is a
consequence of this decree of the Second Vatican Council and concernes the Syro-Malabar
Church quite essentially in her tradition although not immediately addressed to her.
On July 20, the Ponifical Concil for the Promotion of Unity published a document, worked
out in agreement with the Congegration fo the doctrine of Faith and the Congregation for
the Oriental Churches. In this document the mutual participation of Chadean Catholics and
members of the Church of the East in the Eucharist is principally allowed. On this occasion
and for this purpose also the Apostles’ Anaphora of Addai and Mari of the Church of the
East although not containing an instituion narrative is declared to be a valid eucharistic high
prayer. The original language of this Vatican document was neither Latin nor Italian, but
English. So we need not to translate it:

GUIDELINES FOR ADMISSION TO THE EUCHARIST BETWEEN THE

CHALDEAN CHURCH AND THE ASSYRIAN CHURCH OF THE EAST

Given the great distress of many Chaldean and Assyrian faithful, in their motherland and in
the diaspora, impeding for many of them a normal sacramental life according to their own
tradition, and in the ecumenical context of the bilateral dialogue between the Catholic
Church and the Assyrian Church of the East, the request has been made to provide for
admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the
East. This request has first been studied by the Joint Committee for Theological Dialogue
between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East. The present guidelines
subsequently have been elaborated by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian
Unity, in agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith and the Congregation
for the Oriental Churches.
 2

1. Pastoral necessity

The request for admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian
Church of the East is connected with the particular geographical and social situation in
which their faithful are actually living. Due to various and sometimes dramatic
circumstances, many Assyrian and Chaldean faithful left their motherlands and moved to
the Middle East, Scandinavia, Western Europe, Australia and Northern America. As there
cannot be a priest for every local community in such a widespread diaspora, numerous
Chaldean and Assyrian faithful are confronted with a situation of pastoral necessity with
regard to the administration of sacraments. Official documents of the Catholic Church
provide special regulations for such situations, namely the Code of Canons of the Eastern
Churches, can. 671, §2-§3 and the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms
of Ecumenism, n. 123.

2. Ecumenical rapprochement

The request is also connected with the ongoing process of ecumenical rapprochement
between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East. With the 'Common
Christological Declaration', signed in 1994 by Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Mar
Dinkha IV, the main dogmatic problem between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian
Church has been resolved. As a consequence, the ecumenical rapprochement between the
Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East also entered a further phase of
development. On 29 November 1996 Patriarch Mar Raphaël Bidawid and Patriarch Mar
Dinkha IV signed a list of common proposals with a view to the re-establishment of full
ecclesial unity among both historical heirs of the ancient Church of the East. On 15 August
1997 this program was approved by their respective Synods and confirmed in a 'Joint
Synodal Decree'. Supported by their respective Synods, both Patriarchs approved a further
series of initiatives to foster the progressive restoration of their ecclesial unity. Both the
Congregation for the Oriental Churches and the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of
Christian Unity support this process.

3. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari

The principal issue for the Catholic Church in agreeing to this request, related to the
question of the validity of the Eucharist celebrated with the Anaphora of Addai and Mari,
one of the three Anaphoras traditionally used by the Assyrian Church of the East. The
Anaphora of Addai and Mari is notable because, from time immemorial, it has been used
without a recitation of the Institution Narrative. As the Catholic Church considers the
 3

words of the Eucharistic Institution a constitutive and therefore indispensable part of the
Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer, a long and careful study was undertaken of the Anaphora
of Addai and Mari, from a historical, liturgical and theological perspective, at the end of
which the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith on January 17th, 2001 concluded that this
Anaphora can be considered valid. H.H. Pope John Paul II has approved this decision.
This conclusion rests on three major arguments.

• In the first place, the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is one of the most ancient Anaphoras,
dating back to the time of the very early Church; it was composed and used with the clear
intention of celebrating the Eucharist in full continuity with the Last Supper and according
to the intention of the Church; its validity was never officially contested, neither in the
Christian East nor in the Christian West.
• Secondly, the Catholic Church recognises the Assyrian Church of the East as a true
particular Church, built upon orthodox faith and apostolic succession. The Assyrian
Church of the East has also preserved full Eucharistic faith in the presence of our Lord
under the species of bread and wine and in the sacrificial character of the Eucharist. In the
Assyrian Church of the East, though not in full communion with the Catholic Church, are
thus to be found "true sacraments, and above all, by apostolic succession, the priesthood
and the Eucharist" (U.R., n. 15).
Finally, the words of Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora of
Addai and Mari, not in a coherent narrative way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed
euchological way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise and
intercession.

4. Guidelines for admission to the Eucharist

Considering the liturgical tradition of the Assyrian Church of the East, the doctrinal
clarification regarding the validity of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, the contemporary
context in which both Assyrian and Chaldean faithful are living, the appropriate
regulations which are foreseen in official documents of the Catholic Church, and the
process of rapprochement between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the
East, the following provision is made:

1. When necessity requires, Assyrian faithful are permitted to participate and to receive
Holy Communion in a Chaldean celebration of the Holy Eucharist; in the same way,
Chaldean faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic
minister, are permitted to participate and to receive Holy Communion in an Assyrian
celebration of the Holy Eucharist.
 4

2. In both cases, Assyrian and Chaldean ministers celebrate the Holy Eucharist according
to the liturgical prescriptions and customs of their own tradition.

3. When Chaldean faithful are participating in an Assyrian celebration of the Holy

Eucharist, the Assyrian minister is warmly invited to insert the words of the Institution in
the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, as allowed by the Holy Synod of the Assyrian Church of
the East.

4. The above considerations on the use of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari and the present
guidelines for admission to the Eucharist, are intended exclusively in relation to the
Eucharistic celebration and admission to the Eucharist of the faithful from the Chaldean
Church and the Assyrian Church of the East, in view of the pastoral necessity and ecume-
nical context mentioned above.

Rome, July 20th, 2001

So far the Vatican document. Normally Western Catholic theologians don’t care for such
pastoral agreements unless they themselves are directly concerrned or they are specialists in
ecumenism. But in this case the interest was unusually large and the reactions intensive and
highly controversial. One side praised this document to mark an historical breack-through
in the development of Catholic theology of the Eucharist, the other side blamed it as an
accident and error of the Roman administration and a betrayal of the Catholic dogma.
Several articles and letters against and in favour of this document were published up to this
year in Germany in the Catholic conservative periodical “Una-Voce-Correpondenz” and in 1

the conservative Catholic newspapers “Die Tagespost” and in the “Kirchliche Umschau”,
2 3

both latter addressed to everage people who thither may never have heared of Caldeans and
Assyrians. Also in academic publication the impotance of the document is emphazised and
considered. Other contributions appeared in the U.S and in France. The most informative
4 5

1
Martin Lugmayr, Die Anaphora nach Addai und Mari und die Dogmatik, in: Una-Voce-Korrespondenz 33
(2003) 30-47. Martin Lugmayr, Anaphoren ohne direkte Wandlungsworte bereits unter Pius XI. (1922-1939).
Ein Beitrag zur aktuellen Diskussion, in: Una-Voce-Korrepondenz 33 (2003) 227-244.
2
Holger Ulrich, Keine unfehlbare Entscheidung Roms. Helmut Maria Gressung, Den Boden unter den Füßen
Weggezogen. Günter Herwerth, Conditio sine qua non. Rudolf Kaschewsky, Die älteste Form der Eucharistie.
Leserbriefe in “Die Tagespost” zwischen Mai und Juli 2004.
3
Martin Lugmayr, „Eine Anaphora mit Wandlungsworten – aber in anderer Form“ - Historische, liturgische
und dogmatische Anmerkungen zur Anaphora von Addai und Mari „Kirchliche Umschau“, November 2002,
S. 11-14. Heinz-Lothar Barth, Addai und Mari. Aus der Entscheidung Roms werden die Konsequenzen
gezogen. Die Aussauger, in: Kirchliche Umschau 6/7 (Juni 2004) 15s. 7/7 (Juli 2004) 15s. 8/9/7
(August/September 2004) 15.
4
Werner Löser, Die Diskussion um die Eucharistiegemeinschaft. Positionen katholischer Theologie, in:
Thomas Söding (Hrsg.), Eucharistie. Positionen katholischer Theologie, Pustet Regensburg 2002, 178-203.
5
Richard P. MacBrian, No magic words, but Christ still present. Vatican declares eucharistic prayer valid
without the words of institution, in: National Catholic Reporter, Feb 22, 2002. Bernard Lorber, L’anaphore
des Apôtres Adée et Maris - une application du lex orandi lex credendi, in: Nouvelles de Chretienté 73
 5

article on the issue was the positive learned presentation by Robert Taft, Professor of the
Pontifical Oriental in Rome in the Bulletin of the Cento Pro Unione in spring 2003. 6

Cardinal Kasper himself, the head of the Pontical Unity Council highlightend this guide-
lines already in a speach delivered in Berlin as indicating a great progeress of Catholic
theolgy recognizing unity in diversity in the center of ecclesial life, namely in the celeb-
ration of Eucharist. 7

Since also the Syro-Malabar Church of India is using the Anaphora of Addai and Mari,
although she is not mentioned in the Vatican document and she is not involved in the
agreeement of sacramental participation with the Church of the East, it may be worthwile to
have a look on this matter.
The following argumentation for the validity of the High Prayer of Addai and Mari has
been presented already in 1994 at the First Syriac Consultation of PRO ORIENTE. 8

1. The Anaphora most Frequently in Use in the East Syrian Tradition – that of
Addai and Mari

Unlike the West Syrian tradition of the Jacobites and Maronites that shows a great variety
of anaphoras the East Syrian tradition knows and uses only three eucharistic High Prayers,
that of the Apostles Addai and Mari, that of Nestorius and that of Theodorus of Mopsuestia.
Among them the anaphora of the oldest tradition, which is still predominantly used in
eucharistic celebrations is that of the Apostles Addai and Mari. This Anaphora is used by
the Church of the East from the day after Palm-Sunday till the end of the liturgical year,
except on feasts of the day. And it is even exclusively used in those parts of the Church of
the East which became united to the Catholic Church, the Chaldean Church and the Syro-
Malabar Church, because the other two Anaphoras under the names of Nestorius and
Theodorus of Mosuestia were dropped for their patrons were held as heretics.

2. The Question of the Missing Institution Narrative 9

(Mars/Avril 2002) 1-6.

6
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 (Conference held at the Cento Pro Unione, 20
March 2003), Bulletin /Centro Pro Unione 63, 15-27.
7
Symposion: ”Perspectiven der Ökumene im 21. Jahrhundert”, 1.-4. 11. 2001. The text is available in the
internet under: www.kath/akademie/berlin/vortrage/kasper01.oekumene.htm.
8
Paper I read alredy in June 1994 in Vienna. It was published in English, French and German: First Non-
Official Consultation on Dialogue within the Syriac Tradition, Vienna 1994 (Syriac Dialogue 1, ed. A.
Stirnemann - G. Wilflinger), Horn 1994, 182-191. L‘anaphore d’Addai et Mari dans l’Église de l’Orient. Une
eucharistie sans récit d’institution?, Istina 39 (1995) 95-105. Die Anaphora nach Addai und Mari. Eucharistie
ohne Einsetzungsbericht, Heiliger Dienst 49 (1995) 143-152. Since the Vatican instruction of 2001 follows
my arguments in chapter 4 of this article I have nothing to change.
9
From there onward this contibution is identical with the above mentioned text.
 6

In the 16th century, when the Church of the East and the Thomas-Christians in India came
into close contact with the Roman Catholic Church, Catholic theologians became aware of
the fact that the holy mass as it is most frequently celebrated in this tradition did not
contain an institution narrative, which was considered by the Latins the most essential part
of the eucharistic high prayer.
The Latin concept of the consecration and transsubstantiation by and at the moment of
the words of the institution dates back to the 12th century and at that time was not yet
commonly accepted even among Western theologians. The development of this view was
10

obviously supported by the fact that in Latin tradition the epiclesis is prayed before and not
after the institution narrative.
The Council of Florence imposed on the Armenians the theory of St. Thomas Aquinas
that in terms of Aristotelian philosophy the “forma” of the Eucharist is the words of
institution spoken by the priest “in persona Christi.,” Although this doctrine had never
11

before been explicitely dogmatized nor was repeated at the Council of Trent, it has always 12

been considered to be a Catholic dogma.

Western theologians in their majority were convinced that the institution narrative had
been omitted in the manuscripts because of respect and originally was and should be
spoken by heart. Therefore also those East Syrian Christians who since the 16th century
came into Union with Rome had to insert the institution narrative into their liturgical books.
For the same reason also the Anglicans in the last century printed liturgical books for the
Assyrians with the institution narrative added. but these additions were – according to
13

more recent research – not not alt all justified.

No old manuscripts of this anaphora contain an institution narrative, the oldest of them
– as already mentioned – dating back to the 10th or lIth century. The oldest Catholic
14

Chaldean and Malabar missals show the institution narrative as an addition only at the end
of the anaphora. Only the more recent ones have it as an insertion within the anaphora itself
after the Sanctus. Obviously there did not exist any authentic oral tradition of an institution
15

narrative in this anaphora and even less where it should have been spoken. Moreover there
10
1. Betz, Eucharistie und Patristik (Schmaus-Grillmaier, Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte, IV, 4a),
Freiburg-Basel-Wien I979,27.
11
Denzinger-Schönmetzer 1321.
12
Cf. Denzinger-Schömetzer 1640.
13
King, Liturgie d’Antioche 203: “ ... en 1890 les Anglicans publierent une edition de la liturgie a I’usage
desdissidents. Les Paroles de I’institution fhrent inserrées dans la liturgie des Apotres ...”
14
W. F. Macomber, The Oldest Known Text ofthe Anaphora of the Apostles Addai and Mari, OCP 32 (1966)
335-371. J. Betz, Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte, IV, 4a, 61f.
15
Vadakkel, Anaphora of Mar Theodore of Mopsuestia 215, footn. 35: "Surprisingly enough, the Chaldeans
and the Syro-Malabarians had it in the post-anaphorajust before the fraction. See Ms. Vatican Syriac 43 & 44
for the Chaldean evidence and the Taksas of 1774 and 1844 for tile Syro-Malabar evidence. But at present
both oftllem have joined it to the post-sanctus prayer."
 7

is no space for it unless the coherence of the text is interrupted. Since the Maronite
anaphora called “Sharar” has much in common with that of the Apostles it was supposed to
have preserved the original institution narrative of the Apostle’s Anaphora. But there are 16

still good reasons to maintaint hat the East Syrain tradition is authentic and justified. 17

3. Can Eucharist without the Institution words of Jesus be Authentic?

3.1. Other Anaphoras of Syrian origin without the Institution Words of Jesus
verbally repeated.

First, there are the partial parallels of other liturgies of Syrian origin without the words of
institution. There is a fragment of an East Syrian anaphora of the 6th century out of use that
does contain an institution narrative but without the words of institution. Other paralles of
18

this kind have their origin in the West Syrian tradition. The Ethiopian Anaphora of Jacob of
Sarug, unlike the Anaphora of the Apostles, does relate the fact that Jesus celebrated the
Eucharist with his disciples but does not quote or mention any words he spoke on that
occasion. The priest says in this anaphora:

"Thou hast taken bread in thy holy hands to give it to thy pure apostles. Thou who then
hast blessed also now bless this bread. And again (thou wast) mixing a cup of wine
with water to give it to the disciples. Thou who then hast sanctified also now, o Lord,
sanctify this chalice. Thou who then hast distributed distribute also now this cup. Who
then hast united unite also now this chalice with this bread that it may be thy flesh and
thy blood. " 19

Instead of quoting the words which according to Paul and the Synoptics Jesus spoke, this
anaphora shows only an anamnesis of the eucharistic meal Jesus had with his disciples and
a prayer that the holy elements may be his flesh and blood. Of course, this is not an
institution narrative in the full sense and in line with the traditional Catholic requirement
of transsubstantiation through Jesus' words spoken by the priest.

16
W. F. Macomber, The Maronite and Chaldean Versions of the Anaphora of the Apostles, OCO 37 (1971)
55-84. To tile whole discussion cf. B. D. Spinks, Addai and Mari -TIle Anaphora of tile Apostles. A Text for
Students, Bramcote Notts 1980.
17
10 Thus at last: A Gelson, The Eucharistic Prayer of Addai and Mari, Oxford 1992, and S. Jammo in his
paper “The Quddasia of the Apostles Addai and Mari” (1994).
18
MS. Brit Mus. Add. 14669 ff. 20 sqq: F. E. Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western, Vol. 1. Eastern
Liturgics, Oxford 1967 = 1886, 511-518: 515, I. 27-35.
19
S. Euringer, Die athiopischen Anaphoren des hi Evangelisten Johannes des Donnersohnes und des
hI.Jacobus von Samg (Orientalia .Christiana 33,1), Roma 1934,
 8

This absence of Jesus’ own words of institution being absolutely unique among the
Ethiopian anaphoras is not unnormal in the West Syrian tradition from where this anaphora
must have had its origin. Among the Anaphoras used by the Syrian Orthodox Church there
are at least three where the words of institution are missing: the Anaphora of St. Peter, the
Anaphora of Xystus of Rome and the Anaphora of Dionysius Jacob Barsalibi. In this the 20

priest says:

"When he prepared for the redemptive passion, he took bread and blessed, sanctified
and broke, and called it His Holy Body for eternal life for those who receive it. Amen.
And also the cup blended with wine and water, He blessed and sanctified and
completed as His Precious Blood of eternal life for those who receive it.” 21

Even ihe Anaphora of John Chrysosomus according to the Syrian tradition contains the
words of signification only for the bread but not for the cup:

“Likewise he took the cup, blessed, sanctified and gave His disciples, saying: Take,
drink of it all of you for the remission of debts, the forgiveness of sins and for
everlasting life.”22

While the institution in these cases is at least recorded as a fact it is not even mentioned in
the Anaphora of the Apostles Addai and Mari athough theological of may be found
scattered in diverse prayers.

3.2. Witnesses of Eucharist Without any Referance to the Instiution in the

Second Century

Nontheless, it is exactly the tradition of total absence of any reference to the institution
which can be traced back as early as to the second century. In the apocryphal Acts of
Thomas and of John we find at least six eucharistic liturgies all of which are not related to
the institution. Four of them consist of a more or less extended prayer which is
23

immediately followed by the breaking of the eucharistic bread and its distribution. Two of

20
Anaphoras. The Book of the Divine Liturgies According to the Rite of the Syrian Orthodox Church of
Antioch. Translated from the original Syriac by Achdeacon Murad Saliba Barsom, edited and published by
Metropolitan Mar Athanasius Yeshue Samuel, Lodi (N. J.) 1991, 190.256.442.
21
Anaphoras 442, vgl. Euringer, Anaphoren 82 and 110f. He refers to Pierre Dib, Etude sur la Liturgie
Maronite, Paris 1919,59, Separatum out of the review "Le canoniste contemporain".
22
Anaphoras 300.
23
cf. C. Vogel, Anaphores eucharistiques preconstantiniennes, Augustinianum20 (1980) 401-410.
 9

those liturgies are found in the Acts of John, in the chapters 85f and 106-110. Another one
24

of the same kind is reported in the Acts of Thomas in chapter 133. All these celebrations of
25

eucharist are performed with bread alone, moreover they don't speak of the body or flesh of
Jesus and they do not refer to his death. One celebration in chapter 49f of the Acts of
Thomas while equally using bread alone does speak of body and blood of Jesus. Only two 26

other reports in the Acts of Thomas, in the chapters 120 and 158, where the eucharist comes
immediately after a baptism, show celebrations with both bread and cup. But again only
one of these refers to the body and blood of Jesus and to the salvation by his death on the
cross. The Apostle Thomas takes here, in chapter 158, bread and cup, blesses and speaks:

“Thy holy body that was crucified for us we eat, and thy blood that was shed for our
salvation we drink. May thy body become for us salvation and may thy blood serve for
forgiving of sins.”

Thereupon follows the memory of single details of the passion with prayers resulting from
them. The last part of this anamnesis is that of the resurrection:

“Therefore that thou hast risen and hast come to life again, let also us come to life
again and live and and stand before thee in just judgement.” 27

Then Thomas breaks the bread and distributes the Eucharist. But even here the event of the
institution according to Paul and the Synoptic Gospels is not at all mentioned. Instead of
Christ's death his resurrection is commemorated and Eucharist is understood as a promise
of life.
We may object that the orthodoxy of the Acts of John and of Thomas can seriously be
doubted. At least the Acts of John teach a dualistic Christology in which the godhood of
Christ is not affected by the dead of his body. This may also have influenced the
understanding of Eucharist. But on the other hand, as we shall see, the breaking of the
eucharistic bread without the interpretation as the body of Christ and without reference to
his salutary death has its basis already in the New Testament.

24
Vogel, 404f. W. Schneemelcher, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen II. Apostolisches, Apokalypsen und
Verwandtes, Tübingen (5. Auflage) 1989,186f.
25
Vogel, 406-409. Schneemelcher, Apokryphen II, 354.
26
Sclmeemelcher, Apokryphen 11, 323f.
27
Schneemelcher, Apokryphen II, 363.
 10

3.3. The Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles or Didache

Of course, more relevant than the witness of two apocryphal Acts of Apostles is that of the
"Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles" or Didache the orthodoxy of which has never been
doubted. The Didache teaches and explicitely decrees a eucharistic prayer which in no way 28

refers to the institution nor to the passion and which does not even interpret bread and cup
as body and blood of Christ:

"As to the eucharist: Thus you shall say thank: First as to the cup: We thank thee, our
father for the holy vine of David, thy servant, whom thou hastrevealed to us through
Jesus, thy servant. Unto thee be the glory in eternity. As to the bread: We thank thee,
our father for the life that thou hast revealed to us through Jesus thy sevant. Unto thee
be the glory in eternity. As this was spread on the mountains and gathered became one
bread, so thy church shall be gathered from the ends of the earth into thy kingdom!
For thine is the glory and the power in eternity. - But nobody shall eat nor drink of
your Eucharist except those baptised in the name of the Lord. For also about this has
the Lord said: Don't give the holy to the dogs!"

This liturgical text is followed by a second example of a Eucharist Prayer for the case
that eucharist is celebrated after a meal. Here the holy elements are called spiritual food
29

and spiritual drink.

The Didache dates from between 80 and 130 AD and according to common conviction
originated in Syria. It deals with the doctrine of the two ways, with the sacraments of
baptism and the Eucharist, with the ministers of the church and with eschatology. Mainly
because of the lack of an institution narrative some scholars deny that the Didache teaches
the celebration of Eucharist. But the evidence is that this document treats the most
30

important matters of church life. It would make little sense to speak about baptism, fasting,
daily prayer and then go on and elaborate on some opening prayer for an ordinary meal
with bread and wine called eucharist but not on Eucharist in the proper sense. However,
the parallel introductions: “As to baptism thus shall you baptize” and “As to the eucharist
thus shall you thank” and the fact that only the baptized are allowed to receive this
eucharist prove that we are really dealing with the sacrament. Evidently and exactly in
31

28
Cf. B. Kollmann, Ursprung und Gestalten der frühchristlichen Mahlfeier (Gottinger Theologische Arbeiten
43) Gottingen 1990, 94-101. Thus also Vogel and Betz.
29
Zwölf-Apostel-Lehre, Apostolische Oberlieferung (Fontes Christiani I), Freiburg-Basel-Wien 1991, 120-
123.
30
At last again: K. Niederwimmer, Die Didache (KA V), Gottingen 1975, 172-209, and G. Schollgen,
in:Zwolf-Apostel-Lehre, Apostolische Oberlieferung (Fontes Christi ani I), Freiburg-Basel- Wien 1991, 50-
54.
31
A certain difficulty of the tex1 is the sequence of the chapters 9 and 10, that is of the prayer over bread and
 11

line with the apocryphal apostle acts, the Didache bears witness to the early celebration of
the Eucharist without an institution narrative and in distance to the Pauline and Synoptic
traditions. A similar witness also is found in Justin Martyr 1 Apol 67:

The leader of the congregation thanks as well as possible and the people say: Amen.
Then the eucharist is distributed. "

3.4. Biblical evidence

As commonly known, the Gospel of John contrary to the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and
Luke does not mention the institution of the Eucharist at the last supper. According to the
Fourth Gospel the basis of the celebration of the Eucharist is the marvelous feeding or the
multiplication of bread. The origin of the Fourth Gospel may again be found in Syria, at
least that of its pre-redactional layer, which did not yet speak of flesh and blood of Jesus,
but only of Jesus himself as the living bread coming down from heaven (In 6,32-41). It is
noteworthy that also the Synoptic Gospels equally use eucharistic terminology and motives
in their reports of the multiplication of bread.
The earliest witness of the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper is St. Paul. He
already quotes the institution narrative as a firm tradition (ICor 11, 23) and he can be
assumed to already refer to the common use of this text in the eucharistic celebrations. Also
the synoptic Gospels are considered to implicitely prove this liturgical practice. On the
other hand, this conclusion of the form criticism does not necessarily imply a general
practice. Neither in the Gospels nor in the Acts of the Apostles we find any hint that the
words of institution “This is my body...” were ever again used in the context of “breaking
the bread”, not in the mouth of the risen Christ himself (Emmaus: Lc 24,30; Galilee: Jn
21,13) and not in the community of Jerusalem. And if we accept that Paul and the synoptics
by their quotations already give witness to a certain liturgical practice, we consequently
must also admit that the Gospel of John and the church behind it either do not know this
practice or even are opposed to it by their omission.
Finally, and this is decisive, even the institution narrative itself according to Paul and
the Synoptic Gospels does not claim that Jesus ordered this very action to be
32

commemorated or the words he used to be repeated. According to Paul, 1 Cor 11,23, Jesus

wine and the prayer after the meal of saturation. ConmlOnly they are supposed to represent a unity and to
belong to one and the same celebration which indeed is difficult because the second one ends with an
invitation to communion. Obviously the two prayers show two different possibilties to celebrate eucharist:
one absolute fonn and one altemative foml following a meal (cf. Paul in ICor 11,20.33-34 and 1£ 22,1920)
ending with an invitation to the "holy ones". TIlis makes sense only in a meeting offaithful.
32
1Cor 11,23; Me 14,22-25; Mt 26,26-30; Lc 22,19-20.
 12

ordered an action, not a wording: He said: “Do this...”, and he continued: “in my memory“.
That means that he ordered the Eucharist to be celebrated in memory of his person in
respect of his entire salvation work. Neither did he say: “Do this in memory of what I am
doing now," nor did he add: “and speak these my words”. As to the proper words of
signification, according to the Gospels they cannot have been the words of trans-
substantiation but obviously an interpretation after the disciples had already received the
sacrament: “... then he broke the bread, gave it to them and said: This is my body...” Then
he took the cup, thanked, gave it to the disciples and they all drank of it. And he said to
them "This is my blood...” (Mc 14,22-24).
Altogether, there are several serious reasons to acknowledge that the celebration of the
Eucharist without the narrative or the words of the institution may also be considered to be
authentic traditions dating back to the very beginnings of the church. They are primarily
preserved in Syria and still found in the Didache, in the apocryphal Acts of John and of
Thomas in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari and in other anaphoras of Syrian origin like
those of Jacob of Sarug, Peter, Xystus or Dionysius Barsalibi.
Recent research shows that the tradition of the Eucharist without reference to the
institution, compared with that of Paul and the synoptics, may even be the more originaI. It 33

is attached to the multiplication of bread, to the understanding of the Eucharist as bread

from heaven and bread of life and to the Old Testament motive of the manna in the desert.
Similar concepts we find in Philo of Alexandria and in the book on Joseph and Aseneth. In 34

any case the New Testament and especially the Synoptic Gospels show us two different
interpretations of the Eucharist one beside the other, that of the multiplication of bread and
that ofthe institution at the Last Supper.

4. Why Can the Catholic Church Agree to tlte Anaphora of Addai and Mari in
its Original Form?

The new “Catechism of the Catholic Church” speaks in its number 1412 in the traditional
manner of “the words of consecration, spoken by Jesus himself at the last supper: ,This is
my body that was surrendered for you ... This is the cup of my blood ...”. And in its next
number (1413) it says: "By the consecration the transsubstantiation is performed. " This is
what Catholics are taught. But it is necessary to realize, that even conservative Catholic
theology does not consider the doctrine that the Words of Institution are the “forma
sacramenti” to be a doctrine “de fide” but only a “sententia certa”. That means that this
35

33
Kollmann, Friihchristliche Mahlfeier. To a similar result comes the thesis on the concept of eucharist in the
Gospel of John by my student Franz Halbmayr.
34
27 Philo, e.g. Legum allegoria III, 175-178; JosAs 16, 15f.: "bread ofIife" and "cup of immortality".
35
L. Ott, Grundriß der katholischen Dogmatik, Freiburg-Basel- Wien (8. Auflage) 1970, 468.
 13

doctrine is taken for sure but that it has not been definitely dogmatized. Therefore there is
enough space left for new insights. And indeed, the theological approach to this question
has significantly changed. 36

According to the common conviction of the Old Church as well as of contemporary

Catholic theologians the presence of Christ in the eucharistic elements is due to the whole
eucharistic celebration and not to any single formula. Therefore also the validity of the
celebration cannot depend on one decisive text only. Basil the Great extends this power of
consecration to whatever is spoken in the eucharistic liturgy. 37

But even seen from a traditional Western standpoint the Anaphora of the Apostles
Addai and Mari proves all intentions of a eucharistic celebration. In spite of the absence of
an institution narrative it speaks of the body and the blood of Christ, it is essentially related
to the Easter events and is understood as a sacrifice.

A prayer says:

“... in commemoration of the body and blood of thy Christ which we offer unto thee on
thy pure and holy altar as thou hast taught us...” 38

Moreover, there is also an explicit anamnesis of the Easter events: The priest speaks:

“And we also, o my Lord, thy weak and ji-ail and miserable servants who are gathered
together in thy name, both stand before thee at this time and have received the example
which is delivered unto us, rejoicing and praising and exalting and commemorating
and celebrating this great and lifegiving and divine mystery of the passion and the
death and the burial and the resurrection of our Lord our Saviour Jesus Christ.”

Last not least, the Catholic Church already did officially agree to sacramental communion
with the Syrian Orthodox Church. which of course implies that her Eucharist is
39

acknowledged to be valid, although – as we have seen – some anaphoras do not repeat the
words of Jesus spoken at the institution of the Eucharist. Therefore the same may also be
36
29 cf. J. Betz, Eucharistie und Patristik (Schmaus-Grillmaier, Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte, IV, 4a),
Freiburg-Basel-Wien 1979.
37
Basilius of Cesare a, De Spiritu Sancto 27,66 (PG 32, 188B; SC 17, 233f): “Which of the saints has left us
in writing the words of the epiclesis at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing?
For we don't limit ourselves to what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and
conclusion we add other words as having the power for the mystery, and these we derive from unwritten
doctrine.”
38
Brightman, Liturgies I, 286, I. 13 - 287, I. 3.
39
Common Declaration of H. H. John Paul II and H. H. Mar Ignatius Zakka I Iwas of June 23rd 1984,
published in: Wort und Wahrheit, Revue for Religion and Culture, Supplementary Issue Number 5 (Fifth
Ecumenical Consultation ...), Vienna 1989, 166-168.
 14

possible in the case of the Church of the East. And moreover, if the Church of the East is
40

truely an apostolic Church her eucharist cannot be denied the validity throughout the
centuries. Decisive for the presece of Christ in the Eucharist is the intention of the Church.

5. Ecumenical Relevance of the East Syrian Tradition

Catholic and Orthodox Christians should be exiremely thankful to the “Church of the East”
for having saved an original and authentic tradition totally displaced and forgotten in all
other branches of Christianity.
The existence of Anaphoras without the Words of institution or even without any
reference to the institution like that of Addai and Mari must essentially change the
traditional Catholic concept of the Holy Mass. But likewise also the traditional orthodox
doctrine that the consecration is performed by the epiclesis is concerned by the Anaphora
of the Apostles Addai and Mari because of the unusual character which this prayer here
shows. For the Holy Spirit is called down here onto the eucharistic elements without any
reference to the body and the blood of Christ:

“And may there come, 0 my Lord, thine Holy Spirit and rest upon this offering of thy
servants and bless it and and hallow it that it be to us, 0 my Lord, for the pardon of
offences and the remission of sins and for the great hope of the resurrection ji-om the
death and for new life in the kingdom of heaven with all those who have been well
passing in thy sight.“ 41

In accordance with the common conviction of the Orthodox Churches the Church of the
East considers this epiclesis of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari to be the prayer of
consacration. However, also the orthodox concept of consacration does not properly
42

correspond to the texts of this old liturgy. The Holy Spirit here is called down not in order
to make bread and wine body and blood of Christ but to make the offerings a means of
40
In the new discussion after the Vatikan document of 2001 scarcely new arguments in favour of the validity
have beeen added. One of the most remarkable ones was that already under Pius XI the Malankara Catholic
Church after her union with Rome was not obliged to change the respective Anaphoras: Martin Lugmayr,
Anaphoren ohne „direkte“ Wandlungsworte bereits unter Pius XI. (1922-1939). Ein Beitrag zu einer aktuellen
Diskussion, in: Una-Voce-Korrespondenz 33 (2003) 227-244. In this Article Lugmayr deals intensively with
the history of the Thomas Christians in India and the origin of the Malankara Catholic Church in 1930. In this
Church the West Syrian Anaphoras of Peter, Xystus, Dionysius Barsaliba und Johannes Chrysostomus are in
use till today. A chhange was never imposed to them by the Vatican. Although adapted mass books had been
printed the use of the old ones was never forbidden: Lugmayr o.c. 238-243. It is remarkable that Lugmayr
being a member of the conservative religious community ”St. Peters Bruderschaft” vindicates the Vatican
document of 2001 so fervently.
41
Brightman 287, I. 20-36
42
W. de Vries, Sakramententheologie bei den Nestorianem (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 133), Roma 1947,
233.
 15

forgiveness and eternal life for us. Obviously the Anaphora of the Apostles gives support
neither to the Catholic nor to the Orthodox traditional positions.
The evidence of the Anaphora of the Apostles Addai and Mari can lead us to the
insight that the old controversy between Catholics and Orthodox whether the presence of
Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist is effected by the Words of Institution or by the
Epiclesis of the Holy Spirit indeed is meaningless. It is not by this or by that formula but by
the whole celebration with its High Prayer or anaphora that Christ becomes present in the
eucharistic gifts of bread and wine, not least according to his promise: "Where there are
two or three gathered in my name I am inmidst of them" (Mt 18,20).
Some time ago the Church of the East decided to print the Anaphora of the Apostles in
her missals with the institution narrative inserted on a page without numbers and many
priests indeed use this text in order to prevent all doubts on the validity of their Eucharist. 43

One can understand that. It would hardly make a problem for the Church of the East to also
make this addition obligatory as Chaldean and Malabar Catholics have done long ago on
dogmatical reasons. But this would deprive us definitely of an important and compulsive
motive for the development of a more comprehensive and more ecumenical concept of the
Eucharist in our own Church.
When the Conference on Faith and Order of the World Council of Churches published
1982 in Lima the “Declarations of Convergence” on the sacraments of baptism, eucharist
and ordination this was a great progress in the ecumenical efforts for unity. In accordance
to the Western tradition this declaration confirmed the central importance of the words of
institution: “The words and acts of Christ at the institution of the eucharist stand at the
heart of the celebration.” To meet also the position of the Orthodox churches this
44

statement was balanced out by a stress on the importance of the epiclesis and the epicletic
character of the whole celebration. But the commentary on this point seems to be open also
45

for the East Syrian tradition, although it is not explicitely taken into account:

"In the early liturgies the whole 'prayer action' was thought as bringing about the
reality promised by Christ. The invocation of the Spirit was made both on the

43
According to Mar Bawai, the second holy synod in the patriarchate of Mar Dinkha IV (Baghdad/Iraq, 1978)
decreed to allow priests and bishop celebrants of the Holy Conununion to recite the words of the institution
narrative during their Eucharistic celebration.According to Mar Aprem, the decision to print missals with the
institution narrative on a page without number was taken in 1957 under Patriarch Darmo. This was then first
realized in 1964. Originally the Anglicans were the first to print missals including the narrative institution for
the Church of the East. One edition caine out in Uonia in 1890, another in Mosul in 1927.
44
Eucharist, 13, in: Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry. Faith alld Order Paper No. HI, World Council of
Churches, Geneva 1982, 12.
45
Eucharist, 14, in: Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, 13.
 16

community and on the elements of bread and wine. Recovery of such an understanding
may help us overcome our difficulties concerning a special moment of consecration.” 46

The witness of the Church of the East through its Anaphora of the Apostles Addai and Mari
can facilitate this recovery and promote the theological awareness of the Catholic and the
Orthodox Churches in this hopeful direction.

So far in the substance my plead for a recognition of the Eucharist of the Church of the East
by the Catholic Church in 1994. Needless to say that everybody involved in the dialogue
with the Church of the East was very happy when the recognition was finally declared in
2001 by the guidelines quoted at the beginning of my paper. But besides the immediate
purpose of the Vatican guidelines for the mutual participation of Chaldeans and Church of
the East faithful in their Eucharist in cases of necessity the Vatican document has indeed
opened the door in the Catholic Church for the appreciation and recognistion of different
traditions even in the very center of Christian life, in the celebration and consecration of
Eucharist. How far the door is even opened to a restauration of the original tradition of the
Chaldean Church and of the Syro-Malabar Church themselves I do not know. That will
certainly depend to a great extend also on pastoral deliberations. But at least on theological
reasons a full restauration of their original East Syrian Liturgy should no longer be
impossible.

46
Eucharist, Commentary (14), in: Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, 13.
17