Here is a collection of information regarding the ancient assyrian
liturgy of mari addai and mar mari.  These excerpts were taken from some
messages that I posted on a mailing list.  My comments are preceeded
by a '(*)' symbol.<br><br>

(*) it appeared on the EWTN Q&A board with a good summary:
>
> The first question was here:
> http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=211801&Forums=25&Experts=0&Days=30&Author=&Keyword=chaldean
>
> Question: Good afternoon, Anthony, Again, one of you answers leads to
> another question. You wrote that the Assyrian Liturgy of Mari Addai and
> Mar Mari do not use the words of institution: "This is my body" and "This
> is my blood." Are the churchs using these rites in communion with Rome?
> Also, what precisely is the Epiclesis? Best Wishes
>
> Answer: Lester, The Assyrian Liturgy of Mari Addai and Mar Mari is used by
> both the Assyrian Church of the East and the Chaldean Catholic Church. The
> Assyrian Church of the East is not in communion with Rome, but the
> Chaldean Catholic Church is.
>
> In the medieval period the Chaldean Catholic Church added the words of
> institution. The Assyrian Church of the East still does not use the words
> of institution, only an Epiclesis. Nonetheless, the Catholic Church today
> recognizes the Assyrian liturgy to be perfectly valid.
>
> Recently, the Vatican Congregation for the Eastern Catholic Churches has
> asked the Chaldean Catholic Church to remove the words of institution.
> They would like the Liturgy to be restored to its original form. The
> Chaldean Catholic Patriarch has not implemented this request yet.
>
> The "Epiclesis" is the invocation of the Holy Spirit, asking for Him to
> transform the gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ.
>
> God bless, Anthony
>
> ---------------------
>
> And a summary was posted by another person here:
> http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=212144&Forums=25&Experts=0&Days=30&Author=&Keyword=chaldean
>
> Many questioners seem disturbed about the lack of Words of Institution in
> the Liturgy of Mar Addai and Mar Mari. I would remind them that current
> liturgical scholarship shows that the earliest Eucharistic prayers did not
> have the Words of Institution, i.e. the Liturgy of the Apostolic
> Constituitons. That all Anaphorae, save those of Mar Addai and Mar Mari of
> the Assyrians and St. Peter of the Maronites (also known as the Sharar; I
> do not know if it used), today have them show that the Words of
> Institution were introduced at a very early stage. They are present in all
> other Liturgies by the end of the second century. Their absence from the
> Liturgy of Mar Addai and Mar Mari shows its antiquity. Futhermore, the
> consensus of liturgical scholarship now maintains they were never there
> and this is what is being taught at the Pontifical Oriental Institute.
> Since this Church was small and isolated it received little notice until
> contact was again reestablished with them in the 1200's. When reunion was
> proposed, Latin liturgists were at a loss to explain this unusual Liturgy,
> so many theories were proposed. However, none were based on sound
> liturgical study or investigation, rather bias towards Latin understanding
> and disregard of Eastern Tradition reigned and this is what is repeated in
> the Old Catholic Encyclopedia. I, like Anthony, would discourage any
> serious student of the Eastern Churches from relying on anything in this
> encyclopedia. It is written from a "Latin is superior" mentality and is at
> times very polemical in articles dealing with the Eastern Churches. Those
> interested should stick to current Church teaching and publications
> regarding the Eastern Churches for a proper understanding. Any of
> Archimandrite Taft's books, as well as the publications of his students,
> would be extremely helpful. Most of these are published by the Pontifical
> Oriental Institute, many are doctoral dissertations.
>
> The Catholic Church accepts the validity of all the sacraments of the
> Assyrian Church of the East, including the Liturgy of Mar Addai and Mar
> Mari. Also of great importance is the excellent relationship between the
> Assyrian and Chaldean Catholic Churches. They are working on opening a
> joint seminary here in the United States and pastoral cooperation between
> them is probably the best of any of the Eastern Churches. Also worth
> noting, the Roman missalettes state that the Catholic Church does not
> objest to the reception of the Eucharist by memebers of the Assyrian
> Church. In return, the Assyrian Church, alone among the non-Catholic
> Eastern Churches, allows Catholics to receive the Eucharist.
>
> I would also like to add a word on the Epiclesis. All sacraments contain
> them in one form or another and it is the working of the Holy Spirit that
> brings all of them to fruition. Man alone can accomplish nothing.
>
> Also one poster noted that the the Roman Canon's Epiclesis is before the
> Words of Institution. He is correct there is an Epiclesis before the Words
> of Institution. However, the "Supplices te rogamus..." is a second
> Epiclesis. This is made evident by the petition of the prayer. Technically
> it is termed an implicit ascending epiclesis, as opposed to the explicit
> descending epiclesis common to Eastern Liturgies. This double epiclesis,
> one before the Institution and another after, is unique to Alexandrian
> Anaphora and the Roman Canon. Whether the Roman Church recognized it as
> such was of no consequence to St. Nicholas Cabasilas, who was defending
> the validity of the Roman Liturgy against attacks made on it by extremists
> in the Byzantine Church.
>
> In Christ, Lance, deacon candidate


(*) a description of the liturgy itself is available with some
> detail at New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14413a.htm
> under the "Eucharistic Service" heading.  Here is a quotation:
>
> "The reason of their [the words of institution] absence is uncertain.
> While some hold that this essential passage dropped out in times of
> ignorance, others say it never was there at all, being unnecessary, since
> the consecration was held to be effected by the subsequent Epiklesis
> alone. Another theory, evidently of Western origin and not quite
> consistent with the general Eastern theory of consecration by an Epiklesis
> following Christ's words, is that, being the formula of consecration, it
> was held too sacred to be written down. It does not seem to be quite
> certain whether Nestorian priests did or did not insert the Words of
> Institution in old times, but it seems that many of them do not do so
> now."
>


(*) The following is a message written by a friend after he posed the
question of this liturgy to a priest liturgy scholar he knows.  What
follows is the response from that priest:  

>      "I have read the comments on that special rite which does have
>      the Epiclesis and not the words of the institution. I was not
>      aware of that. I knew however that the words themselves are not
>      so important but the working of the Holy Spirit. In the Gospels
>      we have different versions of the words used by Jesus. That shows
>      already that there was some freedom here. A bishop or a priest is
>      not a magician. It is not by the power of some words in
>      particular that the bread and wine become the body and blood of
>      the Risen Lord. It is by the working of the Holy Spirit. Jesus
>      has assured his disciples that this Spirit would continue His
>      work if they would do what he did. The consecration has to do
>      with a Covenant, not with magic. So, it is very interesting that
>      Rome has no problem what so ever with a rite which does not use
>      the words of the institution. "
>
>

(*) Finally, a chapter devoted to this liturgy can be found in this book,
as I write here:

> I was reading "Mass of the Early Christians" by Mike Aquilina, which is an
> excellent book!  The Introduction was written by Scott Hahn and the two
> have a program on EWTN.  Anyway, I just read Ch. 22 which talks about he
> East Syrian Liturgy of Addai and Mari.  This is what he says about it:
>
> "The East Syrian liturgy of addai and mari is an enigma to those who study
> history.  Tradition attributes its authorship to the founders of the
> Church in Edessa.  Addai was said to be one of the seventy-two original
> disciples appointed by jesus.  Mari was a man converted by Addai and
> ordained by him for missionary work along the Tigris River.
>
> Eddessa was a major center of Christian culture, and some scholars believe
> that the liturgy of addai and mari does contain the city's earliest
> liturgy.  history, however, records no references to the text until the
> fifth century - which leads others to believe that it is a product of the
> followers of Nestorius, who were excommunicated by the Church in 431.  In
> any event, political, ecclesiastical, and geographical distances likely
> kept this Persian rite isolated from outside liturgical influences for
> several centuries.
>
> The liturgy's eucharistic prayer (or anaphora) poses a problem in that its
> earliest manuscripts contain no account of the institution of the
> eucharist at the last supper.  Scholars are divided on this question as
> well.  Some say that the absence of the narrative is evidence of the
> liturgy's antiquity; the Didache, after all, has no institution narrative.
> Others hold that the narrative was probably omitted from manuscripts in
> deference to the discipline of the secret -- and that the same explanation
> could apply to the Didache.
>
> Use of the liturgy spread with Nestorian missionaries, who evengalized
> areas of Iran, Iraq, India, Egypt, and China.  The spiritual descendants
> of the Nestorians continue to use the liturgy of addai andmari today, as
> do the Malabar and Chaldean rites of the Catholic Church.