Chaldean mass


#1

I went to a Chaldean mass today, spoken in the language of Christ.

First of all: The Chaldeans are in full communion with Rome.

Secondly: it was amazing how many elements are so similar to the Roman Rite. Even the way the priest made the sign of the cross was the same (and different from Eastern Churches). The priest explained how unchanged the mass was in the Chaldean Church.

Thirdly: it was extremely moving to hear the Gospel read in the actual Aramaic that Jesus used, and to hear the words of consecration in the same language too.

This is not the mass I went to, but it gives a good idea: youtube.com/watch?v=INouqp4uaKQ


#2

[quote="triumphguy, post:1, topic:299483"]

Thirdly: it was extremely moving to hear the Gospel read in the actual Aramaic that Jesus used, and to hear the words of consecration in the same language too.

This is not the mass I went to, but it gives a good idea: youtube.com/watch?v=INouqp4uaKQ

[/quote]

Was it actually in Aramaic, or Assyrian? I ask because the Chaldean church near me reads the gospel in Assyrian, Arabic, and English. I only know this because I was with an Assyrian friend. (Yes, it makes for a long Mass.) I particularly like the sign of peace in the Chaldean church.


#3

[quote="triumphguy, post:1, topic:299483"]
I went to a Chaldean mass today, spoken in the language of Christ.

[/quote]

Some parts could be authentically First Century Aramaic. Though I believe more other parts are the current version of Aramaic. It's kinda like Koine Greek (Classical/First Century) and Modern Greek.

[quote="triumphguy, post:1, topic:299483"]

First of all: The Chaldeans are in full communion with Rome.

Secondly: it was amazing how many elements are so similar to the Roman Rite. Even the way the priest made the sign of the cross was the same (and different from Eastern Churches). The priest explained how unchanged the mass was in the Chaldean Church.

[/quote]

I doubt it. They are extremely Latinized and they even had a recent reform to their Liturgy. If you hear the priest verbally say the Words of Institution, it is not the original Anaphora of Addai and Mari, therefore it has been changed.

[quote="triumphguy, post:1, topic:299483"]

Thirdly: it was extremely moving to hear the Gospel read in the actual Aramaic that Jesus used, and to hear the words of consecration in the same language too.

This is not the mass I went to, but it gives a good idea: youtube.com/watch?v=INouqp4uaKQ

[/quote]

The Gospel is probably in the modern Aramaic.

By the way, sign of the cross, it does vary. Remember, not every Eastern Church is the same. That is why I said in another thread that to lump all other Churches as "Eastern Churches" is a misnomer. There are 5 Liturgical Rites there. You can't say the Ukrainian Church is the same as the Maronite Church or the Coptic Church.


#4

[quote="babochka, post:2, topic:299483"]
Was it actually in Aramaic, or Assyrian? I ask because the Chaldean church near me reads the gospel in Assyrian, Arabic, and English. I only know this because I was with an Assyrian friend. (Yes, it makes for a long Mass.) I particularly like the sign of peace in the Chaldean church.

[/quote]

The priest said that it was the actual Aramaic, though he said he couldn't be sure that the pronunciation would be exactly the same.


#5

[quote="ConstantineTG, post:3, topic:299483"]
Some parts could be authentically First Century Aramaic. Though I believe more other parts are the current version of Aramaic. It's kinda like Koine Greek (Classical/First Century) and Modern Greek.

I doubt it. They are extremely Latinized and they even had a recent reform to their Liturgy. If you hear the priest verbally say the Words of Institution, it is not the original Anaphora of Addai and Mari, therefore it has been changed.

The Gospel is probably in the modern Aramaic.

By the way, sign of the cross, it does vary. Remember, not every Eastern Church is the same. That is why I said in another thread that to lump all other Churches as "Eastern Churches" is a misnomer. There are 5 Liturgical Rites there. You can't say the Ukrainian Church is the same as the Maronite Church or the Coptic Church.

[/quote]

The priest specifically mentioned that it was the original Anaphora of Addai and Mari, disciples of St. Thomas.

He was explaining as he was going along because the mass was for the permanent diaconate candidates: we are going to experience as many rites and forms of the mass as possible during our formation.

Any idea why the priest would tap the paten and the chalice together three times?


#6

[quote="ConstantineTG, post:3, topic:299483"]

The Gospel is probably in the modern Aramaic.

[/quote]

To the best of my knowledge, that would be known as Assyrian. I could be wrong on this, though. My source is a Chadean Catholic, recent immigrant from Iraq, who attends our church.


#7

[quote="triumphguy, post:5, topic:299483"]
The priest specifically mentioned that it was the original Anaphora of Addai and Mari, disciples of St. Thomas.

He was explaining as he was going along because the mass was for the permanent diaconate candidates: we are going to experience as many rites and forms of the mass as possible during our formation.

Any idea why the priest would tap the paten and the chalice together three times?

[/quote]

Cheers? :D

We do that too with the star on the diskos. This is prior to consecration, right?

I am asking about the Anaphora because there were recent "updates" to the Chaldean Holy Qurbana where they inserted the spoken words of institution to the Anaphora of Addai and Mari even though the Vatican told them they didn't have to. I think this was done around 2008, I was reading about it a couple of years ago. We also have a Chaldean mission parish here in our area and I have met the priest who is biritual (but originally Chaldean) and he is an awesome priest.

[quote="babochka, post:6, topic:299483"]
To the best of my knowledge, that would be known as Assyrian. I could be wrong on this, though. My source is a Chadean Catholic, recent immigrant from Iraq, who attends our church.

[/quote]

Yup, it is not more commonly called Syriac. Though they would sometimes still refer to it as Aramaic.


#8

[quote="ConstantineTG, post:7, topic:299483"]
I am asking about the Anaphora because there were recent "updates" to the Chaldean Holy Qurbana where they inserted the spoken words of institution to the Anaphora of Addai and Mari even though the Vatican told them they didn't have to. I think this was done around 2008, I was reading about it a couple of years ago. We also have a Chaldean mission parish here in our area and I have met the priest who is biritual (but originally Chaldean) and he is an awesome priest.

[/quote]

Not quite. The Institution Narrative was imposed on the Chaldeans by Rome at the time of union in the late 16th century. It's been there ever since. The only substantial "change" in the recent "reforms" by the Holy Synod was its placement. It was moved to reflect the same position in the order of the Anaphora that it occupies in the other two (far less used) East Syriac Anaphorae.

I have no first-hand knowledge of this, but as I've been told, the addition of an Institution Narrative to the Anaphora of Addi & Mari is actually not unknown in the ACoE either.

[quote="ConstantineTG, post:7, topic:299483"]
Yup, it is not more commonly called Syriac. Though they would sometimes still refer to it as Aramaic.

[/quote]

Among the natives, the language is most often called "suraya", which is a form of the word "suryoyo" which translates into English as Syriac. It is sometimes referred to as "athuraya" which is a more recent appellation, and translates to "Assyrian" in English. In some native circles, the "classical" form is also called "ormoyo" (or "armaya") which translates to "Aramaic" in English. Either way, there are several modern forms, (often called "neo-Aramaic" due to the influence of various other languages) all of which derive from the "classical" which itself has three main dialects: East Syriac (used among the Chaldeans, and ACoE, and, traditionally by the Syro-Malabars), West Syriac (used by the SOC, SCC, Maronites, and the Syro-Malankara), and what is often called "Palestinian-Jewish Aramaic" which survives in certain villages in the mountains of southern Syria, and is only used liturgically by the Byzantine Orthodox in those villages. (That last is pretty much the dialect used in the "Passion of the Christ).

The Order of Mass in the Chaldean Church is in liturgical ("classical") Syriac (Eastern dialect), whereas the readings themselves, along with the sermon, etc, are done in neo-Aramaic.


#9

[quote="ConstantineTG, post:3, topic:299483"]
I doubt it. They are extremely Latinized and they even had a recent reform to their Liturgy.

[/quote]

This is not as generally true as it once was. Many so-called latinizations (I'm thinking here mainly devotional practices) have been incorporated, in their Chaldean forms (which are not necessarily merely translations of the Latin forms, and this is true among other Oriental Churches as well), into the life of the Chaldean Church over many centuries.

The Holy Synod acted several years back to remove most of the latinizations from the Missal, and to restore certain traditions (such as the sanctuary veil). It also acted to remove the most obvious (and, IMO, insidious) Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization, (that, of course, being the use of a versus populum table), and return to ad orientem celebration. :) However, as can be seen in the linked video, some bishops have ignored and/or obstructed the implementation of this in their dioceses. :(


#10

It's all very interesting though, and was a good experience for me.


#11

[quote="malphono, post:9, topic:299483"]
This is not as generally true as it once was. Many so-called latinizations (I'm thinking here mainly devotional practices) have been incorporated, in their Chaldean forms (which are not necessarily merely translations of the Latin forms, and this is true among other Oriental Churches as well), into the life of the Chaldean Church over many centuries.

The Holy Synod acted several years back to remove most of the latinizations from the Missal, and to restore certain traditions (such as the sanctuary veil). It also acted to remove the most obvious (and, IMO, insidious) Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization, (that, of course, being the use of a versus populum table), and return to ad orientem celebration. :) However, as can be seen in the linked video, some bishops have ignored and/or obstructed the implementation of this in their dioceses. :(

[/quote]

But they did add an audible words of institution, right? That is at least what I have read.


#12

The area I live in has an extensive Chaldean population, even to the extent that there is a Chaldean Cathedral in metro Detroit, and our local seminary ( Sacred Heart) trains both Latin and Chaldean priests.

We have a Chaldean Sub-Deacon in our Latin parish.

I try and take the kids there a few times a year (and a nearby Rutherian parish) just so they are familiar with the Eastern Churches.


#13

[quote="ConstantineTG, post:11, topic:299483"]
But they did add an audible words of institution, right? That is at least what I have read.

[/quote]

Yes, the Institution Narrative was added. In the 16th century.


#14

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.