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

Apparently "oblation" offers as much of an opportunity for catechesis as "anaphora" and belongs in a translation of a liturgy in English. We have a Greek and Slavic root so the idea that there is some standard of purity-in-origin required is not real.

I do not believe that the catechesis that has been offered here in the words of St. John Chysostom and John Paul the Second, concerning the Holy Oblation offered during the Anaphora or Eucharistic prayers, depends at all upon any secular dictionary for its teachings.

Furthermore Father David has made it clear in his own, I presume official, catechesis for this addition of a Greek word in the RDL that "Anaphora" is used in its "technical" sense, and is meant to represent a 'prayer prayed prayerfully.'

He also has said very clearly that before this iteration of the Byzantine RDL the deacon was calling people to some kind of generic offering or oblation or some such, and now for the first time in the history of the liturgy we know what we are doing there.

Well I, and numerous members of our Metropolitan clergy and faithful, other Greek Catholic clergy and faithful, and Orthodox monastics, clergy and faithful, beg to differ with Father David.

We all, and generations before us at least back to St. John Chrysostom, indeed did know precisely the Church's meaning when she called us to offer a Holy Oblation, and that call invites us to do much much more than pray a prayer, prayerfully. And that is the crux of the resistance to the addition of the Greek word "Anaphora" explicitly used in its technical sense.

Mary

I am pleased by the response by our clergy to that particular addition to the liturgy.

From what I can see thus far in the explanation of the addition, it is clearly a diminishment of the fullness of the act, and not an opportunity for anything but a justification of the diminishment.

Mary

and



It is not clear to me that a Holy Oblation in the context in which we are discussing it here does in fact disconnect the word from the elements to be transfigured.

I don't see in any of the catechesis here, from St. John Chrysostom and Pope John Paul II, concerning either oblation or anaphora [lower case] where there is such a putative disconnect.

Rather I see not only a union of word and element, but also the active and immediate offering of one's self in the re-presentation of the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus.

There is nothing in our ancient understanding of oblation that separates word from element.

But I do see an inordinate focus, in the explanation offered for the addition of the technical term Anaphora [upper case], on the symbolism of prayer, on a prayer prayed prayerfully, and a complete absence of the active offering of one's self on the part of all who would assist in the fullness of the offering.

It is this latter absence which changes the entire focus of the liturgy of the Eucharist.

There is a section in Hugh Wybrew's Orthodox Liturgy that is reminiscent of this particular focus on anaphora. When I have the time in the next few days I will type the text and send it along.

Mary

Father David Petras spoke about the use of the term �Anaphora� to the Passaic clergy.

He said that the Anaphora represents a prayerfully prayed prayer.

The best way to understand his theology is to use substitution.

The old translation was �Let us stand aright, let us stand in awe, let us be attentive to offer the holy oblation in peace.�

The text of the new liturgy is: �Let us be attentive to offer the holy Anaphora in peace.�

If we substitute the Roman Catholic term �Eucharistic Prayer� for �Anaphora� what David is saying becomes clear:

�Let us be attentive to offer the Eucharistic Prayer in peace.�

Using the term �Anaphora� is not wrong. The theology justifying the change is very wrong. The emphasis has shifted and not in a good direction. In Father David�s theology we are not offering the offering of bread and wine in peace. We are offering the Eucharistic Prayer in peace. This is wrong. We are offering the offering of bread and wine through the Prayer of the Anaphora. The Prayer of the Anaphora is also part of the offering. This shift in theological emphasis will lead to a lot of unnecessary questions about Eucharistic Presence.

This is yet another example of change for change's sake. There was nothing wrong with term "oblation". It did not need to be changed.

I will not go so far as to say that there was an actual need to change "oblation" to Anaphora. I will go so far as to say that I am quite comfortable with the word "Anaphora" in this context.

The notion that "Anaphora" means "a prayerfully prayed prayer" is downright bizarre!

Fr. Serge

Father David stated earlier in this thread:


DJ wrote:


I would draw a different conclusion from what I have emphasized in bold--especially because the Anaphora is now being taken aloud.

It seems the emphasis in the Divine Liturgy, the people are offering the bread and wine, and the priest is offering the prayer (the words) to effect the one Offering of Christ. Now it appears (in the day and age when people don't generally actually bring the gifts to the Church to be offered) the RDL emphasizes that the people, with the priest, are offering the Eucharistic prayer. The offering of the people is now all very much intellectual (or less concrete) since the people don't actually bring these physical offerings anymore.

This modern view sort of blurs the role between priest and people which reflects the egalitarianism of modernity. It also reflects the fact that most of us don't actually provide for our families by the sweat of our brow by tilling the soil to produce wheat and grapes.

Perhaps the RDL is for people of today. Its tendencies are all very much ordered to demphasizing roles and distinctions which is what has been done in modern society.

In the traditional catechesis for the Eucharistic prayer, both east and west, the offering is not merely bread and wine to be brought materially to the temple by one or two of the people assisting in the liturgy on any given Sunday.

The offering is of our very selves, body and soul, to be raised up to the Father, through the raising up of the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit.

That is precisely what is of utmost import for each one of us, in the Eucharistic moment, that is lost when we are exhorted merely to pray a prayer prayerfully.

Mary

Mary,

I don't disagree with you. I just think that if I worked by the sweat of my brow to put the wheat and grapes on the altar, I would sense, rather concretely, that I was putting myself there with Christ. Now it appears that I am invited to pray the Anaphora with the priest.

This raises a question. To whom is the following addressed?

"Let us be attentive to offer the holy oblation in peace. Is it actually to the congregation?

Perhaps Fr. Serge can explain.

I fear that is a rather limiting view of what we are called to do, though I suppose many of us do go to liturgy feeling fully worthy.

But the fact of the matter is that each liturgy is a renewal of our Baptism in Christ, and we are called to put on Christ and lift ourselves up as an offering to the Father, through the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit.

We are called to that whether or not we came with our hands full, or with our long arms hanging.

The glory of God is a soul fully alive!

Mary

The central problem has not yet been faced. Most of the responses set up a dichotomy between prayer - sacrifice. To which do you give the most emphasis. One says:
"If prayer, than sacrifice is diminshed.
If sacrifice, then the prayer becomes formal ("historical")"

The truth is there is one sacrifice - the one true sacrifice of the death and resurrection of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ. There is one sacrifice in two forms (cf. the Anaphora of St. Basil, "we offer the body and blood of Christ in this form")
The one sacrifice on the cross was historical and bloody, it was done once and for all (read Hebrews 9:11-14)
The one and same sacrifice is offered "mystically," (= by way of sacramental mystery) in the Divine Liturgy, it is, as the Liturgy says explicitly many times, an unbloody, rational ("logike) sacrifice of praise. It is offered "always and everywhere (cf. Malachy 1:11), but it is not "another sacrifice," but the "one true sacrifice" of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ.

Therefore, there can be no dichotomy between the two. If the prayer is de-emphasized, then the sacrifice is diminished. If the sacrifice is made secondary, then the prayer becomes secondary also. The two grow and increase together with each other, for they are the "one sacrifice." Every dichotomy is false.

Addendum:

Note too to avoid misinterpretation, that the Anaphora is not simply the words of the anaphora, but the words said in the liturgical presence of bread and wine becoming the body and blood of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ.

Dear Father David,

I realize that you are not addressing me directly in your note here, but I will presume to say at any rate, that there is no dichotomy between prayer and sacrifice in my critique of your catechesis concerning Anaphora. In fact my primary focus is not at all on the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharistic moment.

It seems to me that you are not addressing me but are addressing those in the Latin rite who become terribly distressed by the loss of the language of sacrifice in and about the Latin rite mass.

I never was part of that dialogue. I was long gone from the Church when all that was going on. When I came back, I had other things on my mind and had accepted that we have essentially two traditions active in the Latin rite for the time being, and perhaps as far as it goes, from now on.

I only note this here because when I formulate anything more in this thread it will continue to be well outside of the context of any kind of dichotomy. Of course it would be to miss the point to insist that my critique does insist upon a duality in my thinking.

Mary

In using the quote, "a prayerfully prayed prayer," perhaps the intent was to make a pun and identify the term, "Anaphora", with its original sense.(Though technically this is aliteration.)

It was only this week, while my high school daughter was preparing for an English final, that I stumbled upon her list of words that are used in rhetoric. In that sense, an anaphora is a repetition of a word or phrase at the beginning of several successive verses, clauses, or paragraphs. The listed example was MLK's "I have a dream..." speech.

It does not take much of a stretch to see why the Greek Fathers employed the term, "Anaphora", for the prayer of offering. In fact the deacon introduces the Anaphora with an anaphora (at least in our English translation), "Let us stand aright, let us stand in awe, let us be attentive to offer the Holy Anaphora in peace!"

Thanks for sharing that Fr. Deacon John. That is very neat!