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

My only criticism is that the faithful - to say nothing of the occasional visitors - are unlikely to know what the word means.

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." Please note that the Divine Liturgy is a true sacrifice identical to the sacrifice of our Lord on the Cross - that is, one in reality with it. Hence the sacrifice we offer is not a new sacrifice different from the one the Lord offered. However, as the liturgical texts consistently make clear, it is not a "bloody sacrifice," but an "unbloody sacrifce," a "sacrifice of praise" if you will, and the word sacrifice in regard to the Divine Liturgy is always modified by one of these three words, "unbloody," "logikos," or "of praise." The reality of our sacrifice comes from the presence of our Lord, who is the one and the same Lord who was sacrificied on the cross and who rose from the dead, and whom we receive in Communion under the outward form of bread and wine. 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. The introduction to the anaphora is a very ancient part of the Liturgy, quite rich in theology.

Jeff,

Thank you for your response. I think it is closest to the mark. That the deacon asks us to listen attentively to the anaphora certainly does not deny that the Divine Liturgy is the true sacrice of our Lord. It does not deny what John Paul II so beautifully wrote, nor, indeed, what I humbly wrote about sacrifice in my previous post.

Fr. Dave

Does the new Anaphora differ from that in use by most Orthodox, and with all due respect to Pope John Paul II was he speaking of the sacrifice of praise from a Roman Catholic perspective or Eastern perspective? If RC then why would an Eastern oriented church take on a RC perspective?!

Peace,
Indigo

Pope John Paul's Catechesis is about how we all celebrate eucharist, not about how the Latins celebrate the mass.

Also, I have sent this new translation and the catechesis that has been offered here by Father David to several different Orthodox priests and bishops and monastics from four different jurisdictions, and all of them have assured me that the Orthodox will not be racing to follow suit.

And all of them take issue with the idea that prior to the current Byzantine liturgy we were offering a "generic" oblation, sacrifice or some such.

It appears that the Orthodox know and understand what is meant by the Holy Oblation; they know who it is and what it means.

Mary

Rumor has it that our clergy is sufficiently astute in terms of knowing liturgical history and Christology to have already challenged this in open meetings.

So it is my hope that our priests will refuse to use the dilute non-translation and continue to call us to offer a Holy Oblation in peace.

I thank God that our priests still care enough to resist the slide toward formal heterodoxy in our liturgy.

Mary

The sacrifice on the Cross leads to the reconciliation of God the Father because man, through the offering of the sacrifice of the Son, becomes again pure and therefore ready to receive within himself the parousia of the Holy Spirit.

"For when the Lord purified the Apostles through the sacrifice, then did the Holy Spirit come. And for what reason did he not come as long as Jesus was with them? Because the sacrifice had not yet been made. Because the sin had been removed and they were being sent into a dangerous mission to assume great struggles, it was necessary for the Holy Spirit to come". [35]

But the offering of the sacrifice of the Son does not lie merely upon the fact that the sacrifice was accomplished, that is, we do not have only the death by crucifixion of the Son, but also the "anaphora" (είναι ανηνεγμένη), the lifting up to the Father of human nature, which the Son received in his person. The ascended Christ carries in his hypostasis "the first-fruits of our (restored) nature." [36] The human nature, assumed and deified by the Son, "ascended," was carried up to heaven. (The anaphora of the Eucharist has as its prototype the anaphora of the sacrifice of Christ to God the Father). This anaphora as an offering brings about the reconciliation of the Father. A confirmation of this reconciliation is the sending of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Here, however, reconciliation of the Father means that by offering to him human nature purified and restored in Christ, God the Father was, in a manner of speaking, reconciled with it and again offered to it divine gifts in even greater abundance. The reason for the reconciliation is to be found in the fact that the offered human nature is now with faith in God and not in rebellion against him. This is why divine gifts are showered upon it as a response to the faith and the trust that man now has in God.

"For the Lord himself raised up to heaven as a first-fruit our human nature which he had taken from us" [37] "For ten days ago, (on the ascension day of our Lord) our nature went up to the royal throne, and the Holy Spirit descended today (on the day of Pentecost) upon our nature. The Lord raised up the first-fruits of our nature and brought down the Holy Spirit". [38] "So that no one should ever be in doubt and question what it is that Christ did when he ascended: Did he reconcile the Father? Did he evoke his merciful nature? Wanting to clearly declare to us that he indeed reconciled our nature with God the Father, Christ sent directly to us the gifts of reconciliation (the Holy Spirit)... For we sent up faith and received gifts from heaven. We sent up obedience and we received righteousness". [39] "Even the "flesh" of humanity, which the divine Logos assumed and ultimately offered to the Father through his ascension, will never be abandoned but will be kept 'always with himself'." [40]

The assumption and the ascension or offering of the "first-fruits" of human nature constitute not only the condition for the sending of the Holy Spirit, but also the final word for our assurance that all mankind, delivered from the fear and the power of death, can now enjoy the gifts of the kingdom of God:

"This is why I am no longer afraid, for our 'first-fruits' is sitting above. This is why, should anyone speak about the endless worm, about the unceasing fire, or any other torments or punishments, I am no longer afraid of these. Rather, I am afraid of ignoring my very own salvation. For if God did not will great things for our (Christian) nation, he would not have received our first-fruits above But now, when we choose to see our nobility, we look up toward the heavens, to that royal throne; it is there that the 'first-fruits' of our nature is reigning". [41]

To be honest, I don't think most of the priests are worried about the doctrinal errors in the new translation. My pastor is just slow to change anything (and that suits us too). He has been here a long time, and Liturgy in our parish is not perfect, but it is very comfortable. We pray, we sing, we are at home with our priest and our Liturgy. He just doesn't want to stop that. He likes the way we sing, and we like the way he celebrates the Liturgy. It is a good fit. He says he has put the books in the basement for later when the time is right (when all the fuss is over). I hope our pastor lives longer than me.

Nick