www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Anaphora

I make the statement that I make because there has been a conscious effort on the part of the liturgical revisionists of the Byzantine Metropolia of Pittsburgh to remove our attention from the Oblation, from the Sacrifice, from the divine Offering and place that attention on the prayerful and holy offering of the people. This focal change is very clearly stated by Father David in his earlier response here. One�s focus is quite consciously and purposefully turned to the prayers added to the sacramental act itself, the High Priestly Sacrifice.

In speaking of the earliest Eucharistic practice in the Church of the Cup of Blessing and the Breaking of the Bread and Words of Institution, Father Casimir Kucharek says of those prayers:

�Since such short and simple action was all out of proportion with the importance and majesty of what was being done [the offering of the High Priestly Oblation], there was an obvious need for an expanded ceremonial.�

And just as obviously the Byzantine Church has decided that there is an obvious need to turn the entire focus of the Liturgy of the Faithful from the Holy Oblation, to the extended ceremonial. Father David clearly states in his response:

�The word "Anaphora" was chosen here, because it is the technical word for what is called the "Eucharistic Prayer" Even St. John Chrysostom uses the word "anaphora" in this technical sense. The deacon is therefore calling the congregation to attention to listen to the anaphora prayerfully. The Anaphora is a "sacrifice of praise."�

This particular accretion is a perversion of the divine liturgy that strips the work of the central intention of the Church in the celebration of the sacramental mystery of Eucharist.

I do not level this charge lightly and I have never in my life run away from any place on account of poorly done liturgies. This is not some esoteric exercise for me, and I do not joke about the conclusion that I have drawn.

I will offer text from one of our catechetical works and follow with Father David�s recent explanation of the necessity for the change in the text, from oblation or sacrifice, to �anaphora.�

From "Life and Worship. The Mystery of Christ Among Us." p. 68

"The true focus of the Divine Liturgy is ...nothing less than the celebration of the New Covenant our God has made with us in Jesus Christ. It is our entry into the mystery of the death and resurrection of Christ, of his physical glorification in the heavens, and of His second coming which we await."

Later in the same text on pages 73-74, the authors cite the three Hebrew elements in Jewish worship that have been incorporated into Christian divine liturgies, east and west, and have remained a part of our liturgical structures until today. Those three elements are found in 1) in the synagogue as places of prayer and learning, 2) in the home, in the breaking of bread together and sharing in a meal, and 3) in priestly sacrifice.

Of the priestly sacrifice the catechetical text says the following on page 73: �Jewish worship had several different elements. Most important were the rites of sacrifice in which offerings�were presented to the Lord�they [sacrifices] were primarily the office of the priests who were responsible for offering them on behalf of the nation.�

And then on pages 74 and 75: �Several [patristic] Fathers noted that He [Jesus] not only gave the command [for anamnesis], but he also gave the Church the power to fulfill it in a unique way when he bestowed his Holy Spirit upon it. Because the Spirit works in the Church, our remembrance is not simply a human action of recalling the past. Through the power of the Holy Spirit, our recalling of Christ�s action becomes the occasion for Him to transform our gifts into the sacrificed Body which rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and is continually offering Himself for us. And so it is our way of entering personally into the only offering truly acceptable to God; acceptable because it is Christ Himself Who is both the Priest and the Offering. And so because Christ�s command receives this fullness of power in the Holy Spirit, the Eucharistic Meal became from the first the Church�s unique act of experiencing the presence of its sacrificed Lord.�

Compare this latter teaching with that offered by Father David:

�The complete reality of the one true sacrifice is present when we "offer the anaphora," which the faithful immediately qualify in their hymn as the "sacrifice of praise." Certainly, the sacramental mystery occurs with the union of the physical elements of bread and wine, who become in reality the body and blood of the Lord, and the prayer that we say over the gifts.�

Father David,

We, the faithful, do not offer the sacrifice of praise in the Liturgy. The sacrifice of praise, the Holy Oblation of peace is offered by Jesus, Lord, Master, High Priest and Offering.

Until this jurisdiction restores Jesus, Lord, Master, High Priest and Offering, to His rightful place in the Liturgy of the Faithful, I will not attend one of our falsified liturgies.

Mary Elizabeth Lanser

Mary Elizabeth,

You might consider discussing this with your priest in the coming months. The promulgation is not in effect for another 3 months, which would allow you time to seek spiritual guidance from the Church without violating your conscience.

In portuguese we say Estejamos atentos... para oferecer em paz a santa obla��o (holy oblation).

I'm afraid I still don't get it.

"Let us be attentive to offer the holy oblation (anaphora in Greek() in peace."

"An offering of peace, a sacrifice of praise."

It's clear from the text that we offer the anaphora, and it's further clear from the text that it is an offering of peace, a sacrifice of praise.

If you have a problem with the notion that the faithful offer the anaphora, joining ourselves to the sacrifice of Christ, then you have a problem with the liturgy of John Chrysostom, which clearly calls us to stand aright and be attentive, so that *we* may offer the holy anaphora.

Is the Liturgy wrong?

Everyone who belongs to a Ruthenian parish knows that in the '65 Liturgicon the word is "Oblation." "Let us be attentive, to offer the Holy Oblation in peace." "Oblation" is the word chosen in this place also in the Antiochian and OCA English Liturgies. So why strike out a perfectly good idiomatic, understandable English word, and replace it with a word which is strange, awkward, and unlike Theotokos, has no history of devotional use in our language? Do the revisers now dislike words of Latin derivation? Or is the real nature of the liturgical action made just all too plain by the word oblation?

"Anaphora," comes from ana: up; and phero: carry, bear, lift. It is used in Hebrews 7:27 (anapherein) and translated "to offer up sacrifice." In our liturgical context, it clearly means that which is offered up as a sacrifice. It does not refer primarily to the offering of a prayer, but to the sacrifice of Christ: "We offer to You Yours of Your own." Therefore it is right to retain the word "oblation." This is a proper translation.

And so I am left wondering, what is really behind this needless change?

Gabriel

Some other comparisons, Gabriel:
2001 Melkite translation: ...to offer the holy oblation in peace.
1988 UGCC translation:...to offer in peace the holy oblation.
1999 ROCOR Priest's Service Book translation:...offer the holy oblation in peace.

It's clearly defined in the glossary of the pew book that the Anaphora is the Eucharistic Prayer and not the oblation. If it was a matter of the anaphora=the oblation and explained that way, that would be a whole different ball of bee's wax.

I hope you are not questioning the epicletic efficacy of the Anaphora of Sts. Addai and Mari in its very ancient form without the "Institution narrative". The Church certainly does not, as can be seen in the recent (and much needed) statement between the Chaldeans and Assyrians.

It perplexes me, but I do not question it. Here I must have faith seeking understanding.

I'll grant that it is sometimes difficult for those coming from a traditional Latin sacramental understanding to grasp, where the "institutional narrative" is a central feature, and the epicletic content more indirect, sort of the reverse of the example of Sts. Addai and Mari. The epicletic content is less direct, i.e. the Supplices te rogamus of the traditional Roman Canon.

Most translators up to now have assumed that the word "Anaphora" used by the deacon in the introduction to the anaphora was being used in a generic sense - oblation, offering, or some such. However, it is being used in a specific sense, to refer to the prayer that the priest is about to say and which in the Orthodox tradition is called the "anaphora." (Cf. St. John Chrysostom, On the Acts of the Apostles 18,5)
I am very, very, very sorry that the glossary does not identify anaphora with oblation, but you can't always say everything. I think my comments that the "sacrifice of praise" that we offer is to be identified with the one true sacrifice of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ would suffice. I know that among those more sensitive to traditional questions, any suggestion that the Divine Liturgy is not a sacrifice would be met with condemnation.
The fact is too that the Liturgy is a "Divine" Liturgy, that it is offered by our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ would also be clear from my comments. Apparently Mary Elizabeth Lanser did not take it in that sense. Therefore, let me reaffirm, the Divine Liturgy is a divine action as the very title of my book, taken from the deacon's instruction to the priest to begin, "time for the Lord to act," should make abundantly clear. Our difficulty seems to be that we cannot admit/understand? that even if God acts, it is also our action. We, after all, as the anaphora affirms, offer to God what is God's own. We can do this because we have been commissioned by God - "Do this in memory of me," (The Greek word for memory is anamnesis, which is a part/aspect of the anaphora) and because we form with Jesus the mystical body of Christ, "And he put all things beneath his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of the one who fills all things in every way." This should not be a problem. There are many passages in the Liturgy affirming that we are offering the sacrifice, albeit in union with Christ, who is the head of his body, the church. Our prayer has value only because we are praying (hence offering the sacrifice) together with our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ.

Father David offers some serious food for thought here. Anaphora is the Greek word used in this opening exhortation following the Symbol of Faith, so it cannot simply be ruled out. On the other hand, Anaphora is also used in the LXX text of the final verse of Psalm 50, and I�ve not encountered any suggestion that it should be retained in English in that context.

The word itself is rich in meaning and has been around for a very long time; it did not originate with the LXX but that translation of Psalm 50 is probably the gate-way to the Scriptural use, and eventual Christian use, of this term. The root seems to mean some form of rising up or elevating movement � which fits nicely in the context of offering something to God.

In the opening exhortation, the phrase �to offer the Holy Anaphora� seems to me to imply fairly clearly that a specific Anaphora is meant, with a special significance. Any offering to God becomes holy by the act of offering, but that this particular Anaphora is called that means that it is outstandingly Holy, uniquely Holy � and since that exhortation introduces the Action of the Eucharist, the significance of THE Anaphora is surely the specific Anaphora which we are about to offer � this exhortation does not introduce the passing of the collection plate!

So, while in English I might consider �oblation� a reasonable translation, and perhaps more easily understood, there does not appear to be any reason to take issue with the published Ruthenian text on the point � I must admit to being mildly pleased, because I remember someone almost fifty years ago trying to tell me that the use of such a word in any context at all was a clear sign of insanity!

The use of the term Anaphora is by no means limited to the Eastern Orthodox tradition; Roman Catholic students of liturgy know and use this term without being disturbed by it [the difference between the Anaphora and the Canon of the Mass is that the Anaphora includes what the Latins call the Preface, while the Canon does not].

However, the Anaphora is more than just the words of the prayer � the Anaphora includes the Action which is accomplished by God and the Church in and through that prayer. It is possible for us to unite ourselves to that action without even understanding the language in which the prayer is being read, or knowing with certainty precisely which version of the prayer is being used on a particular occasion (this could happen to any of us; it has happened to me when I have attended celebrations of the Alexandrian Liturgy, either in Coptic or in Ge�ez, since I know next to nothing of these languages).

To another of Father David�s points, the Eucharistic Sacrifice is certainly identified with the Sacrifice of Our Savior on the Cross; that is the Faith of the Church and most versions of the Anaphora make that clear. I�ve not encountered any denial of this teaching among either Orthodox Christians or Greek-Catholics.

Equally of course, the expression �the Divine Liturgy� is meant to be taken seriously � and it underscores what I have already stressed, the unity of the action of God and the Church in what takes place.

I�m not at all sure why it would be difficult to grasp the point that God and the Church act together in the Eucharistic Sacrifice. I could follow this theme at great length �but not this minute. Father Alexander Schmemann, of holy memory, enjoyed pointing out that man was created for the express purpose of offering rational thanks to God on behalf of the whole physical creation (the stars in the sky, or the birds singing, or my dog being his happy-go-lucky self, are all offering thanks to God, but they don�t know it. We, who are both corporeal and rational, are supposed to offer thanks to God and to be aware that this is what we are doing).

The idea that God and man cooperate in various ways is scarcely novel � did not the Incarnation require the consent of the Virgin Mary? Do the Holy Mysteries not require someone (normally a bishop or priest) to administer them? Yet is God not the primary agent in the Holy Mysteries? I myself certainly could not accomplish the Divine Liturgy, or forgive sins � God has chosen to do these and other things through His priests, including this particular priest, and certainly not because of any special merit of mine.

So on this one Father David has my complete sympathy. My only difficulty is that I don�t understand what the problem is, apart from the use of a term which is not in common speech and which many people might find a bit of a challenge.

Fr. Serge

Father David (DP) wrote:

DP: �Most translators up to now have assumed that the word "Anaphora" used by the deacon in the introduction to the anaphora was being used in a generic sense - oblation, offering, or some such. However, it is being used in a specific sense, to refer to the prayer that the priest is about to say and which in the Orthodox tradition is called the "anaphora." (Cf. St. John Chrysostom, On the Acts of the Apostles 18,5)�

JK: And how did anyone know that the word was being used wrong? So using the translated words �oblation, offering, or some such� all this time by multiple jurisdictions, Catholic and Orthodox has been a mistranslation of this phrase? And no one caught it until the Liturgical Committee from the Ruthenian Metropolitan Church sui juris of Pittsburgh came along and figured it out?

DP: �I am very, very, very sorry that the glossary does not identify anaphora with oblation, but you can't always say everything. I think my comments that the "sacrifice of praise" that we offer is to be identified with the one true sacrifice of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ would suffice. I know that among those more sensitive to traditional questions, any suggestion that the Divine Liturgy is not a sacrifice would be met with condemnation.�

JK: I�m sorry as well that �offering or oblation� was not part of the definition either. Us laymen, oops! laypersons have been taught, by the nuns, by the priests, by the bishops, by the Liturgy, that the Eucharistic prayer is where the �sacrifice of praise� is offered. Now all of the sudden, it�s the prayer itself that is offered? The prayer is the �sacrifice of praise?� Can�t you see past your own scholarship what a huge change in emphasis this is?

DP: �The fact is too that the Liturgy is a "Divine" Liturgy, that it is offered by our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ would also be clear from my comments. Apparently Mary Elizabeth Lanser did not take it in that sense. Therefore, let me reaffirm, the Divine Liturgy is a divine action as the very title of my book, taken from the deacon's instruction to the priest to begin, "time for the Lord to act," should make abundantly clear. Our difficulty seems to be that we cannot admit/understand? that even if God acts, it is also our action. We, after all, as the anaphora affirms, offer to God what is God's own.�

JK: What are we offering to Him? �We offer to you, yours of your own...� What is God�s own? The Eucharistic prayer the priest is (we are) praying? I don�t think that I�ve ever heard from any priest or bishop, or liturgist, or theologian that what is �God�s own� is this prayer. I have heard it is His Son�s Body and Blood that we�re offering �in behalf of all and for all.� I�ve read your book�but most Ruthenian Greek Catholics of the Pittsburgh Metropolitan Church sui juris I know have not.

DP: �We can do this because we have been commissioned by God - "Do this in memory of me," (The Greek word for memory is anamnesis, which is a part/aspect of the anaphora) and because we form with Jesus the mystical body of Christ, "And he put all things beneath his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of the one who fills all things in every way." This should not be a problem. There are many passages in the Liturgy affirming that we are offering the sacrifice, albeit in union with Christ, who is the head of his body, the church. Our prayer has value only because we are praying (hence offering the sacrifice) together with our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ.�


I still have not had an answer to my several questions, so I�ll recap them directly from my posts:

1st time: �So, here's the problem I'm having understanding: when the deacon invites us to "Let us stand aright...to offer the Holy Anaphora in peace" are we offering the Anaphora or are we offering the bread and wine which become the Body and Blood of Christ, to the Father?�

2nd time: �I know that only the presider can pray the Anaphora, but when the deacon says "Let us offer the Holy Anaphora in peace" are we offering the Anaphora or are we offering the Body and Blood of Christ during the Anaphora?�

3rd time: �So at the deacon's command, are we, through the presider, offering the prayer or the bread/wine which become the Body and Blood of Christ?�

4th time: �I guess I would have to ask if anaphora=voznosenije and how one would translate voznosenije into modern American English accessible today's assembly.

I guess that my real question comes down to this:

Is the anaphora prayer the sacrifice we're offering, or is the sacrifice of Christ made present during the anaphora prayer the sacrifice we're offering?

I'm trying to make my question simple, to receive a clear answer, because the new translation does not make it simple for me to understand. It's a complicated concept I know, and all this makes it only the more complicated.�


Finally, here�s a �new, fresh translation� or such of one of my above questions:

-How would one translate �voznosenije� or for that matter �anaphora� into modern American English (not GREEK!) accessible for today�s worshipping assembly? There�s no good word?

John K the layman�oops! layperson. Oh heck, I�m just one of �us all!�

I see your dilemma, John.

The Eastern Churches give the name Anaphora to the Eucharistic prayer. The term comes from the Greek and means to lift on high or to elevate. Therefore, it has the meaning of offering, which is the principal action that is taking place. As already noted, during the Eucharistic service we seek to unite ourselves with the sacrificial offering of the Body and Blood of Christ, so as to achieve union with God.
http://www.stmaron.org/anaphora.html

Now, if the Anaphora is the Eucharistic prayer, surely the Anaphora is not being offered. The bread and wine is being offered which will become the Body and Blood of Christ--the Holy Oblation!

Now I am disturbed also.

It seemed to me that this question has actually been answered in an earlier note from Father David:



Mary