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

On this point, Father David is on firm ground. There is nothing wrong with the word "Anaphora", nor with the summons to pay close attention "that we may offer the Holy Anaphora in peace."

Since this does not change, regardless of whether the Divine Liturgy in use on a particular day is that of Saint Basil the Great or that of Saint John Chrysostom, it should be clear that in this context "Anaphora" refers to what is called in Latin the "Actio Missae" - in other words, to what is done - rather than to any one specific prayer-text of the Anaphora.

Fr. Serge

Dear Father David,

The revised divine liturgy is an English translation. While there may not be a good English translation for Theotokos, there certainly is for "anaphora."

Calling people to pray a prayer, prayerfully, at this point in the liturgy would make wonderful sense if the liturgy were indeed an "icon" of the redeeming act of the passion, death and resurrection of our Lord and Savior.

Are you saying that the Byzantine Metropolia of Pittsburgh now intends to teach that the divine liturgy is a memorial, or an iconic, prayerfully ritualistic and reverential memorial depiction of the prototype?

Is this our new liturgical theology?

Mary

I'm not altogether sure that "oblation" or "sacrifice" would be an optimal translation of "anaphora". "Anaphora" is a rich word, and retaining it offers the possiiblity of basing some liturgical catechesis on it.

Fr. Serge

Yes!!! The Liturgy is certainly a memorial. This is not a new theology in any way. Our Lord, revealing to us this mystery, said, "Do this in memory of me." In the very center of the Anaphora, moreover, we pray, "Remembering, therefore, this saving command and all that has come to pass in our behalf: the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the sitting at the right hand, and the second coming in glory." This is not a new theology, this is the ancient and traditional theology.

I keep on insisting in this because it is important for our understanding of the Liturgy. The prayer that we pray - and to which we must be attentive - and the one sacrifice of our Lord are united in the one divine action of the Divine Liturgy.

St. Augustine describes a sacrament thus: "Accedit verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum." The prayer of the anaphora is said over the bread and wine we bring to the Holy Table, and by divine power the elements become the Body and Blood of Christ. This is not the same as an icon, for an icon of Christ does not become Christ, but the quotation is still good, for it speaks of the relationship of prototype to type. Perhaps in the eucharist, we should say the relationship is prototype to antitype ( = reality).

This is the sacramental theology of the Church, a "connect" which may have been broken in the Middle Ages. If word and element are disconnected, then, as some Protestants hold, the elements become mere symbols of the body and blood of Christ, which is, of course, a theological error. But we must also beware the opposite reaction, if only the elements are the sacrifice, and not the prayer, then the prayer becomes unimportant and merely "historical" as one theologian said. Then the Western Church looks with suspicion on the very common Eastern formula, "sacrifice of praise." The problem here may be an extreme reaction to the Protestants. The connection of prayer and offered gift is the authentic and ancient theology. Both word and element are essential.

Still why the complete audible anaphora? While the position may be that at some point it was audible, why erase ORGANIC development and go against the majority of Eastern Christians that still have some parts of the anaphora inaudible?

Certainly the Eucharist is a memorial - check the text of the Western antiphon O Sacrum Convivium. The problem arose when Protestants taught that the Eucharist is only a memorial, as though there were some unavoidable contradiction between "memorial" and "sacrifice".

As for "sacrifice of praise", that very expression occurs in the Roman Canon: So those who object to our using the same phrase are attempting to be "more Catholic than the Pope".

This has no particular connection with the audibility or inaudibility of the Anaphora.

Fr. Serge

Dear ones,

Nothing that you or Father David have said here indicates in any way a necessity, in an English translation, for leaving the Greek word "anaphora" in place of the English word "oblation."

In Greek "anaphora" comes from the verb that means "to repeat." Not to memoralize, but to repeat, over and over again, for effect.

In the case of the Eucharist we have a re-presentation done in memory, which has a slightly and critically different connotation, than the English word "memorial."

To speak of the re-presentation of the Holy Oblation allows us to understand that we offer ourselves with Son of God in his passion, death and resurrection, over and over again.

At this point in the liturgy we are being called to offer the same Holy Oblation that we offer in each Eucharistic liturgy. As John Paul II noted so beautifully:



The emphasis is not on a 'prayer prayed prayerfully.'

Repetition, anaphero, refers to the offering, repeated, with the emphasis so heavily on the Holy Offering that the word "anaphora" was take out of its literary milieu and came to mean the oblation itself, the offering of the bread and wine of Eucharist.

The Holy Oblation as it has been offered over the centuries has not been some "generic" offering as Father David said here in his initial catechesis on the retention of 'anaphora' in the text. The real nature of the oblation has been clear for generations.

Not only the nature of the Holy Oblation but also our active and unceasing participation have been clear as well. We are not called to pray a prayer prayerfully. We are called to really and truly join the Christ, re-present with Him, outside of time, the actions of His passion, death, and third day resurrection.

And that is not clear in your choice to retain the Greek word in an English translation, nor is it clear in your explanations here.

In fact, Father David has made it abundantly clear that his first emphasis, and one presumes now, that the Metropolia also chooses to emphasize the praying of prayers, rather than the offering of a Holy Oblation and active, real participation in the redemptive act of the Christ, in memory.

And that is patently closer to the protestant perspective than it is to the Catholic perspective.

But our priests know, and many of our people know what is true and right, and I do trust that they will act in accord with the reality of our litugical purpose, and use the words that make us mindful of the role we play as co-redeemers with Christ.

As to myself, Father, you are far too kind. If I could be holy to even the smallest extent, as St. John Chrysostom or John Paul the Second, then I would be joyful and blessed woman.

Mary

Dear ElijahMaria,

I did a quick search in Liddell-Scott on the Perseus Project, and "anaphora" had the meaning of "offering" already in the LXX, well before there ever was a eucharist.

Here's a link, if it works: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%237747

Here's the verse from Psalm 51:19 (50 in LXX)
τοτε ευδοκησεις θυσιαν δικαιοσυνης αναφοραν και ολοκαυτωματα τοτε ανοισουσιν επι το θυσιαστηριον σου μοσχους

Yes. Forgive if I did not make what I was saying clear enough in temporal terms.

One can find English definitions of anaphora that refer specifically to the offering of Eucharistic species of bread and wine. One can also find the equivalent reference in definitions of oblation.

Point being that there is no need not to translate anaphora into oblation.

Mary

is there a strict "need" to refrain from translating "Anaphora" as oblation? No.

Is there a possible value to allowing "Anaphora" to remain as I have just spelled it? Yes.

Fr. Serge

Till tomorrow, Father.

God bless and good night.

Mary

A couple of points to consider.

One the actual definition of oblation:

ob�la�tion
n.
1. The act of offering something, such as worship or thanks, to a deity.
2. Oblation
a. The act of offering the bread and wine of the Eucharist.
b. Something offered, especially the bread and wine of the Eucharist.
3. A charitable offering or gift.

[Middle English oblacioun, from Old French oblacion, from Late Latin oblti, obltin-, from Latin obltus, past participle of offerre, to offer : ob-, ob- + ltus, brought; see tel- in Indo-European roots.]


ob�lation�al, obla�tory adj.

The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright �2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


It is clear then that oblation is no more appropriate than anaphora because both mean offering.

Then there is this point:

Anaphora
(Greek, �naphor�, offering, sacrifice).

A liturgical term in the Greek Rite. It is variously used in the liturgies of the Greek Orient to signify that part of the service which corresponds substantially to the Latin Canon of the Mass. It also signifies the offering of Eucharistic bread; the large veil (see AER) that covers the same, and the procession in which the offering is brought to the altar (Brightman).

1. In the Greek Rite the Anaphoras are numerous while in the Roman Rite the Canon of the Mass is from time immemorial quite invariable. The Greek Anaphora is substantially of apostolic origin, though in its present form it dates from the end of the fourth or the beginning of the fifth century when St. Basil the Great and St. John Chrysostom (respectively) shortened the liturgy that until then was very long and fatiguing. The term is of much importance, given its antiquity, for the demonstration of the sacrificial character of the Holy Mass (see Cabrol, 1911-13; Probst, 240, 325).


The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, not usually noted for its appreciation of Byzantine Theology, itself states:

The term is of much importance, given its antiquity, for the demonstration of the sacrificial character of the Holy Mass.

I don't think one can argue that oblation is a more sacrificial term than anaphora and in fact I think it can be argued that anaphora is the more appropriate word given it simprotance to the Eastern Church. I would also point out the Syriacs refer to the entire Liturgy by Qurbono/Offering.

My whole point, Fr. Lance, was not so much the word, but the emphasis has changed in the RDL. The old read: "to offer the holy oblation in peace." I think that everyone understands/understood that as being the offering of Christ's Body and Blood, the one perfect sacrifice. The new emphasis, based on what I read from Fr. David, is that it's "the Anaphora(prayer)" that we're offering in peace. To me, a whole different ball game. It's confusing, you gotta admit.

I don't see it as confusing at all and I see no change in emphasis only a better understanding of what is going on. The Anaphora is the offering of Christ's Body and Blood. One cannot divide the action from the words that produce it. The Greek word for offering was substituted for a Latin derived English word for offering. Our heritage is Greek we should use Greek terminology. Why use Anaphora? Why do Latins say Eucharist rather than Thanksgiving? It has a richer meaning.

We call the collection of prayers that make Thanksgiving(Eucharist), Glorification, Sacrifice, and Rememberance(Anemnesis) the Anaphora for we offer all these things. Anemnesis is another interesting word. It can be translated rememberance, but is better left untranslated because Anemnesis does not mean remembering in kronos as we remember but in kairos as God remembers. For God everything is an eternal now, which is why there is only one Sacrifice and it is eternally present to God. We remember and make manifest (Anemnesis) the one Sacrifice by means of the Anaphora.

Father Petras, I await your response.