The Sacrament of the Holy Leaven (Malka) in the Assyrian Church of the East

ORIENTALIA CHRISTIANA ANALECTA 295 Editor Edward G. Farrugia Managing Editor Jarosław Dziewicki et LILAMÉ sul sito intern to is u q ac l’ er p e.org ponibile ttp://www.lilam h : ri b Il volume è dis li go lo al cata > Link diretto al volume: goria=37 > Link diretto hp?idSottocate .p co n le _e go talo rcuiti di ame.org/ita/ca e i principali ci it am http://www.lil tr e m lu quistare il vo Pal. È possibile ac o e sistema Pay carta di credit istica.it w.prexeuchar w /w :/ p tt h i: n Per informazio The Anaphoral Genesis of the Institution Narrative in Light of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari Cesare Giraudo (ed.) ISBN 978-88-97789-34-5 © 2013 Pontiicio Istituto Orientale & Valore Italiano™ – Tutti i diritti riservati www.lilame.org | www.valoreitaliano.com | www.unipio.org Riproduzione vietata ai sensi di legge (art. 171 della legge 22 aprile 1941, n. 633) Impaginazione e graica: Cesare Giraudo Prima di Copertina: “La Cena mistica” (miniatura di Tur Abdin; foto e didascalie a p. 482) Quarta di Copertina: “Il racconto istituzionale” (scorcio del Vat. Syr. 66; foto originale a p. 486) L’editore è a disposizione di eventuali aventi diritto – con esclusivo riferimento a fotograie – con i quali non è stato possibile comunicare, nonché per eventuali omissioni o inesattezze nella citazione delle fonti. CEsarE giraudo (ed.) The Anaphoral Genesis of the Institution Narrative in Light of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari Acts of the International Liturgy Congress Rome 25-26 October 2011 La genesi anaforica del racconto istituzionale alla luce dell’anafora di Addai e Mari Atti del Congresso Internazionale di Liturgia Roma 25-26 Ottobre 2011 La genèse anaphorique du récit de l’institution à la lumière de l’anaphore d’Addaï et Mari Actes du Congrès International de Liturgie Rome 25-26 Octobre 2011 Edizioni Orientalia Christiana TM VALORE ITALIANO Lilamé TM a Sua Santità Benedetto XVI ora Vescovo emerito di Roma alla cui autorevolezza e lungimiranza allorché presiedeva la Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede la Chiesa Cattolica deve il riconoscimento dell’Eucaristia celebrata nella Chiesa Assira d’Oriente con la veneranda Anafora dei Beati Apostoli Addai e Mari a Sua Santità Papa Francesco oggi Vescovo della Chiesa di Roma che presiede nella carità tutte le Chiese per confermare i fratelli e guidarli a un fecondo dialogo ecumenico in iduciosa obbedienza al Paraclito che attraverso le differenze opera in favore dell’unità ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵƽǠƸܿ ǖ‫ܘ‬ ܵ ‫ܝ ܕ‬ǠLJ‫ܕ‬ ƣǁǠ ܼ ƣƵNJ ܼ ܼ ƽܼ ƯǞDŽ ܼ ƣǞƾܼ DŽ‫ܘ‬Ǥܼ ǝ ƣܵƾǔƾܼ Ʀ‫ܪ‬ ܵ ܿ ܸ ܵ ܵ ‫ ܹܬܿܗ‬ƲǢ ܵ ‫؛‬ƣܹƽǯ‫ ܕܐ ܼܬܘ‬ƣƵ̱NJƯLJ‫ܕ‬ ܼ Ƥ‫ܬ‬ƯǓܹ ‫ܕ‬ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ Ǎܵ ƣܵƾLJܵ Ưǝܿ džƽƢܹ ǖܵ ‫ܪܘ‬ Ʋǂ ̮ Ǐƽܼ ‫ܘ‬ƲDŽ ܼ ܵ ܼ ‫ܝ‬ǠLJ‫ ܹܬܗ ܕ‬ƲNJܼ Ǥܼ ƦƲƸDŽ ܼܼ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ̈ ܵ ‫؛‬ƣܹƽƯDžǁܼ ‫ ܕ‬džƾƧܹ Ʀ‫ ܕ‬ƣǁǠƽǠƸܼ ܿ ǖ ܿܵ ܵ ƲƸDŽ ܵ ‫ܬܗ‬ƲNJǤƦ ܿ ƾƩ ‫ܝ‬ǠLJ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܝ‬Ǡƾ ǢNj DŽ ‫ܐ‬ Ǐ ƾ Ʃ‫ܪ‬ Ʋ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܼܵ ܵܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ̈ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܿ ܵ ‫؛‬ƣܹƽǰƧDžLJ ƣܹƾƽǯƲǍ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ƿDž ܼ Ljܼ ƪܼ NJ‫ـ ܼܐ‬ljDŽƲƪNJ‫ ܕܐܪ‬ƣǖܹ ƲǞǎǖܸ ‫ ܘ ܹܪܫ ܼܐ‬ƣƸܹƾDŽƲǖǠƸƾܼ LJ ܵ ܵ ܵ ƤǤܵ ܼ ̈ƾƵܵ ƾܼ Džǡ Ƥ‫ ܼ ̈ܬ‬Ưܵ Ǔܹ ‫ ܕ‬ƥǰܹ ƾܼ Ǟƽܼ ܿ Ƥ‫ ܼ ܵܬ‬Ʋܵ Ǔܵ ǯ ܿ َܵ ܿ ‫ܿܕ‬ ƣDžܵ ƾܼ ƴ‫ ܼܿܘܕ‬ƣƦܵ ‫ ܼܪ‬Ƥ‫ܪ ܵܙ‬ƢDŽ njƾܼ Ʀܼ Ǡ̱ ǞLJ ܼ ܼ ܿ ‫ܬܗ‬ƲLJܵ ‫ ܿܘܕ‬ƱǢƴ‫ܕ‬ ܵ ‫ܗ‬ǤLjܵƾǝ‫ܘܕ‬ ܿ ƽܑ ‫ܢ‬Ǡܼܿ LJ‫ܕ‬ ܿ ܵƣƵƾܼ ǢLJ ‫ܥ‬ƲǢ ܼ ܿ ܹ ܼ ̈ ܹ ܼܿ ܼ ܵ ܵ ܹ ܼ ̈ ܿ ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ‫ܪܝ‬ƢLJ ‫ܝ‬ǠLJ‫ܝ ܼܐ ܼܕܝ ܘ‬ǠLJ ƣNjܹ Ʀܼ ƲƷ ܼܿ ܼ ƣƵܹ ƾܼ Džǡ‫ ܼܕ‬ƣǡ‫ܕ‬ƲǞƦ ܵ ƾNjǖ‫ ܿܕ‬ƣNJ̈ Ưܵ LjDŽǤLJ ܿ ܵ ‫܀‬ƣƵNJ̱ ƯLJ‫ܕ‬ Ƥ Ǥ ܼ ܼܼ ܼ ܹ ̱ ܼ a Sua Santità Mar Dinkha IV Catholicos-Patriarca della Chiesa Assira d’Oriente a Sua Beatitudine Mar Louis Raphaël I Sako Patriarca di Babilonia dei Caldei a Sua Beatitudine Mar George Alencherry Arcivescovo Maggiore di Ernakulam-Angamaly dei Siro-Malabaresi venerati Pastori delle Chiese Apostoliche che celebrano il Mistero grande e tremendo della passione, morte e risurrezione del Signore Nostro Gesù Cristo con l’Anafora dei Beati Apostoli Mar Addai e Mar Mari evangelizzatori delle regioni d’Oriente Prefazione Sono lieto di presentare all’attenzione dei cultori delle scienze teologiche i lavori emersi dal Congresso Internazionale di Liturgia, organizzato congiuntamente dal Pontiicio Istituto Orientale e dalla Pontiicia Università Gregoriana e svoltosi il 25-26 ottobre 2011. Si è trattato della risposta a una precisa richiesta della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede di «promuovere studi ampi e motivati [...] che aiutino a meglio comprendere il pronunciamento di questa Congregazione sulla cosiddetta Anafora di Addai e Mari», vale a dire la Dichiarazione Orientamenti per l’ammissione all’Eucaristia fra la Chiesa Caldea e la Chiesa Assira d’Oriente del 26 ottobre 2001. Con il riconoscimento della perfetta ortodossia dell’anafora giudeo-cristiana di Addai e Mari, considerata nella sua conigurazione originaria — ancora sprovvista del racconto istituzionale, ma provvista di un’anamnesi e di un’epiclesi di tutto rispetto —, il pronunciamento romano ha invitato i teologi a ripensare, non solo la genesi del racconto istituzionale anaforico, ma la stessa comprensione dell’Eucaristia, superando quelle formule e quei limiti metodologici che hanno spesso condizionato la comunione tra le Chiese. Dagli interventi fatti al Congresso, variamente declinati dai singoli Relatori, è emersa unanime la convinzione che la teologia odierna, se accetterà di confrontarsi con la lex orandi eucaristica, testimoniata da quell’autorevole «banco di prova» che rappresenta il formulario giudeo-cristiano di Addai e Mari, non solo non perderà nulla delle grandi conquiste della scolastica, ma le ritroverà in una luce a un tempo nuova e antica, in piena sintonia con la metodologia dei Padri, sia d’Oriente sia d’Occidente. Nel ringraziare i Relatori per i preziosi stimoli da loro offerti all’approfondimento delle esuberanti tradizioni orientali, sento il dovere di estendere la mia riconoscenza a tutti coloro che, in un modo o nell’altro, hanno collaborato alla realizzazione del presente volume. Ringrazio in particolare il prof. Edward Farrugia sj, per aver accolto gli Atti nella prestigiosa Collana “Orientalia Christiana Analecta”, il dott. Mario Pirolli, per aver aderito con entusiasmo al progetto della Coedizione, nonché i padri Claudiu Ciubotariu sj e Monteiro da Silva Ruberval osb, per aver consentito di tramandare alla storia una signiicativa porzione della loro documentazione fotograica. Roma, 26 ottobre 2013 Cesare Giraudo sj organizzatore del Congresso e curatore degli Atti Excerpt from C. giraudo (ed.), The Anaphoral Genesis of the Institution Narrative in Light of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, Acts of the International Liturgy Congress, Rome 25-26 October 2011, OCA 295, Edizioni “Orientalia Christiana” & Lilamé, Rome 2013 THE SACRAMENT OF THE HOLY LEAVEN (MALKĀ) IN THE ASSYRIAN CHURCH OF THE EAST Mar awa royEl Bishop of California, Secretary of the Holy Synod of the Assyrian Church of the East 1. INTRODUCTION The most important liturgical anomaly in the East and West today is, by far, in my opinion, the Holy Leaven (or Malkā); it is a sacramental practice that is only observed by the Assyrian Church of the East. In his Liber Margaritae (Margānīthā),1 Mar ’Abdīšō’ of Nisibis (d. 1318) enumerates the sacramental list of the Church of the East, ive of which are in agreement with the Churches of both East and West.2 This list includes two sacraments that are not recognized as such by the rest of Christendom, namely, the Holy Leaven and the Holy Cross. The irst of these is not recognized by any other Church at all, and the second sacrament is at best considered to be a ‘sacramental’ in the Roman Catholic Church. According to the metropolitan of Nisibis, the Churches that do not have the sacrament of the Holy Leaven (Malkā) count marriage as the seventh sacrament.3 The Holy Leaven is preserved in the liturgy of the Assyrian Church of the East with the utmost care and diligence. Because of the antiquity of this sacramental practice, its origins are hidden in the memory of the Church’s apostolic tradition and practice from time immemorial. It is highly venerated because of the direct link it bears to the very Eucharist which Christ instituted and celebrated for the irst time at the Last Supper. Therefore, it is to be understood in conjunction with that liturgical practice which is the summit of the Church’s prayer and offering, the Holy Eucharist. 1 See J.S. assEMani (ed.), Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana... de Scriptoribus Syris..., vols. I-III/1-2, Rome 1719-1728 (reprinted Piscataway, NJ 2002), here vol. III/1, 352-360. 2 I.e.: Priesthood, Baptism, Holy Chrism, Eucharist and Absolution. 3 Mar Eshai shiMun (editor & English translator), The Book of Marganitha (The Pearl), On the Truth of Christianity: Written by Mar O’Dishoo Metropolitan of Suwa (Nisibin) and Armenia. Together with several pertinent passages quoted from the various Church Fathers; a successive lift of the patriarchs of the East; and an index of Biblical and ecclesiastical writings, Trichur 1965, 46; cf. G.P. BadgEr, Nestorians and Their Rituals: With the Narrative of A Mission to Mesopotamia and Coordistan, vol. II, Devon 1852 (reprinted London 1987), 405. 364 AWA ROYEL 2. ORIGINS OF THE MALKĀ In the sixth chapter of Part Four (‘Of the Church Sacraments’) of his Margānīthā, Mar ’Abdīšō’ of Nisibis treats the sacrament which is known as the ‘Holy Leaven,’ or Malkā. He states that this sacrament was handed down to all the Churches in the East by the blessed apostles St. Thomas and St. Bartholomew of the Twelve, and Mar Addai and Mar Mari of the Seventy.4 Mar ’Abdīšō’ further makes the statement that those of the Western Church who claim that St. Peter did not hand down this tradition to the West, back up this statement by saying that if this were indeed the case, then one of two must be correct: 1) either the apostles were not in agreement as to their mode of evangelizing, or 2) our tradition is false.5 The fact remains that the ‘Easterners’ (i.e., Church of the East) did not change anything which they received from the blessed apostles of our Lord themselves, but rather diligently and with great care kept and preserved all that was handed down to the Churches which the disciples evangelized; not even in persecutions nor in the face of martyrdom did they change any creed or belief handed down by an apostle of Jesus. Mar ’Abdīšō’ makes this beautiful statement, irm in the understanding of apostolic tradition: Had this Leaven not been of Apostolical transmission they would not, most assuredly, have endured all these aflictions and trials to keep it together with the orthodox faith.6 The logical conclusion that Mar ’Abdīšō’ comes to in this matter is that, indeed, it is the Westerners who have changed the substance of the faith, and in essence had done away with the Malkā. The proof that he puts forth is the fact that had not the Western Church changed what they received from the apostles of Christ and become subject to (what he affectionately calls) ‘heretical kings,’ they would have kept the faith. For example, the fact that both the ‘Franks’ (i.e. Roman Catholics) and the ‘Romans’ (i.e. Greek Orthodox) differ in the matter used for the Eucharistic Oblation, namely: the former makes use of unleavened bread, while the latter leavened; had they indeed kept the apostolic usage unchanged, there would not be two different usages among them in this regard. The fathers of the Church of the East, therefore, irmly believe and teach that the Holy Leaven, known as the Malkā (which literally means ‘King’) is a sacrament of apostolic origin. However, due to a lack of more ancient documents of the Church, the earliest written attestation to the existence of the Holy Leaven, or Malkā, are the liturgical canons of Patriarch Mar Yōhannān (John) V, bar Abgare (900905). Canon 15 of this patriarch’s liturgical directives decrees: 4 5 6 shiMun, Marganitha, 58. shiMun, Marganitha, 58. shiMun, Marganitha, 59. THE HOLY LEAVEN IN ASSYRIAN CHURCH OF THE EAST 365 For it pleased the Holy Spirit, and he commanded: that those who make the dough of the qsāthā [i.e. hosts to be baked] preserve two leavenings, the one consecrated and the other ordinary. But the consecrated one is the one that is necessary for the hosts, and these things are so by the word of our Lord.7 The irst reference to the Malkā exists in this canon, which refers to it simply as the ‘Holy (i.e. consecrated) Leaven.’ Now, this does not mean that the sacrament of the Holy Leaven did not exist before the year 900 AD; however it simply is not mentioned or recorded in any document before that year. The use of the term Malkā in reference to the Eucharistic loaves is also mention in Canon 9 of the same Patriarch Mar Yōhannān; this canon reads: For it has pleased the Holy Spirit, and he commanded: that no one from among the presbyters and deacons who minister the altar are to make from the dough loaves of lour — while it is the king (Malkā) — of dark wheat, and neither is it beitting that they should make the king (Malkā) [to be] an enslaved Ethiopian servant, but rather a ‘white’ [i.e. Caucasian] Roman; and these things are so by the word of our Lord.8 The use of the word Malkā here is in direct contract with the ‘enslaved Ethiopian servant,’ or dark lour (presumably, whole-wheat) and the intention is to impress upon the clergy who minister the altar that at no time is the bread of the Eucharistic loaves to be made of whole-wheat lour, but of pure, white lour. In the canons ascribed to Mar Gīwargīs Metropolitan of Athor (Arbel) from 938 to 960 AD, the following liturgical scenario is brought forward in which there is a mention of the holy leaven: I have seen sacristans who knead the dough (qsāthā) with the profane leavening in the eventide, and at the nocturnal service they take half of the dough and bake the hosts in a profane manner [i.e. without the holy leaven], and the other half they sign with the holy leaven [= Malkā] and bake it [and bring it] up to the altar. They put forth the pretext that they give from the profane hosts to the pagans and to children, who are negligent in regards to keeping them and the crumbs which fall from them, and there are times that they are consumed after having taken food and drink.9 The English translation is that of the present writer. For the original Syriac, see: J.E.Y. KElaita (ed.), The Liturgy of the Church of the East. Compared in details with many ancient mss., which their name & date is given in the Syriac Introduction, Mosul 1928; reprinted Chicago 2002, 213. According to J.S. Assemani, this is number as ‘Canon 12;’ see assEMani, Bibliotheca Orientalis III/1, 241. 8 KElaita, The Liturgy, 211. According to J.S. Assemani, this is ‘Canon 10;’ see assEMani, Bibliotheca Orientalis III/1, 240-241. 9 assEMani, Bibliotheca Orientalis III/1, 242; W.C. van unniK, Nestorian Questions on the Administration of the Eucharist by Isho’yahb IV. A contribution to the history of the Eucharis in the Eastern Church, Haarlem 1937 (reprinted Amsterdam 1970), 171 (the English translation is that of the present writer, although van Unnik has already executed the English translation). This question belongs to the collection of liturgical ‘Questions 7 366 AWA ROYEL The important note in the quote just given is the technical liturgical word utilized in the Church of the East for the Eucharistic dough is qsāthā. Literally, it means ‘a broken portion’ or ‘fragment.’ In its original liturgical setting, it refers to the Eucharistic hosts as they are actually being baked, that is, the process from apportioned dough to baked hosts. The term qsāthā corresponds directly to the Greek τ̀ κλ́σμα, which in Didache 9:3 refers to the fragmentary bread which is to be hallowed.10 Although the Eucharistic loaves collectively are referred to as the qsāthā, they may not, though, (as a matter of strict liturgical practice) be fragmented until after the epiclesis. Whereas in Didache 9, assuming that it is indeed describing the Eucharist, the bread which is hallowed is ‘fragmented bread,’ in the practice of the Church of the East the Eucharistic bread which is brought up to the altar for consecration may not be broken or fractured in any way, at all (at the risk of becoming invalid matter for consecration!), even though it is referred to as the qsāthā, the ‘broken bread’! It is interesting to note that in the Pšettā New Testament which mentions the feeding of the 5,000 (Matthew 14:20-21; Mark 6:43; Luke 9:13-17; John 6:13) and the 4,000 (Matthew 15:37-38; Mark 8:8) respectively, the word for “fragments of bread” does not vary. With regard to the feeding of the 5,000, the Syriac term for “fragments of bread” in Matthew 14:20 and Luke 9:17 is qsāye, the substantive of the Syriac verb from which the diminutive qsāthā stems. In the case of the feeding of the 4,000, the term used in Matthew 15:37 is also qsāye. This term may in fact have been preserved in the liturgical practice of the Church of the East from the early centuries (at least, from the time of the writing of the Didache), which depicts the Eucharistic celebrations of Syria or Mesopotamia in the late 1st to early 2nd centuries. 3. THE MALKĀ: A LEAVENING? The sacrament of the Malkā has always been referred to as the ‘Holy Leaven,’ its earliest epithet. However, the question begged is this: just what kind of leavening is the Malkā after all? Naturally, in our present social context we think of a ‘leavening’ as being the fermenting agent that effects the rising of bread and bread products. In the New Testament scriptures, leaven has been seen as metaphoric for the Kingdom of God: “Another parable He & Answers’ which are ascribed to George of Arbel. Cf. A. BauMstarK, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, Bonn 1922, 239. These liturgical questions are found in the manuscript Vatican Syriac 150 (1708/1709 AD). However, as van Unnik has aptly shown already in his thesis of 1937, these questions are to be properly ascribed to Īšō‘yahb IV. 10 For the edition of the Greek text, see: W. rordorf & A. tuiliEr (eds.), La doctrine des douze apôtres, in SC 248 1978; revised edition SC 248bis, 1998. For the English translation, see: K. niEdErwiMMEr (English translation), The Didache: A Commentary, Minneapolis 1998. THE HOLY LEAVEN IN ASSYRIAN CHURCH OF THE EAST 367 spoke to them: ‘The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal till it was all leavened,’” (Matthew 13:33; Luke 13:20-21). When referring to the Holy Leaven, the liturgical tradition of the Church of the East refers to origins. The presence of the Malkā in the Eucharistic dough brings that dough into ‘liturgical connection,’ beyond the limits of space and time, with the bread of the irst Eucharist. Foundationally, what is important to remember is that for each of the two ‘Sacraments of Initiation’ (i.e. baptism and the Eucharist), in the Assyrian Church of the East there is a ‘leaven’ (khmīrā) that comes by Tradition from the apostles of our Lord themselves. The reason for this ‘leaven’ with regard to these two essential sacraments is twofold: 1) in order to connect the sacramental act of the Church with the Lord of the sacraments, Jesus Christ and his irst institution of these same two sacraments; 2) in order to perfect (šumlāyā) the consecration of these sacraments by the priesthood in the liturgy of the Church. For the sacrament of baptism, this ‘leaven’ is the Holy Oil, also known as the ‘Oil of the Apostles;’ this is parallel to the Myron of the other apostolic Churches. However, since the Holy Oil of Chrismation (used exclusively for baptism, and no other liturgical purpose) comes from the apostles themselves, it is not in need of being consecrated on an annual basis (e.g. on Maundy Thursday) as in the other traditions; rather, it is simply ‘increased’ at every celebration of the baptismal rite, when the freshly consecrated oil which remains after the administration of the sacrament is returned to the vile (called the ‘Horn of Baptism,’ or Qarnā) which contains the Holy Chrism. The ‘leaven’ for the sacrament of baptism is already mentioned in the 6th century canonical sources of the Church of the East. In Canon 17 of the Letter of Mar Īšō’yahb the Catholicos to Ya’qob, Bishop of the Island of Darai, Mar Īšō‘yahb I of ‘Arzōn (patriarch 581-595 AD) mentions the Holy Chrism as being necessary and exclusive for the administration of baptism: That the Oil of Anointing which is set apart for absolving baptism is not allowed to be given for the use of other things, but only for baptism: the holy Oil of Anointing, which by tradition is kept in the church in all regions, is powerfully and typically a mystery of the putting on of the ‘adoption of sonship’ and of incorruptibility, and the promise of the anointing of the Holy Spirit, which those who are accounted worthy of holy baptism receive in a hidden manner, and by which they are begotten divinely to immortality. Because of this, it is commanded and decreed that it may never be given for the use of other things, but only for divine baptism, for which it is reserved and kept. Therefore, whoever gives it and takes it — excepting for baptism — both shall be anathematized until they are healed by repentance, and by agreement they are absolved. For as no one is allowed to employ the chalices and holy patens and vessels of the holy liturgy for the use of 368 AWA ROYEL other things, so also it has been decreed and held for the Oil of Anointing from of old, and it shall obtain forever as it has been held.11 In like manner, the ‘leaven’ for the other ‘Sacrament of Initiation’ (both of which were established by the Lord Jesus Christ himself) is the Holy Leaven, or Malkā, for by it the Eucharistic bread that is baked for consecration in the liturgy is signed and ‘conirmed,’ or perfected. Being the two most important sacraments instituted by Christ, both baptism and the Eucharist enjoy a ‘leaven’ which is preserved in the Church of the East for the perfecting (šumlāyā) of these two sacraments. It is probably referred to as the Malkā because the vast majority of the adherents of the Assyrian Church of the East were living under rulers who were not Christian monarchs. Therefore, in the absence of a Christian king to not only rule over the faithful but to also guard them from harm as well, the Church saw it itting to refer to this most important leaven as the king which we possessed. 4. THE WITNESS OF THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH OF THE EAST TO THE MALKĀ When discussing the theology behind the Holy Leaven, one must go straight to the source, Jesus Christ. The scene of the Last Supper — Jesus gathered around his disciples eating the Passover together before his arrest, trial and cruciixion — is where we begin to speak about the Malkā (see Matthew 26). After the Lord observed the Mosaic Passover, then he instituted his own Passover, now denoting the movement of humanity from the bondage of sin and death to the freedom of life eternal in Christ Jesus, seen as the ‘New Moses.’ The theology of the sacrament of the Holy Leaven, therefore, is grounded in the Last Supper itself. The tradition of the Malkā was written in the early 13th century by the well-known monk Yōhannān bar Zō’bī.12 He was a priest-monk of the monastery of Beth Qōqā and a student of the celebrated monk and scholar Šem’ōn of Shanqalabad,13 who is the author of a work on the Eucharist and baptism, attributed to a certain “Šem’ōn Kepā.” 11 M.J. BirniE (English translator), The Eastern Synods (Synodicon Orientale), pro manuscripto, Seattle 1999, 131. Cf. J.B. ChaBot (editor & French translator), Synodicon Orientale ou recueil des Synodes Nestoriens, Paris 1902, 186 (Syriac text); 445 (French translation). 12 For more on his life and works, see: BauMstarK, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, 310; W. wright, A Short History of Syriac Literature, London 1894 (reprinted Piscataway, New Jersey 2001), 258-259. Cf. assEMani, Bibliotheca Orientalis II, 455; III/1, 307-309. Bar Zō’bī was the master of the celebrated Syrian Orthodox author bar Jacob bar Šakkō of the monastery of Mor Mattai near Mosul; Jacob was taught Syriac grammar by bar Zō’bī at the monastery of Beth Qōqā in Arbel. 13 Modern-day Šaqlāwā in northern Iraq. THE HOLY LEAVEN IN ASSYRIAN CHURCH OF THE EAST 369 The tradition concerning the Holy Leaven recorded by Yōhannān bar Zō’bī is the following: After our Lord was baptized and began his economy, he called John the son of Zebedee, and made him the ‘beloved Disciple.’ When he completed his dispensation, and drew near to the Passion and death, on the night of the Friday of the Passion, he handed over his Passover to his disciples. For, as he handed over the mystery of his Passover, in the bread and wine as it is written, to each he gave a single ‘coal’ [i.e. particle of the Eucharist], but to John he gave two. He made John to eat one and to keep the other as a leaven, which he preserved, and to be placed in the Church for a memorial. But when the Jews arrested our Lord in order to condemn him, the disciples were afraid and hid, and John remained by himself. But when they cruciied him on the Wood, along with the malefactors in order to deride him; John was there also, to see what would be his [Jesus’] end; for the chief priests ordered, to bring down the crosses and to also brake their legs, that if they were alive they should die. The soldiers came and broke the legs of the malefactors; and as they came to our Lord, they saw that he was dead and they did not break his legs. Rather, one of the soldiers struck his side with a lance, and at that moment there came forth water and blood, and John saw them. For, the blood is the symbol of the [Eucharistic] mysteries of the Body and Blood, which exist in the Church. And the water is a sign of the rebirth of the faithful. It was John alone who saw them, the separation of the water and blood. And he testiied in truth (even) as he said that we might believe his witness [cf. John 19:35]. He saw the separation which he declared, for they were not taken together, rather each one of them was taken by itself. He took the [drops of] blood by the particle, which was kept from the Passover. And he took the water in a vessel, that which John [the Baptist] had handed down to him. The blood of his body was mixed, with that bread which he [Jesus] called his Body; and the water from his side was mingled with the water from his baptism. After he rose from the grave, he ascended in glory to his Father, and sent the grace of the Spirit upon his disciples and made them wise. And he commanded his apostles to place in the Churches the leaven which they took from his Body that it may be for the [Eucharistic] mysteries and for baptism. But when his disciples gathered, in order to go out for the discipling of the Nations; they took this leaven and divided it in portions amongst them. They took pure olive oil and mixed it with the water in the vessel, and they distributed in horns according to their measure, that it may be for the leaven of baptism. They ground the particle which was soaked with the blood from the side of our Lord, and they mixed it with lour and salt, and they divided it in vessels amongst them; that it might be in the Church for a leaven of the Body and Blood of Christ. This account which I have narrated, in which is placed the sign of Peter, and I copied it even as it is, for the beneit of those who come upon our writing. Giving testimony to this account, [is] the Priest-monk Shimun [Simon], who recounted it to me and showed its text as well.14 14 The English translation is that of the present writer. The text is that of the Modern Assyrian translation of the original Syriac; see I. rEhana (ed.), The Book of the Harmonious Textile, Chicago 1990, 85-89. 370 AWA ROYEL The history and account of the origin of the Holy Leaven as recounted by Mar Yōhannān bar Zō’bī in essence stems from the memrā of Šem’ōn Kepā on the mysteries of the Eucharist and baptism, documented by Rabban Šem’ōn of Shanqalabad. Rabban Yōhannān, in fact, mentions this at the very outset of the account he writes in his treatise quoted above, the Zqōrā Mlakmā, or ‘Harmonious Textile.’ This enigmatic Šem’ōn Kepā has a pertinent work attributed to him: The Questions of Mar Šem’ōn Kepā on the Divine Mysteries and Baptism, as to Where They Originate From.15 J. Assemani states that this Šem’ōn Kepā and the Šem’ōn who was the master of Yōhannān bar Zo’bi are one and the same, and it is to him whom he refers in his chapter ‘On Baptism and Eucharist’ found in the Harmonious Textile.16 The select passages of the Questions and Answers of Šem’ōn Kepā are found in the manuscript Mingana 604 (ff. 74v-82r).17 At the beginning of this treatise, Šem’ōn Kepā makes this statement: Again: I write select passages from the book of Questions and Answers of Mar Šem’ōn Kepā on the divine Mysteries; I mean the Holy Leaven and of Holy Baptism (from where this baptism with which true Christians baptize today comes from). In the same manner that Mar Theodore the Interpreter of the divine Scriptures wrote and informs us these things in that book which is called ‘The Depths.’ And Mar Ephrem testiies to us in the book ‘Cave of Treasures.’ And Mar John the Golden Mouth [i.e. Chrysostom], he who destroyed all types of blasphemes and the division of the Adversary concerning the worshipful dispensation (economy) of our Lord Jesus Christ, and who requested of our Lord and he quickened our Lady Mary and John the Blessed Evangelist, and he conirmed the dubious of heart, mind and thought. And even as the Blessed John the Evangelist testiies 15 For life and works of Šem’ōn Kepā, see: BauMstarK, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, 310; wright, Syriac Literature, 257-258. Cf. assEMani, Bibliotheca Orientalis III/1, 562; Mingana 604 (1933 AD), ff. 75v-82v: ̈ ̈ .‫ܕ�� ܐ��ܐ ܐ����ܘܢ‬ ‫��ܐ��ܐ ܕ��� ����ܢ ���ܐ �� ܐ̈ܙܐ‬ ̣ ‫ܐ���ܐ ܘ����ܕ��ܐ‬ 16 assEMani, Bibliotheca Orientalis III/1, 562; cf. III/1, 309 (especially note 1). See BauMstarK, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, 310; wright, Syriac Literature, 258. According to a note in the Assyrian edition of the Hudrā, Šem’ōn of Shanqalabad wrote a chronicle in theyear 1200 of the Greeks, i.e. 889 AD. However, this seems to be to early a dating for the life of Šem’ōn, as he is attested to have been the teacher of Rabban Yōhannān bar Zō’bī, and probably a senior contemporary of Mar Īšō‘yahb bar Malkūn (died during the patriarchate of Mar Sabr’īšō‘ V, between 1226 and 1256). Rabban Šem’ōn, therefore, lived at the end of the 12th or beginning of the 13th century; see wright, Syriac Literature, 256-257; cf. BauMstarK, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, 310. 17 See A. Mingana, Catalogue of the Mingana Collection of Manuscripts, vol. I: Syriac and Garshūni Manuscripts, Cambridge 1933 (reprinted Piscataway 2008) col. 1157. I am indebted to His Grace Mar Emmanuel Joseph, bishop of the Diocese of Canada of the Assyrian Church of the East, for providing me with hardcopies of the pertinent folios of this manuscript. THE HOLY LEAVEN IN ASSYRIAN CHURCH OF THE EAST 371 to us in the holy Gospel that the very same John became the foundation of these divine mysteries of the Holy Leaven and holy baptism.18 Mar Šem’ōn Kepā states how the apostle Mar Addai received the Malkā: But when the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, came upon the disciples and made them wise with his gift — and he commanded them that they should proclaim the Good News of our Lord, just as he had commanded them: ‘Go and make disciples and baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; behold I am with you all the days, even unto the end of the world (Amen)’ [Matthew 28:19-20] — then Mar Addai, who was called Thaddeus one of the Twelve, by the permission of the Spirit was given [charge over] Edessa (which is the same Urhai). And when each one of the blessed apostles took of these divine mysteries of the Body and Blood of our Lord, the Holy Leaven from the fragment [literally, ‘coal’] of John the Evangelist, and from the horn of the water which gushed forth from the side of our Lord, holy baptism which conirms unto true life. These divine mysteries which were handed down for the absolution of our debts and sins, were [then] handed down by the very hands of the blessed apostles unto the ends of the earth, by the power of the Holy Spirit...19 With regard to the transmission of the Holy Leaven by the apostles to the Church in the East (i.e., the Persian Empire), Mar Šem’ōn Kepā states the following: But we the children of the land of the East have received the Holy Leaven and holy baptism from the hands of one of the Twelve apostles, and Addai handed down the divine mysteries to Mar Mari the apostle, and the same Mar Mari gave them to all the limits of the East. And, behold they are preserved and administered unto the age of ages by the might of our Lord Jesus Christ; amen. And know also, that there are those who say [concerning] the horn of anointing, the leaven and the anaphora of the apostles: that after the apostles gathered at Antioch, they baptized and consecrated the Eucharist, and from there they dispersed to the four corners. And, there are those who say that Addai, after he had taken it from Daniel, was sent by our Lord and broke [the Eucharist] and baptized, and he gave it to Mari, and Mari handed it down to the East. The Holy Thing is not consecrated at the hands of its recipients, and if it were consecrated at the hands of the recipients, what need 18 Cf. assEMani, Bibliotheca Orientalis III/1, 563. Mingana 604, f. 75v: 19 Mingana 605, f. 80v-81r. ̈ َ �� ‫ܕ��ܐ�ܐ ܕ��� ����ܢ ���ܐ‬ ‫ܐ̈ܙܐ‬ ‫ܕ� ̣� ̣ܒܐ‬ ‫ܬܘܒ‬ ̣ ̣ ̣ ‫��ܒ�ܐ ܿ ̈�ܐ ����ܐ‬ ݁ ̈ .�� ‫ܕ�� ܐ���ܐ ̤ܗܘܬ‬ ‫ܐ���ܐ܀‬ ̣ .‫ܐ���ܐ ����ܐ ����ܐ ܘܕ����ܕ��ܐ �����ܐ‬ ܿ ݁ ��� ‫ܕ��ܒ‬ ‫ ܘܐ���ܐ‬.‫����ܕ��ܐ ܗܕܐ ܕ���� ��� ����� ������ܐ ����ܐ‬ ̣ ̈ ̣̈ ̈ .‫ܕ����ܐ‬ ‫ܒ��ܒܐ ݁ܗܘ ܕ����ܐ‬ ���‫ ��ܕ� �� ܗ‬.‫ܐ���ܐ‬ ‫ܕ��ܒܐ‬ ‫ܬܐܘܕܘܪܘܣ �����ܐ‬ ̣ ̈ ݁ �� ‫ܕܒ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕܕܗܒ‬ ‫����ܐ‬ ����� ���‫ܘ‬ .‫ܐ‬ �� ‫ܕ���ܬ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ��ܒ‬ ����‫ܘ��ܕ �� ��� ܐ‬ ̤ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̈ ̈ ���� ‫ܕܐܒ� ܐ�����ܐ �� ��ܒ���ܬܐ ����ܬܐ ܕ��ܢ‬ ‫�� ܙ��� ܕ��ܕ�ܐ ܘ����ܐ‬ ̣ ݁ ‫��ܒ�ܐ ܐܘ������ܐ‬ ������‫���ܒ���ܐ ��ܬ� ���� ܘ‬ ����‫ܘ‬ ‫ܘܒ�ܐ ̣�� ��ܢ‬ ‫����ܐ‬ ̣ ̣ ̣ ݁ ̈ ‫��ܒ�ܐ ����� ܐܘ������ܐ‬ �� ‫ܕ��ܕ‬ ��‫ ܘܐ‬.‫������ ��ܐ ܘ���ܐ ܘܪ���ܐ‬ ‫ܘ��ܪ‬ ̣ ̣ ̈ ‫ܐ���ܐ ܕ����ܐ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ ��ܐ��ܐ ܕܗ��� ܐ̈ܙܐ‬ ����� ‫ܕܗܘ‬ ‫ܒ�ܘ�����ܢ ����ܐ‬ ̤ ̣ .����� ‫����ܐ ܘ����ܕ��ܐ‬ 372 AWA ROYEL would there be for the priest to consecrate the Holy Oblation. As a demonstration, as our Lord gave his Body to his disciples, he blessed [it], and by that blessing with which he blessed, the Bread is consecrated.20 Among the testimonies put forth by Šem’ōn Kepā are names of the more well-known fathers of the Church. In particular, he mentions the work titled Cave of Treasures,21 attributed to St. Ephrem (306-373). A reference is made to ‘leaven’ (khmīrā) that was handed down from Adam to his progeny. At the death of Methuselah, this leaven which originated with Adam was handed down to his son Noah: And when Methuselah lived 969 years, he became ill unto death. And Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth gathered around him, they and their wives, for none [others] had remained from all the generations of Seth which was not cast down, save for these eight souls alone — Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, they and their wives — for they did not generate children before the Flood. And as they gathered to him and were blessed by him, and he hugged and kissed them chastely while weeping on the fall of the sons of Seth, with tears running down from his eyes, he said: ‘From all the races and generations of the fathers, this remnant of these eight souls were spared. May the Lord God who formed our father Adam and Eve by themselves and who were multiplied and increased and all the blessed earth around Paradise was illed with them, may He multiply you and make you to increase. May all the earth be illed with you and may He protect you from the fearful wrath which is decreed upon this murmuring generation. May the gift which was given by God to our father Adam go out among you in this blessed land. And may these three measures of lour, which were given to our father Adam be to you for a leaven and may a blessing be kneaded to your seed and the seed of your sons. And Noah the blessed of the Lord ministered the kingship, priesthood and prophethood...22 The reference to the “three measures of lour” given by God to Adam and passed on to his progeny as a blessing is indeed stunning! The authorship of the Cave of Treasures is not certain, though the attribution goes back to Ephrem, however the work is keen on providing a detailed listing of the generations of the Hebrews, the names of which were lost during the Babylonian Captivity (ca. 589-539 BC). The author refers to the person to whom the work is intended as ‘My brother according to the Law,’ who gives us to believe that Ephrem had addressed this work to the Jews more than to Christians. Be that as it may, the reference to the leaven (khmīrā) is very interesting and indeed relevant for a holistic understanding of the origins of the Holy Leaven in the Assyrian Church of the East. 20 Mingana 604, f. 81v-82v. See C. BEzold (ed.), Die Schatzhöle. Nach dem syrischen Texte der Handschriften zu Berlin, London und Rom, nebst einer arabischen Version nach den Handschriften zu Rom, Paris und Oxford, Leipzig 1888. 22 See BEzold, Die Schatzhöle, 78-82. The English translation is that of the present writer. 21 THE HOLY LEAVEN IN ASSYRIAN CHURCH OF THE EAST 373 Around the same time as Mar Yōhannān bar Zo’bi, Mar Shlemōn of Khelāt, the metropolitan of Prāth Maišan (modern-day Basrah), writes an account of the tradition of the Malkā in his wellknown writing, The Book of the Bee.23 In Chapter 47, commenting on the feast of the Pentecost, Mar Šlemōn gives an account of the Holy Leaven, with some interesting details not found elsewhere in other accounts. I quote that chapter in its entirety: Concerning the descent of the Holy Spirit on the apostles in the Upper Room. Ten days after the ascension of our Lord, while the holy apostles were gathered in the Upper Room and awaiting the promise of our Lord, all of a sudden at the third hour [i.e. 9:00 am] of Sunday of the Pentecost, a mighty sound was heard, so much so that all men trembled and were amazed at the strength of that sound. The Upper Room was illed with a strong light which is unspeakable, and upon the head of each one of them the likeness of tongues of ire were seen. And a pleasant scent wafted from that place, which surpasses every fragrance that exists in this world, and the eyes of their heart were opened, and they began to interpret new things and to speak wonders or marvels in the languages of all nations. And when the Jews saw them, they thought to themselves that they had drunk new wine, and were drunk and out of their minds. And in that very day they participated in the mystery [sacrament] of the Body and Blood of our Lord and they consecrated the Leaven of the signing [rošmā] and the Oil of baptism. For [some] people hand down that when our Lord broke his Body for his disciples in the Upper Room, John the son of Zebedee hid [some] from his portion until our Lord rose from among the dead. And when our Lord was seen to his disciples and to Thomas, with them, and he said to Thomas ‘Bring your inger and put it in my side, and do not be without faith, but believe’ [John 20:26-27], and Thomas touched our Lord’s side with his inger and it fell upon the place of the [wound] of the spear, and the disciples saw the blood from the wounds of the spear and the nails, [then] John took that portion from the ‘coal’ (portion from the Body given at the Last Supper] and he wiped that blood with that portion. And the Easterners, Mar Addai and Mar Mari took that portion and consecrated by it this Leaven which has been handed down to us. But the other apostles did not take from it, for they said that ‘We will consecrate for ourselves whenever we wish.’ But [regarding] the Oil of baptism, there are those who have said that it had come from the oil with which kings were anointed, this, our Oil of baptism. And still others have said that [it comes from] the embalming ointments with which they embalmed our Lord, and many agree with this. Still others have said that when John took that portion of the Passover in his hand, it burst into lames and burned in his palm, and his palm sweated, and he took that sweat and kept it for the signing of baptism. 23 Mar Šlemōn is mentioned in the annals of the election and consecration of the catholicos-patriarch Mar Sabrisho’ IV in the year 1222 (who reigned until 1226). Šlemōn was originally from Khelāt (or ‘Akhlat’), in modern-day Armenia. For the original text and English translation see E.A.W. BudgE (ed.), The Book of the Bee. The Syriac Text edited from the manuscripts in London, Oxford and Munich, with English Translation, Oxford 1886; reprinted Piscataway, New Jersey 2006. 374 AWA ROYEL And we have heard this saying from mouth to ear, from a monk and visitator [i.e. cor-bishop], and we have not received it in writing...24 We see that the leavens for the two sacraments of the Eucharist and of baptism (which are used to ‘perfect’ the celebration of these same two sacraments according to the rites of the Church) have their origin in the person of Christ himself, and in his earthly dispensation for our salvation. First, the Holy Oil for baptism comes from the water which fell from the body of Christ at his baptism, and which was collected by John the Baptist and handed over to John the son of Zebedee (one of John the Baptist’s own disciples, who later followed Jesus). At the Last Supper, John the ‘Beloved Disciple’ received an extra portion of the Eucharistic bread, offered by Christ himself, and he hid this portion with him. At the cruciixion atop Golgotha, the only disciple to be present with the Lord in his suffering was John. When the side of Christ was pierced by the Roman soldier (see John 19:34), water and blood gushed forth from the Lord’s pierced side. According to the tradition of Mar Yōhannān bar Zō’bī, John the disciple collected the water in a vessel, and took the extra portion of the irst Eucharist he received from Christ and soaked it with the blood of the Lord on the Cross. Mar Šlemōn has a similar tradition written down, though he has an extra (unique) account for the origin of the Oil of the Apostles. These two leavens were kept by John and then later he distributed them to the disciples when they began to makes disciples of and to evangelize all nations. The water was mixed with pure oil and placed in vessels of ‘horn’ and given to the apostles, while the bread was ground and mixed with lour and salt, and then in turn distributed among the apostles for the making of the Eucharist. Thus, the importance of the two ‘leavens’ for baptism and the Eucharist is that they come from the person of Christ himself and from his own holy body, in fulillment of his earthly dispensation/economy (Mdabbrānūthā) for the salvation of mankind. The importance of the role of John the apostle (i.e. the Evangelist) is very important as well. Remember that he was formerly a disciple of John the Baptist, and John sent him to follow Jesus. Further, he was the ‘Beloved Disciple’ and it was he who was reclining on Jesus’ breast at the Last Supper (John 13:23). This closeness to Jesus, more than Peter and the other apostles, is very important. The fact that John was at the foot of the Cross during the cruciixion with Mary the Mother of Jesus while the other disciples had led and were in hiding is equally important. John was given the grace to see the vision of the water and blood issue forth from the side our Lord when it was pierced immediately after his death. We see earlier that Mar ’Abdīšō’ of Nisibis states that the disciples St. Thomas and St. Bartholomew of the Twelve, and Mar Addai and Mar Mari of the Seventy had handed this 24 This partial English translation is that of the present author. For the original see: BudgE, The Book of the Bee, 115-117; for the English translation, see: 102-103. THE HOLY LEAVEN IN ASSYRIAN CHURCH OF THE EAST 375 tradition of the Holy Leaven down to the Church of the East. The position of John the Evangelist in this tradition is unique because although he was not an apostle who evangelized the Church of the East, he is associated closely with this tradition. His closeness to the Lord Jesus was recognized among all the apostles, for he was called the ‘Beloved Disciple,’ he leaned on the Lord’s breast while they were at table for the Passover and was the last of the disciples to have passed this life (cf. John 21:23). 5. THE MALKĀ IN THE LITURGY OF THE CHURCH OF THE EAST The Malkā is made use of in two very important liturgies of the Church of the East that are closely connected to the Eucharist. It is, in fact, this understanding that will give us a correct theological perspective concerning the sacrament of the Malkā in the Assyrian Church of the East, namely its liturgical and sacramental function and theological raison d’être as an ‘extension of,’ or rather ‘connection to’ the Eucharist. In essence, the Malkā provides both a sacramental and scriptural connection between the Church’s Eucharistic celebration today and the foundational Eucharistic act of Christ at the Last Supper. This understanding of the Malkā highlights the importance of the theological dichotomy of Word and Sacrament with regard to the Eucharist, and the unity among the two. The irst usage of the Malkā proves to be a sacramental link between the Eucharist that the Church celebrates and offers today — in accord with and in faithfulness to the command of Christ to ‘Do this in remembrance of Me’ (Luke 22:19) — and the Eucharist which Jesus himself irst celebrated after he observed the Mosaic prescription of the Passover meal. The Malkā is the living witness acting as a ‘theologico-sacramental link’ between the Church’s Eucharist today and the irst Eucharist of the Lord Jesus himself observed in the Upper Room; and where does that link come from to us? Again, from the apostles who are the authentic witnesses of Jesus Christ, his holy doctrine and his suffering, death and resurrection. The presence of the sacrament of the Malkā as a ‘leaven’ for the Holy Eucharist takes us back to the irst Eucharistic observance, so that we truly believe and hold that we are observing the same Eucharistic celebration which Christ and his holy apostles irst observed and handed down to the generations of believers in the Church. In a more historico-theological understanding, it could very well be the case that as the early anaphorae of the apostolic Churches came into being and crystallized into written texts, the need was felt to provide not only a sacramental but a scriptural link between the Church’s actual Eucharistic celebration and the irst Eucharist of the Lord Jesus. In many of the other eastern and western Eucharistic prayers, this was achieved through the insertion of the Institution Narrative in the actual text of the anaphora. The pri- 376 AWA ROYEL mordial Eucharistic prayer of the Syriac-speaking Church of Edessa (that is, the Edessene dialect of Aramaic), the anaphora of SS. Addai & Mari (which originated from Jerusalem) did not contain the Institution Narrative in the original text of its prayer and never was the need felt to insert the Words of our Lord, which in the West had been seen historically as the ‘consecratory moment’ of the Eucharistic prayer. Rather, the words of Christ are found “in a dispersed euchological way... integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession.”25 Those who have studied this anaphora have proposed to speak of a ‘Quasi-Institution’ or ‘Quasi-Embolism’ being present in the ‘Institution-Anamnesis’ portion of the anaphora.26 To this day, only the Assyrian Church of the East has preserved the original text of the anaphora of SS. Addai & Mari unaltered!27 It is the oldest Eucharistic prayer still in use in all of Christendom today.28 The Malkā, therefore, was preserved by the Church of the East and understood as taking the place of the Institution Narrative in the Eucharistic prayer.29 During the service of the preparation of the Eucharistic bread, known as the ‘Rite of the Ornamentation’ (Takhsā d-Sūba’thā),30 the dough that is prepared to be baked and made into the Eucharistic hosts is signed with the Holy Leaven which is kept in a vessel in the altar of the church. When the priest bakes the Eucharistic hosts fresh (on the morning of each celebration of the Holy Qurbana), during the ‘Rite of Ornamentation’ he brings out the vessel containing the Malkā, while reciting Psalm 145:1-6. Then, he proceeds to sign the dough with the Malkā in two portions: irst, the main lump of dough is signed in the form of the Cross with the Malkā as the priest says: 25 Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East 3:4. 26 C. giraudo, Eucaristia per la Chiesa. Prospettive teologiche sull’eucaristia a partire dalla ‘lex orandi’, Rome 1989, 462. 27 The Syro-Malabar and Chaldean Catholic Churches have both inserted an Institution Narrative in the text of the Eucharistic prayer of SS. Addai & Mari after their union with Rome. The Syro-Malabarians under the inluence of the Synod of Diamper (1599 AD), and the Chaldeans for the irst time under Joseph Sulaqa (the Chaldean metropolitan of India and the brother of John Sulaqa) in 1556. Interestingly, Joseph Sulaqa inserted the improvised Institution Narrative in the text of SS. Addai & Mari immediately before the Fraction, as opposed to preceding the epiclesis (in keeping with the anaphoric tradition of other Eastern Eucharistic prayers). 28 Cf. giraudo, Eucaristia, 455. 29 B.D. spinKs, “The Mystery of the Holy Leaven (Malka) in the East Syrian Tradition,” in M.E. Johnson (ed.), Issues in Eucharistic Praying in East and West. Essays in Liturgical and Theological Analysis (Collegeville 2010), 63-70, here 66. 30 The ‘Rite of Ornamentation’ has already been described in a popular fashion; see: E.S. drowEr, Water into Wine. A study of ritual idiom in the Middle East (London 1956) 58-59. Cf. spinKs, “The Holy Leaven,” 67-68. THE HOLY LEAVEN IN ASSYRIAN CHURCH OF THE EAST 377 This dough is signed and consecrated with the ancient and holy leaven of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given and handed down from our holy fathers Mar Addai, Mar Mari and Mar Thomas the apostles, who discipled (this) Eastern region; in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.31 The priest then signs the smaller portion of dough which was taken out from the middle of the large lump, and this portion is used to form the principal host, or malkaytā; he signs it while saying: “This broken portion is signed and consecrated with this holy leaven, in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”32 The priest then returns the vessel back into the altar while reciting Psalms 24:1-6; 33:12; 24:9-10. He then proceeds to amalgamate the Holy Leaven into the dough, and to fashion and bake the Eucharistic hosts according to the prescribed rite. The other important liturgical rite involving the Holy Leaven is the ‘Rite of the Renewal of the Malkā.’ Both this rite and the ‘Rite of Ornamentation’ have an anonymous authorship, and there are absolutely no indications as to who ordered or authored these two rites. However, it is highly likely that the latter rite (the ‘Rite of Ornamentation’) did not exist before the year 900 AD, that is at the time of the writing of the canons of Patriarch Mar Yōhannān bar Abgare. In fact, according to the witness of the Expositio Oficiorum Ecclesiae of Pseudo-Gīwargīs, metropolitan of Arbel,33 Patriarch Īšō‘yahb III (648-658) never prescribed how the Eucharistic loaves were to be prepared. He discusses this matter in Chapter 15 of Memrā Four: Why is it that when they recite the antiphon [of the Mysteries] in the nave, the deacons recite it in the chancel? And why does he say that now they setup the Mysteries, and why did he not show how the bread is to be baked and the wine mixed? For, when the holy Church is perfected with the coming of the Spirit, in all true perfection and holy faith, even the hosts of the Spirit have accepted from her [i.e. the Church] just as the heavenly apostle said, that ‘The manifold wisdom of God was revealed in the Church to the principalities and powers in the heavens’ [Ephesians 3:10]. But now that the Church has demonstrated the economy of our Lord in the antiphon [of the Mysteries], that by this very same faith they may be accounted worthy of the Kingdom, he [i.e. the Spirit] is then revealed to the spiritual ones [= angels] and they confess along with us, as they follow our confession without division. That the archdeacon and those with him place the Mysteries even as Īšō‘yahb had taught [is the mystery] of the season of preparing the mansions of the Kingdom. But one might say, ‘Why did he [= Īšō‘yahb] not teach as to how they are to be prepared and where they come from — even as he had spoken concerning minute actions such as the washing of the lamps, the semantron and similar things. Rather, in as much as our Lord said ‘I go to prepare a place for you’ [John 14:2], as well as ‘Many are the mansions in my Father’s house’ [John 14:2], but as to 31 For the Syriac text, see: KElaita, The Liturgy, 162. KElaita, The Liturgy, 163. 33 For the life and works of George of Arbel, see: BauMstarK, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, 239. 32 378 AWA ROYEL how or from where, he did not inform. In like manner, even now this blessed man [= Īšō‘yahb] does not show from where the [Eucharistic hosts] have come, or how they have been made and prepared — as if it is contrary to our nature to know the blessed things which are prepared, or from where they originated or where they were from before, or now that they have been prepared — we have learned from our Lord. And we have known that the ministers of these things are the spiritual ones [= angels], and he has revealed to us that they will raise up to the Kingdom those who are worthy. But as to what the beatitudes are, we have not known; for, our Lord [= St. Paul] has also said that ‘Eye has not seen, ear has not heard and it has not entered into the heart of man that which God has prepared for those who love him [1 Corinthians 2:9]; and he also demonstrates symbolically concerning the setting-up of the mansions, which are the Mysteries, as if they were hidden from us as to where they originated from, and not because he was not concerned to teach about them, but rather, he depicted a type of these incorruptible things.34 In this important testimony of Pseudo-George of Arbel, we learn clearly that Mar Īšō‘yahb III had not established a rite for making and preparing the Eucharistic Elements, and in his Expositio, George gives us the theological reasoning for that absence in his mystagogical exposition on the Eucharistic liturgy. In fact, almost ive centuries before the witness of Pseudo-George of Arbel concerning the preparation of the Eucharistic loaves, we have an important testimony of the Syrian Orthodox Jacob of Serugh (451-521). In his Homily on the Memorial of the Departed and on the Eucharistic Loaf,35 Jacob tells us that the Eucharistic loaves for consecration were brought by the faithful in commemoration of their faithful departed; this may have indeed been the uniform practice of the Syriac-speaking Churches during this period, at least with regard to the Eucharistic liturgy offered for the departed. A portion of this homily, or memrā, is worthy quoting here: Despised and dishonoured and meanly the loaf (qesâthâ) is brought to the house of God to be offered. There are many who have altogether made an end, and bring it not; and there is that when he brings it, brings it not himself in person: by the hands of his maid servant he sends the sacriice to the house of God. And as though it were a dishonor to him to bring in his own hands his sacriice to the Lord, the despised dependents of his house, who are set to the meanest works, them he commands to bring his sacriice, while he is absent. Why, good sir, dost 34 R.H. Connolly (editor & Latin translator), Anonymi Auctoris Expositio Oficiorum Ecclesiae Georgio Arbelensi vulgo adscripta, I & II. Accedit Abrahae Bar Lipheh Interpretatio Oficiorum, (CSCO 64, 72-71, 76 = SS 25, 29-28, 32) Paris-Rome 1913, 1915; reprinted Louvain 1960-1961, here II, 36-37. The English translation is that of the present writer. 35 E. Bishop is of the opinion that the tradition of the offering of bread and wine by the congregation for the consecration died out in the East sometime in the 4th century; see E. Bishop, “Observations on the Liturgy of Narsai,” in R.H. Connolly, The Liturgical Homilies of Narsai. With an appendix by Edmund Bishop, Texts and Studies 8 (Cambridge 1909) 87-163. Dom R.H. Connolly notes that this practice in the East (at least, the Syriacspeaking East) lasted till the beginning of the 6th century; see Connolly, “A Homily of Mar Jacob of Serugh,” 261. THE HOLY LEAVEN IN ASSYRIAN CHURCH OF THE EAST 379 thou not bring thy sacriice in thine own hands, like Abraham, who carried the calf to the angels? He and his consort made them ready and stood to minister, and performed not that which was due by the hands to others. Today the faith of men is waxed little, and love is grown lukewarm, and the sense of things seemly is lacking. What rich man is there that has brought the eucharistic loaf (qesâthâ) to the house of God, and carried it in his hands when he brings it in to the house of atonement? Either he brings it not at all or, if he brings it, he does not command the menials of his house to bring his sacriice, while he is not present. Blessed is the widow who bears her sacriice in her hands, and the bereaved who carries it and glories in it. She sends not the loaf (qesâthâ) to the Lord, like the rich man: she herself offers it, and cries out earnestly that He will accept it of her. She, like the priest, brings in her vow to God, earnestly making mention of her dead over her oblation. Such a one has known how to offer and bring sacriices to the Lord: not the rich man, who sends it as though the one in need. Acceptable is the oblation of the bereaved woman when it is offered, and with it mingled tears and love and faith: the loaf in her hands, and tears in her eyes, and praise in her mouth: and as her oblation great also is the offering of her faith; for save with love the oblation is not accepted.36 It is noteworthy to mention that Jacob of Serugh utilizes the technical term qsāthā for the Eucharistic bread. This term is used by the Assyrian Church of the East till the present, whereas the Syrian Orthodox do not make use of this term for the loaves at present in their liturgy. This term, as was noted above, most likely comes from the Greek τ̀ κλ́σμα of Didache 9:3. In the liturgy of the Assyrian Church of the East till this day, the names of the faithful departed are commemorated in the Eucharistic liturgy, though the practice of the faithful bringing the Eucharistic loaves for consecration in their memorial has long since died out. Thus, we can safely surmise that from about 650 AD (the approximate date of the famous liturgical reforms of Īšō‘yahb III at the Upper Monastery in Mosul) to about the late 980’s (when George of Athor would have died), there was no ‘Rite of Ornamentation’ in the Church of the East. Even the euchologion does not give the author of this rite for preparing the Eucharistic bread.37 The rite for the signing of the Eucharistic chalice ‘on the day of need,’ which is also found in the Church of the East euchologion, does not mention the name of the author, though some manuscripts have ascribed it to Mar ’Abdīšō’ metropolitan of Elam (ca. 13th century); could this same ’Abdīšō’ of Elam be the author of the ‘Rite of Ornamentation?’ That has yet to be determined. However, the fact remains that Patriarch John V had already prescribed in his liturgical canons as to how the Eucharistic loaves were to be made and prepared, some 80 years before the writing of the Expositio Oficiorum Ecclesiae of Pseudo-George of Arbel. It could well have been the case that when John V prescribed the proper method of preparing 36 37 Connolly, “A Homily of Mar Jacob of Serugh,” 270. Cf. KElaita, The Liturgy, 161. 380 AWA ROYEL the Eucharistic loaves, that it took some time for it to be received by the whole Church at large. This same phenomenon took place almost a century earlier when Patriarch Mar Timothy I (780-823) introduced the Lord’s Prayer at the beginning and end of the Eucharistic liturgy and the divine ofice, for the innovation by the learned patriarch was not met without much opposition in many an ecclesiastical circle. For its part, the renewal rite of the Holy Leaven might be of an earlier origin that that of the ‘Rite of Ornamentation.’ In fact, there seems to be an indication of the ‘Rite of Renewal of the Malkā” in the collection of the Christian library of Turfan.38 A series of two antiphons in the fragments identiied as HT 143r seem to follow the low of antiphons contained in the ‘Rite of Renewal.’39 Both these antiphons recall the founding of the Church by Christ and his continued support and upholding of her foundation, as well as the true and orthodox faith contained therein, founded upon the confession of Simon Peter that Jesus of Nazareth is indeed ‘the Son of the Living God’ (cf. Matthew 16:16). If this fragment from Turfan does in fact carry the ‘Rite of Renewal of the Malkā,’ then we are looking at the earliest reference to this rite (thus far), taking us back — possibly — to the midninth century.40 The “Rite of the Renewal of the Malkā” is to take place on Holy Thursday, and the parish priest himself is generally the main celebrant.41 The rite takes place in the vestibule in the church where they bake the Eucharistic 38 For general information on the Christian texts and relics of Turfan see: M. diCKEns, “Multilingual Christian Manuscripts from Turfan,” JCSSyrSt 9 (2009) 22-42; Id., “Syriac Gravestones in the Tashkent History Museum,” in D. winKlEr & L. tang (eds.), Hidden Treasures and Intercultural Encounters: Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia (Vienna 2009) 13-49; Id., “The Importance of the Psalter at Turfan,” in D. winKlEr & L. tang (eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on “Research on the Church of the East in China and Central Asia” (Vienna forthcoming); Id. & A. savChEnKo, “Prester John’s Realm: New Light on Christianity Between Merv and Turfan,” in in E. huntEr (ed.), The Christian Heritage of Iraq (Gorgias Eastern Christian Studies 13, Piscataway 2009) 121-135; Id., “The Syriac Bible in Central Asia,” in E. huntEr (ed.), The Christian Heritage of Iraq (Gorgias Eastern Christian Studies 13, Piscataway 2009) 92-120. For a more classic study of the Syriac-Turkic Turfan literature, see: Nina Pigoulewsky [= Pigulevskaya], “Fragments syriaques et Syro-Turcs de Hara-Hoto et de Tourfan,” in RevOrChr [3rd series] 30 (1935-1936) 3-46. 39 For the Syriac text of this rite, see KElaita, The Liturgy, 180-192, particularly 183. This same rite was printed earlier in the Takhsā printed by the Archbishop of Canterbury Mission Press at Urmia, 1890; this rite is contained in Volume II (quite rare), 115. I am indebted to Prof. Sebastian Brock for indicating the presence of this text in the Turfan collection and the Urmia Takhsā citation. 40 Although the dating of the Turfan fragments is not yet conclusive and still under study, it seems to be the case that the Hudrā fragments (at least) of this collection go back to the early to mid 800’s of the Christian era. 41 The practice of the Church of the East in India (Kerala, South India) is that the metropolitan renews the Malkā together with all of his priests on Holy Thursday, and then each priest takes a portion of the new sacrament to his parish church. THE HOLY LEAVEN IN ASSYRIAN CHURCH OF THE EAST 381 hosts; generally speaking the baptistry, for it is there that the Eucharistic loaves are to be baked and where the clay oven is constructed. First, the priest brings out ine white lour (constituting two-thirds of the whole mixture), pure white salt that is ine (one-third of the whole portion), a few drops of pure olive oil is poured over the mixture, and three drops of water. Note that these ingredients are the same ones used for the making of the dough for the Eucharistic hosts (leavening is to be included, of course). This mixture is amalgamated together well, while they begin with the Our Father and the recitation of three hūlālā of the Psalms, beginning with Hūlālā XII (Psalms 82 to 88 inclusive). It seems that this portion of the ‘Rite of Renewal’ was taken from the ‘Rite of Ornamentation’, since the same opening prayer and Psalms are recited for that service as well. Then, a beautiful prayer opens the second set of the psalmody: Glory to you, O Exalted One who descended and put on the body of our humanity, and fulilled his dispensation (economy) for our salvation, and by his holy Passover he broke and gave to us [his Body], and gave himself up to the salviic passion, and he suffered the Cross of scorn, and by the blood and water that poured forth from his side he absolved, washed and cleansed our wounds in his grace and mercy, O Lord of all: Father and Son and Holy Spirit.42 After the regular retinue of prayers (i.e. Lākhū Mārā, the Trisagion, the ‘Prayer of the Imposition of Hands’ (i.e. Dismissal of the Catechumens), a series of antiphons are chanted that directly recall the Lord’s passion and suffering. The antiphon of the ‘Glory be’ is worth quoting in its entirety, as it looks toward Jesus’ suffering, the mysteries and the Body and Blood upon the altar, celebrated by the priests: With the eye of the conscience and of love let us all behold Christ, in the Mysteries and types which he handed down to us, being led to the suffering of the Cross. And upon the holy altar the living Sacriice is placed, and in the likeness of angels the priests celebrate the memorial of his death with voices of thanksgiving, and they say: Glory to him for his unspeakable Gift. Next follows the recitation of the Nicene Creed, and the irst ‘Prayer of Inclination’ (ghanthā) for the Renewal, of which this one may be recited: O Almighty Lord God [repeat], holy and incomprehensible, who placed in the holy Church spiritual treasurers — the blessed apostles — to shepherd his lock to the still pastures of knowledge; and he told them to make disciples of all nations, and to baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. And from the time that they baptized them they made them to participate in the life-giving Mysteries in the holy Church. And the same apostles handed down this sacrament and committed it to the priests and administrators [Mdhabrāne] of the lock of Christ; and by the strength of that very same authority we too, your frail, 42 KElaita, The Liturgy, 181. 382 AWA ROYEL weak and pitiable servants, do also fulill in the grace of the Holy Spirit, and we renew this holy Leaven, that it might give holiness for the mixture of the holy and life-giving Mysteries, and absolve and heal the wounds of sin and the ilth of iniquity, unto the aid of all the community and to the honor and worship of the glorious Trinity; now and at all times and forever and ever.43 The actual prayer of consecration, the third ghanthā (‘Prayer of Inclination’), states: In your name, O Lord God, compassionate Father [repeat], and in the name of your Only-Begotten Son Jesus Christ the Merciful, and in the name of your holy and living Spirit: we call upon you and beg you, that you might send power of the grace along with the gift of the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, and that you might bless this Leaven and consecrate it; may your Godhead dwell in it and your Lordship be revered by it, that by it the life-giving Mysteries are perfected and completed, which upon the throne44 of your Lordship are offered for the absolution and forgiveness of sins. Amen.45 The priest then concludes this inclining prayer with the qānōnā, which rather than a doxology (properly speaking), consists of verses taken from John 1:1-5, In the beginning was the Word, and that very Word was with God, and God was that very Word. The same was in the beginning with God. Everything came to be through him; and without him not even one thing that was created came to be. In him was life, and the life is the light of men. And the same light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it. The presence here of a direct quote from Scripture is noteworthy; it is taken from the Prologue of John’s Gospel (i.e. 1:1-18). This may in fact be an indication of the Johannine tradition of the handing down of the Holy Leaven, as recorded by Šlemōn of Basrah, Šem’ōn Kepā and Yōhannān bar Zo’bi. He then signs over the mixture with the old Leaven in the sign of the Cross, and this accompanying formula: This lour is signed, consecrated, mixed, renewed and joined to this holy and ancient Leaven of our Lord Jesus Christ, which has been handed down to us from our spiritual fathers Mar Addai, Mar Mari and Mar Thomas the blessed disciples of this region of the East, and that it might be moved from one place to another, and from one land to another for the perfection and mixing of the living Broken Portion [i.e. the Eucharistic hosts], at all times when the cause of necessity requires; in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.46 43 44 45 46 KElaita, The Liturgy, 185-186. Liturgically speaking, the ‘throne’ referred to here (thrōnōs) is in fact the altar itself. KElaita, The Liturgy, 187-188. KElaita, The Liturgy, 188. THE HOLY LEAVEN IN ASSYRIAN CHURCH OF THE EAST 383 After signing the new mixture with the old Holy Leaven, while mixing everything together very well, he returns it to the old vessel wherein it was kept. The priest then concludes by signing the dough (with the new Leaven) to be baked for the Eucharistic celebration of Holy Thursday and he concludes with the prescribed prayers. Once the dough is signed with the Holy Leaven, the priest (or sacristan) may not give any portion of it to a nonbeliever, or even to a Christian child; rather, the dough (once signed with the Leaven) is to be speciically used for the Eucharistic hosts, and it may not leave the church under any circumstance. The sacrament of the Holy Leaven, therefore, is observed with the utmost care and diligence by the priesthood of the Church of the East. It has been handed down to us by the holy and blessed apostles Mar Addai and Mar Mari of the Seventy, and Mar Thomas of the Twelve. Its origins, according to the apostolic tradition of the Church, go back to the apostle St. John the Evangelist and the Last Supper of the Lord, but it was committed to the East (the Church of the East, that is) by St. Thomas of the Twelve, and SS. Addai & Mari of the Seventy-Two. This sacrament, unique to the Church of the East amongst all other apostolic Churches, has always been observed, being diligently and reverently preserved, and remains alive in her ecclesial memory and liturgical practice. Without the presence of the Malkā in the Qurbana, a valid Eucharistic celebration is not confected, for the ancient canons and tradition require the priest to include the Holy Leaven in every and each Eucharistic celebration as a requirement for validity.47 To say that the references to this sacrament are rather late speaks nothing conclusive about the antiquity of its origins. Indeed, one of the elements which played a signiicant role in the promulgation of the Vatican document Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East48 was the Holy Leaven. The Guidelines takes into consideration with regard to the Assyrian form of the anaphora of Mar Addai & Mar Mari the presence of the Holy Leaven in the Assyrian Qurbana, “thereby linking the present celebration with all previous ones back to the Mystical Supper itself.”49 As this year marks the 10th anniversary of this document, the validity of this ancient 47 Cf. spinKs, “The Holy Leaven,” 67. For the English text of this document cf. supra 52-55. 49 Quoted in N. V. russo, “The Validity of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari: Critique of the Critiques,” in M.E. Johnson (ed.), Issues in Eucharistic Praying in East and West. Essays in Liturgical and Theological Analysis (Collegeville 2010) 21-62, here 24. There were originally ive arguments, the ifth of which refers to the presence of the Malkā in the Assyrian form of the Qurbana, in favor of the validity of the Assyrian form of the anaphora, which appeared in a prepatory document of May 23, 1998 titled Pastoral Disposition for Eucharistic Hospitality between the Assyrian Church of the East and the Catholic Church. For more on this prepatory document, see R. taft, “Mass Without the Consecration? The Historic Agreement on the Eucharist Between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church 48 384 AWA ROYEL anaphora is once more ‘justiied.’ The Roman document not only took into consideration the ecumenical rapprochement between the two Sister Churches, but it also signiicantly professed the orthodoxy of the Assyrian Church of the East in terms of her doctrine and liturgy, for: ... the Catholic Church recognizes 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 sacriicial 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.’50 The Roman document is an added witness in our modern day to the antiquity and orthodoxy of this most beautiful ‘Eastern Gem’ (la gemma orientale). The anaphora of SS. Addai & Mari has been diligently observed and handed down in the liturgical practice of the Assyrian Church of the East from time immemorial. Notwithstanding the absence of an Institution Narrative ad litteram, it has preserved the orthodox doctrine and liturgical practice concerning the Eucharist from the earliest age of the Church down to the present.51 With the presence of the sacrament of the Holy Leaven, or Malkā, the tradition of the Assyrian Church of the East has kept the orthodoxy of both Word and Sacrament in regards to the Eucharist. By apostolic tradition, the Holy Leaven originates with St. John the Evangelist, and it was handed down to the East by SS. Thomas, Addai and Mari. Its ancient origins (by faith), perpetual liturgical practice and ecclesiastical tradition begin with the Last Supper, and continue to our very own day, all the while remaining faith to the command of our Lord to ‘Do this in memory of Me’ (Lk. 22:19). To conclude with the words of the Evangelist St. John: “But there many other things which Jesus did, those which if they were written down one by one, of the East Promulgated 26 October 2001,” in Worsh 77 (2003) 482-509, here 483; also published in: America Magazine 188/16 (May 12, 2003) 7-11. 50 Guidelines for Admission, 3:3 (cf. supra 54). Cf. also vatiCan II, Unitatis Redintegratio 15:3. 51 According to R. Taft: “The Catholic magisterium teaches that the traditional practices of our Eastern sister churches are worthy of all veneration and respect. Scholars all agree that Addai and Mari is one of the most ancient anaphoras still in use. The consensus of the latest scholarship is that Addai and Mari in its original form never included the institution narrative. Contrary to earlier opinion, this is by no means unique: several other early eucharistic prayers have no words of institution. And though Addai and Mari may not cite the words of institution literally, it contains them virtually, in explicit references to the eucharistic institution, to the Last Supper, to the body and blood and sacriice of Christ and to the oblation of the church, thereby clearly demonstrating the intention of repeating what Jesus did in obedience to his command, Do this in memory of me.” See taft, “Mass Without the Consecration?” 485. THE HOLY LEAVEN IN ASSYRIAN CHURCH OF THE EAST 385 I think not even the world would sufice to contain the books that would be written” (John 21:25). SUMMARY – The Sacrament of the Holy Leaven (Malkā) in the Assyrian Church of the East – The most important liturgical anomaly in the East and West today is, by far, the Holy Leaven (or Malkā); it is a sacramental practice that is only observed by the Assyrian Church of the East. In his Liber Margaritae (Margānīthā), Mar Abdīšō of Nisibis († 1318) enumerates the sacramental list of the Church of the East, ive of which are in agreement with the Churches of both East and West. This list includes two sacraments that are not recognized as such by the rest of Christendom, namely, the Holy Leaven (Malkā) and the Holy Cross. The irst of these is not recognized by any other Church at all, and the second sacrament is at best considered to be a “sacramental” in the Roman Catholic Church. According to the metropolitan of Nisibis, the Churches that do not have the sacrament of the Holy Leaven (Malkā) count marriage as the seventh sacrament. The Holy Leaven (Malkā) is preserved in the liturgy Assyrian Church of the East with the utmost care and diligence. Because of the antiquity of this sacramental practice, its origins are hidden in the memory of the Church’s apostolic tradition and practice from time immemorial. The Holy Leaven (Malkā) is highly venerated because of the direct link it bears to the very Eucharist which Christ instituted by celebrating for the irst time. Therefore, it is to be understood in conjunction with that liturgical practice which is the summit of the Church’s prayer and offering, the Holy Eucharist. SOMMARIO – Il sacramento del Santo Lievito (Malkā) nella Chiesa Assira d’Oriente – Oggi la più importante anomalia liturgica tra l’Oriente e l’Occidente è di gran lunga il Santo Lievito (o Malkā). Si tratta di una prassi sacramentale che è osservata unicamente dalla Chiesa Assira d’Oriente. Nel suo Liber Margaritae (Margānīthā), Mar Abdīšō di Nisibi († 1318) enumera i sacramenti della Chiesa d’Oriente, di cui cinque sono comuni alle Chiese d’Oriente e d’Occidente. Questa lista include due sacramenti che non sono riconosciuti dal resto della cristianità, vale a dire il Santo Lievito (Malkā) e la Santa Croce. Il primo di questi due sacramenti non è riconosciuto da nessun’altra Chiesa, mentre il secondo è considerato tutt’al più come un “sacramentale” dalla Chiesa Cattolica Romana. Secondo il metropolita di Nisibi, le Chiese che non hanno il sacramento del Santo Lievito (Malkā) contano il matrimonio quale settimo sacramento. Il Santo Lievito (Malkā) è conservato nella liturgia della Chiesa Assira d’Oriente con la più grande cura e diligenza. A causa dell’antichità di questa prassi sacramentale, le sue origini sono nascoste nella memoria della tradizione della Chiesa apostolica da tempo immemorabile. Il Santo Lievito (Malkā) è sommamente venerato a motivo del suo legame diretto con l’Eucaristia istituita da Cristo. Pertanto esso va compreso alla luce della prassi liturgica che rappresenta il culmine della preghiera e dell’offerta della Chiesa, cioè la Santa Eucaristia. RÉSUMÉ – Le sacrement du Saint Levain (Malkā) dans l’Église Assyrienne d’Orient – Aujourd’hui l’anomalie liturgique majeure entre l’Orient et l’Occident est de loin le sacrement du Saint Levain (ou Malkā). Il s’agit d’une pratique sacramentelle qui est uniquement observée par l’Église Assyrienne d’Orient. Dans son Liber Margaritae (Margānīthā), Mar Abdīšō de Nisibe († 1318) énumère les sacrements de l’Église d’Orient, dont cinq sont communs aux Églises d’Orient et d’Occident. Toutefois, cette liste comprend deux sacrements qui ne sont pas reconnus par le reste de la chrétienté, notamment le Saint Levain (Malkā) et la Sainte Croix. Le premier de ces deux sacrements n’est connu par aucune autre Église, alors que le second sacrement est tout au plus considéré comme un “sacramentel” par l’Église Catholique Romaine. Suivant le métropolite de Nisibe, les Églises 386 AWA ROYEL qui n’ont pas le sacrement du Saint Levain (Malkā) comptent le mariage comme étant le septième sacrement. Le Saint Levain (Malkā) est conservé dans la liturgie de l’Église Assyrienne d’Orient avec le plus grand soin et la plus grande attention. En raison de son antiquité, les origines de cette pratique sacramentelle sont enfuies dans la mémoire de l’Église apostolique, car elle remonte à des temps immémoriaux. Le Saint Levain (Malkā) est hautement vénéré en raison de son lien direct avec l’Eucharistie instituée par le Christ. Pour cela il doit être compris en lien avec la pratique liturgique qui constitue le sommet de la prière et de l’oblation de l’Église, la Sainte Eucharistie. TABLE OF CONTENTS Dedica  Dedication  Dédicace ............................................................. 4 ................................................................ 6 PART ONE  PARTE PRIMA  PREMIÈRE PARTIE The “Addai and Mari” Congress in Retrospect and in Prospect  Il Congresso “Addai e Mari” tra retrospettive e prospettive  Le Congrès “Addaï and Mari” entre rétrospectives et perspectives ............... 7 Prefazione  Preface  Préface CEsarE giraudo: Un Congresso “eucaristico” all’Università Gregoriana promosso dal Pontiicio Istituto Orientale ........................................... 1. Problematiche eucaristiche: queste e altre ...................................... 2. Un Congresso liturgico-teologico in prospettiva ecumenica ........ 3. Per riattivare il dialogo tra liturgisti e teologi ................................ 4. Il tema del primo giorno: “L’habitat ecclesiale dell’anafora di Addai e Mari” ........................................................................................ 5. Il tema del secondo giorno: “L’anafora di Addai e Mari: la ‘gemma orientale’ della lex orandi” ........................................................ 6. Un bilancio ....................................................................................... 14 17 Il saluto delle Autorità Accademiche dell’Università Gregoriana e dell’Istituto Orientale ai membri del Congresso .............................................. 18 Message of His Holiness Mar Dinkha IV, Catholicos-Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East, for the Celebration of the Congress ......... 19 françois-XaviEr duMortiEr: La mission de l’Université Grégorienne: “au cœur de l’Église” ............................................................................ 20 JaMEs MCCann: The Pontiical Oriental Institute Mission: “Make known the Light from the East” ........................................................................ 23 diEtMar w. winKlEr: The Ecumenical Context of the Agreement on the Anaphora of Addai and Mari ................................................................ 1. The Common Christological Declaration (1994) ........................... 2. The Oficial Theological Dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church 3. Relations with the Chaldean Catholic Church ............................... 4. The Pro Oriente Dialogue with the Churches of Syriac Tradition .. 5. Concluding Remarks ........................................................................ 28 29 29 30 32 34 9 9 9 10 11 536 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART TWO  PARTE SECONDA  DEUXIÈME PARTIE The Anaphora of the Apostles Addai and Mari According the Oldest Known Text and the Holy See Declaration of 26 October 2001  L’anafora degli Apostoli A&M nella più antica recensione e la Dichiarazione della Santa Sede  L’anaphore des Apôtres A&M d’après le plus ancien témoignage et la Déclaration du Saint-Siège .................... 35 williaM f. MaCoMBEr: The Oldest Known Text of the Anaphora of the Apostles Addai and Mari, in OCP 32 (1966) 335-371 [reprint] ........ 37 pontifiCal CounCil for proMoting Christian unity: Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East, in OssRom 26.10.2001, p. 7 ................. 52 [Commentario] Ammissione all’Eucaristia in situazioni di necessità pastorale, in OssRom 26.10. 2001, pp. 7-8 ................................................... 56 PART THREE  PARTE TERZA  TROISIÈME PARTIE The Ecclesial Habitat of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari  L’habitat ecclesiale dell’anafora di A&M  L’habitat ecclésial de l’anaphore d’A&M .......................................................................... 63 sEBastian p. BroCK: Variety in Institution Narratives in the Syriac Anaphoras .............................................................................................. 1. Introduction ...................................................................................... 2. The Dominical Words ...................................................................... 2.1. The Biblical Basis ................................................................... 2.2. The Dominical Words in the Anaphoras ................................ 2.2.1. The wording combines elements from all four New Testament accounts ..................................................... 2.2.2. The Dominical Words may be expanded or adapted ... 2.2.3. The Dominical Words may be partially or completely absent ............................................................................. 3. The Consecratory Verbs ................................................................... 4. Some Other Features of the Introductory Narrative .................... 5. Conclusion ........................................................................................ Summary  Sommario  Résumé .................................................. 72 75 77 77 80 aprEM MooKEn: The Assyrian Church of the East throughout History ... 1. Early Period ...................................................................................... 2. Origins of Christianity in India ....................................................... 3. John Sulaqa and the Split in the Patriarchate ................................. 4. Mar Simon: the Nestorian Bishop to India ..................................... 5. Vasco da Gama and the Roman Catholic Church .......................... 6. The Synod of Udayamperur and Archbishop Alexio de Menezes ... 82 82 85 88 90 91 91 65 65 67 67 69 69 71 TABLE OF CONTENTS 537 7. Coonan Cross Oath in 1653 ........................................................... 8. Arrival of Gregorius of Jerusalem in 1665 ..................................... 9. Mar Gabriel: An East Syrian Bishop .............................................. 10. Sakthan Thampuran’s Settlement of 52 Christian Families in 1796 11. Mar Thoma Rocos: First Metropolitan to the Church in Trichur ... 12. Mar Abdisho Thondanatt Metropolitan ........................................ 13. The Split in the Church in 1964 .................................................... 14. Common Christological Declaration in 1994 .............................. 15. Conclusion ...................................................................................... Summary  Sommario  Résumé .................................................. 92 93 94 95 96 97 97 98 98 99 antoinE audo: L’Église Chaldéenne dans l’Église Catholique d’aujourd’hui: identité liturgique et communion universelle .................... 1. Approche Biblique ........................................................................... 2. L’Église Chaldénne entre Vatican I et Vatican II ........................... 3. L’Église Chaldéenne entre liturgie et pastorale .............................. 4. L’Église Chaldéenne au sein de l’Église universelle ........................ Résumé  Sommario  Summary .................................................. 101 102 104 107 110 111 MassiMo paMpaloni: La fecondità del fuoco: un’applicazione del patrimonio liturgico siriaco alla teologia dell’Eucaristia ........................... 1. Introduzione ...................................................................................... 2. Lo Spirito eterno .............................................................................. 3. La tradizione siriaca dello “Spirito-Fuoco” .................................... 4. Cristo carne viviicante .................................................................... Sommario  Summary  Résumé .................................................. 113 113 114 119 122 125 gEorgE nEdungatt: The Synod of Dadisho Revisited in the Light of the Typology of Peter .................................................................................. 1. The Synod of Dadisho (424) ........................................................... 2. Typology of Peter in the Early Syriac Church ............................... 2.1. Typology of Peter in Aphrahat ............................................... 2.1.1. Simon Peter “A Shepherd” .......................................... 2.1.2. The Petrine Succession ................................................ 3. Typology of Peter in Other Fathers ................................................. 4. A Comparison: The Council of Carthage (424) ............................. 5. Conclusion ........................................................................................ Summary  Sommario  Résumé .................................................. 126 127 131 132 134 136 137 141 144 145 sunny KoKKaravalayil: The Sixteenth-Century Encounter of St Thomas Christians with the Latin Missionaries and its Consequences .... 1. The Initial Reaction of the St Thomas Christians to the Latin Missionaries ............................................................................................ 147 151 538 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2. Faiths ................................................................................................. 3. Communion with the Roman Apostolic See .................................. 4. Hierarchy .......................................................................................... 4.1. The Metropolitans ................................................................... 4.2. The Archdeacon ....................................................................... 4.3. The Clergy ............................................................................... 4.4. Clerical Formation .................................................................. 5. Sacraments ........................................................................................ 5.1. Observations of the Missionaries ........................................... 5.2. Changes Made in the Rite of Sacraments .............................. 6. The Consequences at the Synod of Diamper .................................. 6.1. Faith ......................................................................................... 6.2. Hierarchy ................................................................................. 6.3. Sacraments ............................................................................... 7. A Church Stimulated by the Encounter .......................................... 8. Conclusion ........................................................................................ Summary  Sommario  Résumé .................................................. paul pallath: the Vicissitudes of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari among the St Thomas Christians of the Syro-Malabar Church .......... 1. Introduction ...................................................................................... 2. Theological Context of the Addition of Institution Narrative ....... 3. Historical Context of the Insertion of Istitution Narrative ............ 4. Metropolitan Mar Joseph and the Addition of Institution Narrative in the Qurbana ................................................................................. 5. Anaphora of Addai and Mari and the Synod of Diamper .............. 6. The Synod of Diamper and the Epiclesis in the Anaphora of A&M 7. Other Minor Corrections inside the Anaphora of A&M ................ 8. Institution Narrative after the Synod of Diamper .......................... 9. Liturgical Restoration and Insertion of Institution Narrative inside the Anaphora .................................................................................... 10. Further Liturgical Reform and Modiications in the Anaphora .. 11. Conclusion ...................................................................................... Summary  Sommario  Résumé .................................................. CEsarE giraudo: L’anafora di Addai e Mari: banco di prova per la sistematica dell’Eucaristia ............................................................................ 1. La teologia d’Occidente: tra Ambrogio e Pietro Lombardo .......... 2. L’anafora di Addai e Mari: tra una struttura arcaica e un’ortodossia a tutta prova ...................................................................................... 2.1. Una traduzione strutturata della più antica recensione ......... 2.2. La sezione anamnetico-celebrativa dell’anafora ................... 2.3. La sezione epicletica dell’anafora .......................................... 152 157 162 163 165 166 167 168 169 173 174 175 176 178 178 180 181 183 183 183 186 188 191 197 199 200 201 203 206 207 209 210 213 213 215 216 TABLE OF CONTENTS 539 3. L’anafora di Addai e Mari: un autorevole banco di prova per la sistematica dell’Eucaristia ............................................................... 4. La dichiarazione romana e l’onorata resa di Pietro Lombardo ..... appEndiCE: Le alterne vicende del racconto istituzionale nei primi messali a stampa della Chiesa d’Oriente ........................................ Sommario  Summary  Résumé .................................................. 226 233 PART FOUR  PARTE QUARTA  QUATRIÈME PARTIE The Anaphora of Addai and Mari: the “oriental gem” of the lex orandi  L’anafora di A&M: la “gemma orientale” della lex orandi  L’anaphore d’A&M: le “jayau oriental” de la lex orandi ........ 235 augustin Mouhanna: La Troisième Anaphore de Saint Pierre Apôtre dite Šarrar en usage dans l’Église Maronite ....................................... 1. L’anaphore Šarrar dans les missels maronites ............................... 2. L’anaphore Šarrar parmi les anaphores de l’Église Maronite ...... 3. L’anaphore Šarrar et son originalité ............................................... 3.1. Les commémoraisons précédant le récit de l’institution ...... 3.2. L’épiclèse faisant suite aux intercessions .............................. 3.3. Le caractère sémitique de l’anaphore .................................... 3.4. La christologie de l’anaphore ................................................. 3.5. La formule «Ce pain est mon corps» ..................................... 4. L’anaphore Šarrar, ou les alternances d’une prière ........................... appEndiCE I : Šarrar et Présanctiiés en synopse .............................. appEndiCE II: La Troisième Anaphore de Saint Pierre Apôtre (Šarrar) remise en usage dans l’Église Maronite ......................................... Résumé  Sommario  Summary .................................................. 220 223 237 237 239 240 241 242 243 244 244 245 247 250 258 Bryan d. spinKs: A Tale of Two Anaphoras: Addai and Mari and Maronite Sharar ................................................................................................ 1. The Archaic Core of Addai and Mari .............................................. 1.1. The Epiklesis ........................................................................... 1.2. The Opening Praise and Sanctus ............................................ 2. Living Texts for Living Churches ................................................... Summary  Sommario  Résumé .................................................. 259 263 267 268 272 274 EMManuEl fritsCh: The Anaphoras of the Ge’ez Churches: A Challenging Orthodoxy ...................................................................................... 1. Presentation of the Ge’ez Anaphoras .............................................. 2. The Verba Christi in the Institution Narrative ................................ 3. The Institution Narrative in the Anaphora of the Lord .................. 3.1. The Placement of the Command to Repeat ........................... 3.2. The Institution on the Cup ...................................................... 275 275 283 289 290 290 540 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.3. A Revision ............................................................................... 4. The Institution Narrative of the Anaphora of St. James of Sarug .. 4.1. The Context ............................................................................. 4.2. The Institution Narrative ......................................................... 4.3. The Andemtā Commentary ..................................................... 4.4. The Actions .............................................................................. 4.5. Jesus Christ and the Celebrant ............................................... 4.6. The Actualisation .................................................................... 4.7. The Epicletic Character .......................................................... 4.8. The Original Pedagogical Approach to the Sacrament ......... 5. A Challenge to Refocus ................................................................... 6. A Timely Development .................................................................... Summary  Sommario  Résumé .................................................. 293 298 299 301 301 303 304 308 309 310 312 314 315 roBErt f. taft: The 2001 Vatican Addai and Mari Decision in Retrospect: Relections of a Protagonist ....................................................... 1. How the Addai and Mari Decision came about ............................. 2. The Problem ..................................................................................... 3. The Proposed Document ................................................................. 4. The Catholic Scholar’s Task vis-à-vis the Magisterium ................ 5. Ecumenical Scholarship .................................................................. 6. Neglected Issues? ............................................................................. 7. A Missing Institution Narrative? ..................................................... 8. Interpreting the Tradition: Theologia prima - Theologia secunda ... 9. Reconciling the Traditions ............................................................... 10. The Aftermath of the Addai and Mari Decision ........................... 11. Some Concluding Relections ....................................................... 12. A Word of Advice ........................................................................... Summary  Sommario  Résumé .................................................. 317 317 318 319 319 321 323 325 329 330 330 331 333 334 EnriCo Mazza: Due differenti concezioni del racconto istitutivo: “consacrazione” o “trasmissione” del typos dell’eucaristia ........................... 1. Presentazione dell’argomento ......................................................... 2. La teologia occidentale della consacrazione .................................. 2.1. Il pensiero di Ambrogio sulla consacrazione ........................ 2.2. Tommaso d’Aquino ................................................................. 2.3. Isidoro di Siviglia .................................................................... 2.4. Conclusione ............................................................................. 3. Il pensiero di alcuni Padri sull’istituzione ...................................... 3.1. Giustino: la paravdosi" dell’eucaristia .................................. 3.2. Cipriano di Cartagine: «dominica traditio seruetur» ............ 3.3. Ambrogio: il sacramento come “similitudo” ......................... 335 335 335 336 339 340 340 341 341 342 343 TABLE OF CONTENTS 4. La “menzione dell’istituzione” in alcune famiglie liturgiche ....... 4.1. Didachè 10 ............................................................................... 4.2. La paleoanafora di Costituzioni Apostoliche vii,25 ............ 4.3. Due osservazioni sulle anafore di Basilio .............................. 4.4. La liturgia alessandrina ........................................................... 4.5. Il Canone Romano .................................................................. 4.6. La liturgia gallicana e la liturgia ispanica .............................. 4.7. La liturgia Assira d’Oriente .................................................... 5. In sintesi ............................................................................................ 6. Epilogo .............................................................................................. Sommario  Summary  Résumé .................................................. awa royEl: The Sacrament of the Holy Leaven (Malkā) in the Assyrian Church of the East ................................................................................. 1. Introduction ...................................................................................... 2. Origins of the Malkā ........................................................................ 3. The Malkā: A Leavening? ............................................................... 4. The Witness of the Fathers of the Church of the East to the Malkā ................................................................................................ 5. The Malkā in the Liturgy of the Church of the East ...................... Summary  Sommario  Résumé .................................................. sarhad yawsip JaMMo: The Mesopotamian Anaphora of Addai and Mari: The Organic Dialectic between its Apostolic Core and Euchological Growth ....................................................................................... 1. Addai and Mari Relecting the Lord’s Supper as Celebrated in the Apostolic Era .................................................................................... 1.1. The Pauline Thanksgiving Pattern ......................................... 1.2. The Markan/Matthean Blessing-Thanksgiving Pattern ........ 1.2.1. General Liturgical Observations ................................. 1.2.2. Pertinent Theological Observations ........................... 2. Searching for the Original Stratum of Addai and Mari ................. 2.1. Commentary ............................................................................ 2.1.1. Basic Question ............................................................. 2.1.2. General Observation in regard to the Reconstruction Attempts ....................................................................... 2.2. Searching for the First Stratum and, within it, the Apostolic Core .......................................................................................... 2.2.1. The Birkat ha-mazon and the Eucharistic Prayer ...... 2.2.2. The Connection between A&M and Birkat ha-mazon 2.2.3. Comparison with the Didache ..................................... 2.2.4. The Addressee of the Anaphora .................................. 2.2.5. Conclusion ................................................................... 541 344 345 345 346 348 350 353 355 357 360 362 363 363 364 366 368 375 385 387 387 387 389 390 391 392 395 395 396 397 397 399 401 403 403 542 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3. Searching for the Second Stratum ................................................... 3.1. The First Section’s Addition and Modiication ..................... 3.1.1. The Addition of the Isaian Qaddysh ........................... 3.1.2. The Modiication of the Opening Sentence ............... 3.1.3. Origin of the Addition Hosanna-Benedictus ............. 3.2. The Second Section’s Addition and Modiication ................. 3.3. The Third Section’s Additions and Modiications, the Epiclesis 4. Searching for the Third Stratum ...................................................... 4.1. The Connection with the Last Supper .................................... 4.2. Hasty Composition and Patchwork ........................................ 4.3. The Redaction of the Third Stratum and its Transmission to the Maronites ........................................................................... 4.3.1. The Search for an Explanation .................................... 4.3.2. A Synodal Text in Historical Context ......................... 5. The Recent Chaldean Reform Preserving the Apostolic Core in harmony with Organic Growth ....................................................... 5.1. Jesus Blessed and Gave Thanks: the Quddasha .................... 5.2. General Structure of this Section ........................................... 5.3. Methodic Approach ................................................................. 5.4. Conclusion. Addai and Mari: An Anaphora Preserving the Mark of Apostolic Times ........................................................ 5.5. Pertinent Questions and an Authoritative Response ............. appEndiX I: The Strata of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari .............. appEndiX ii: The Reformed Anaphora of Addai and Mari ................ Summary  Sommario  Résumé .................................................. CEsarE giraudo: La genesi anaforica del racconto istituzionale alla luce dell’anafora di Addai e Mari: tra storia delle forme e liturgia comparata .......................................................................................................... 1. Il racconto istituzionale e la nozione di sviluppo progressivo ...... 1.1. Studiare l’eucaristia: ma con quale obiettivo? ...................... 1.2. Oltre la cronologia dei formulari: la cronologia delle forme letterarie ................................................................................... 1.3. Acquisizioni concernenti la cronologia delle forme ............. 1.3.1. La nozione di “forma letteraria eucologica” .............. 1.3.2. “Con Bouyer, oltre Bouyer” ........................................ 1.3.3. La correlazione tra lode e supplica e la nozione di “ingiunzione supplichevole” ............................................ 1.3.4. La dinamica orazionale semplice, ovvero: “parlare a Dio con parole nostre” ................................................ 1.3.5. La dinamica orazionale embolistica, ovvero: “parlare a Dio con parole nostre e con le parole di Dio” ........ 403 403 403 404 406 407 407 408 408 409 411 411 411 415 415 416 417 418 419 421 422 423 425 425 425 429 430 430 430 431 432 432 543 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.3.6. La nozione intermedia di “quasi-embolismo” ........... 1.3.7. La differenziazione delle strutture anaforiche in base all’ubicazione del racconto istituzionale .................... 2. Il racconto istituzionale e le fasi del suo progressivo sviluppo ..... 2.1 “Se Darwin fosse stato liturgista...” ........................................ 2.2. Le antiche testimonianze giudeo-cristiane e le “anomalie” eloquenti di alcuni racconti istituzionali anaforici ................ 2.2.1. Le primitive testimonianze giudeo-cristiane e il silenzio sul racconto istituzionale anaforico ..................... 2.2.2. La fase di oscillazione del racconto istituzionale tra il quasi-embolismo e l’embolismo ................................ 2.2.3. La fase di stabilizzazione del racconto istituzionale come embolismo già perfetto quanto alla forma, ma ancora difettivo quanto al contenuto .......................... 2.3. A&M: un’anafora “fuori serie” o un archetipo della serie? ... Sommario  Summary  Résumé .................................................. 444 450 453 PART FIVE  PARTE QUINTA  CINQUIÈME PARTIE Complementary Documentation & Analytical Tools  Documentazione complementare & Strumenti di analisi  Documentation complémentaire & Outils d’analyse ..................................................... 455 Message of His Beatitude Mar George Alencherry, Major Archbishop of the Syro-Malabar Church, for the Publication of the Proceedings .... 457 Message de Sa Béatitude Mar Louis Raphaël Sako, Patriarche de Babylon des Chaldéens, à l’occasion de la parution des Actes ......................... 458 Abbreviations  Abbreviazioni  Abréviations ...................................... 459 Index of Scripture References  Indice Scritturistico  Index des Réferences Scripturaires ............................................................................... 463 ..... 465 ................. 467 Index of Anaphoras  Indice delle Anafore  Index des Anaphores Index of Authors  Indice degli Autori  Index des Auteurs Index of Names  Indice dei Nomi  Index des Noms ......................... 433 434 434 435 437 437 440 475 Photographic Documentation  Documentazione fotograica  Dossier photographique ...................................................................................... 481 Bibliographical Review on the Anaphora of Addai and Mari  Rassegna Bibliograica sull’anafora di A&M  Dossier Bibliographique sur l’anaphore d’A&M ................................................................................ 513 Table of Contents  Indice Generale  Table des Matières 535 .................... Valore Italiano™ è un progetto internazionale dedicato principalmente alla diffusione e alla valorizzazione della lingua e della cultura italiana nel mondo. Dal 2009, in collaborazione con la struttura editoriale di proprietà Lilamé, Valore Italiano™ è impegnato nella costruzione di una rete educativa e formativa interculturale, pensata per progettare e realizzare nuovi e più eficaci strumenti destinati alla Scuola, all’Università e al mondo del Lavoro. Tutti i titoli in catalogo sono disponibili su www.lilame.org e a richiesta presso tutte le librerie italiane e internazionali. Valore Italiano™: www.valoreitaliano.com Catalogo editoriale: www.lilame.org Informazioni: info@valoreitaliano.com La società Valore Italiano™ srl è dal 2011 titolare dei marchi e delle attività editoriali di Infantiae.Org™, Lilamé™ e Valore Italiano™. Altre pubblicazioni in coedizione tra Edizioni Orientalia Christiana e Valore Italiano™: Ruggieri V. SJ “La vita di San Nicola di Sion. Traduzione, note e commentario”, Edizioni Orientalia Christiana & Valore Italiano™ | Lilamé™:, Roma 2013. Ruyssen G. H. SJ “La Questione Armena 1894-1896 - Vol. I. Documenti dell’Archivio Segreto Vaticano (ASV)”, Edizioni Orientalia Christiana & Valore Italiano™ | Lilamé™:, Roma 2013. Ruyssen G. H. SJ “La Questione Armena 1894-1896 - Vol. II. Documenti dell’Archivio della Congregazione per le Chiese Orientali (ACO)”, Edizioni Orientalia Christiana & Valore Italiano™ | Lilamé™:, Roma 2013.