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

Could you clarify something for me, Deacon John?

Is this meant as an accurate historical explanation?

Or are you reading back into the various historical meanings of "anaphora"?

I don't want to presume as I prepare my response.

Mary

Dear Deacon John,

Your understanding of the term "anaphora" as it came to be used in that particular place in the liturgy is not historically accurate.

Father David and the Byzantine bishops, who approved the RDL, apparently mean "the Anaphora" in its modern and technical sense as Father Serge mentions here.



A prayerful prayer, prayed prayerfully is not at all the sense in which anaphora was originally used in the liturgy, nor is it the sense in which oblation was and is used in English translations of the liturgy.

The meaning of "Anaphora" as a particular section of prayers in the liturgy is quite recent.

To insert the technical term "Anaphora" in the liturgy completely alters the actual intended meaning of the liturgical action that follows. That is a very serious charge but it is even a more serious change!!

Father David has made it quite clear that we are to use "Anaphora" in its technical sense of a prayer.

As far as it being a choice between a prayer or an offering?

There really is no choice at all.

There always was one very clear meaning for "anaphora" or "oblation" in those introductory prayers.

Anaphora never did refer, in the liturgy, to prayer, but to the oblation itself, including our selves, that was to be offered over and over and over and over....

You get my point...

You should, by now, get my point...

I do hope you get my point.

Mary

Dlijahmaria:
"Anaphora never did refer, in the liturgy, to prayer, but to the oblation itself, including our selves, that was to be offered over and over and over and over ... "

As I explained before, if it does not mean the prayer, it does not mean the sacrifice either.

Dear Father David,

You equivalency [Anaphora=prayer] fails.

It is much like saying that

[sexual intercourse or its surrogate=conception].

We all know that without sexual intercourse or its surrogate there will be no normative conception, but few of us would be silly enough to think that they are equivalent.

But the history of the word "anaphora" is clear.

The most ancient reference to anaphora is the re-presentation of the actual Christological offering itself; a re-presentation expressed in the action of offering bread and wine, accompanied by a formulary of institution.

In the most primitive eucharistia there were none but the words of institution, Father Casimir tells us. On page 552-553 of his chapter on the "Origin of Anaphora", Father tells us that the words of eucharistia expanded and developed over time BUT, he says, that we must look at that development in terms of "themes or ideas not of texts."

So, we can see that "anaphora" has traditionally been used in reference to the act of offering and the substance of the offering, rather than to the texts attendant to the offering.

In that light the words of institution are a formulary...rather than a "prayer,"...just as the trinitarian formularly is part of the sacramental act of baptism.

Only much later does "the Anaphora" become a formal liturgical name or liturgical jargon referring to the whole segment of the liturgical action that surrounds the Christological offering or oblation. Even then it does not refer solely to "prayer."

So "anaphora" is not the equivalent of "prayer" as you continue to insist, inaccurately.

The history of our liturgy does not sustain your opinion, Father.

Mary

Quote: "In the most primitive eucharistia there were none but the words of institution, Father Casimir tells us."

Reflection: He actually doesn't say that. In his book "The Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom," on p. 551, he says that "the Christian version of the ancient Jewish blessing ... was accompanied by the narrative of the Institution, which constituted the only actual prayer of the primitive rite." It is unclear whether he means the combination of the prayer of blessing and the Institution narrative or just the institution narrative was the "only actual prayer," but he does use the word prayer. And in the passage Mary cites, he is quoting St. Justin Martyr, who says the priest, "gives thanks at length (emphasis by Fr. Kucharek) because God considered us worthy of these gifts." Clearly in the most ancient references we already have lengthy prayer, not simply the words of institution. More reliable on this whole matter is Louis Bouyer's "Eucharist," which I would recommend.

Father Casimir, p.551 [in context] "After the separation of the Eucharistic Service from the meal, all that was left was the Christian version of the ancient Jewish blessing--the "Cup of the Blessing," and the "Breaking of the Bread" being transformed into the consecration. This was accompanied by the narrative of the Institution, which constituted the only actual prayer in the primitive rite. Since such short and simple actions were all out of proportion with the importance and majesty was being done, there was an obvious need for an extended ceremonial."

My comment:

What I am encouraging people here to do is to look at the text and the sub-text, or in this case perhaps, the supra-text, of what currently is intended by the RDL, and what, rather, ought to be.

It is critical to understand that the sacramental formulary is very basic and the words cannot be separated from the action, but the words are not as critical to the action as the intent to DO something. Our intent is to obey Christ's command to 'Do this in memory [anamnesis] of me' and to repeat the action over and over in the context of prayer, as Christ accomplished the first act, in the context of prayer.

It is the whole of the action that we are to repeat, and not only to repeat but to become one in union with the action.

We are not commanded to observe the liturgical structure; we are commanded to do the deed!!

It can be argued that the words of any sacramental formulary are not strictly or simply placed in the category of what we call prayer, without some further distinction being added to them. The sacramental formulary has always been discussed as the foundational or integral union of word and action, by referring to it as a formulary and not as "a prayer."

In speaking of Eucharist, for example, one, more often than not, speaks not of the "prayer" of institution, but of the words of institution.

But even in this minor distinction and concession to the uniqueness of sacramental formulary, the intent to do something is more important than the words.

We know that intent supercedes words because historically we have many eucharistic formularies in both the east and the west, and between east and west, and the words do not remain identical, the organizatinal structure of the words and actions do not remain identical, and even the directional orientation of the prayers have not remained static over the centuries with some eucharistic prayers being directed to the Father, some have been directed to the Son, and in nearly all cases, after a time, there is some reference to the Trinity.

This diversity of text, action, orientation, and organization in the development of the eucharistia leads Father Casimir to say on page 554 in his chapter on the "Origin of Anaphora" that:

"The primitive Eucharistic Prayer, or anaphora, is marked by uniformity of ideas or themes, not of text." [emphasis from original]

Now we can conclude, for the moment, by saying that there are two accepted uses of the Greek word "anaphora."

In time anaphora came to mean, in one context, the entire setting of the eucharistia...and in English we still use it, as in our references to "the Anaphora" as another way of naming the "Eucharistic Prayer" or the "Canon" of the liturgy, or mass.

Used this way "Anaphora" is a structural entity that has an observable beginning and end and is used as an identifier for an entire section of the liturgical text and actions of the divine liturgy or the mass.

In the actual text of the divine liturgy, it developed in time that the deacon called the people to stand and to act, to stand and to offer, to stand and to offer their part in the sacramental action of the eucharistia. They were called to a doing of "anaphora". They were called to a lifting up, to a lifting up of their bodies, minds, hearts and souls, called to join in union with Chist as an offering, to the Father, by the power of the Holy Spirit....in memory of what it was the Lord commanded us to do.

This text-in-context of our part in the liturgy, "Holy Anaphora" has been understood as an oblation or offering at least since the time of St. John Chrysostom whose commentary I posted near the beginning of this thread.

The idea, as it has been expressed here that, prior to June, 2007, there was some sort of undefined meaning to "anaphora" is simply false.

The idea that we are being called to simply pray a prayer prayerfully, or even a set of prayers prayerfully, or to attend, or observe a set of actions united by words, skews the understanding that we are being called to express our intentions, called to act upon our intentions, called to raise ourselves up, in willed communion with Christ, as an integral part of the offering, eucharistia.

In the present RDL, according to official catechesis and private opinion, that has all changed. We are now being called to prayerfully observe a structural element of the liturgy that is known as the Eucharistic Prayer, or the Anaphora.

I say it has not changed for the better; it has not changed in the service of accuracy; it has not changed in the service of truth. It has however been intended to change our understanding of our part in the offering of eucharist.

M.

Dear Mary,

The problem is that no one except you is talking about "simply" praying, or "prayerfully observing". We are commanded by the deacon to TAKE PART attentively - to "offer". The text of the anaphora uses the second person PLURAL over and over: "we offer".

In fact, the Anaphora itself has us thank God for "this Liturgy, which you have willed to accept from our hands." The Divine Liturgy is both a sacrifice AND prayer; how many Eastern exhortations there are to "pray the Divine Liturgy"! How many Western Catholics have "offered a Mass"! To offer a sacrificial prayer (which PRESUMES a concordance between words and intention, of course, at least in the Christian tradition!) is to offer a sacrifice. (I suppose one could make a sacrifice in pectore, but that too is a prayer.)

Father David has said he would have preferred a more complete definition of anaphora in the glossary, and he has indicated that a document which you used to represent "right belief" is not only one that presents his views, but is one he worked on. Can you point to anyone or anything that indicates that the "official view" is that we are praying a prayer and NOT offering a sacrifice?

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

I have done that multiple times in this discussion, Jeff.

I don't intend to argue with your interpretations of what is here in this thread in black and white.

There's no need for that and that would only serve to confuse things even more.

The encouraging thing to me is that our clergy see the problem. That is sufficient for me.

Perhaps our cantors will one day come to understand as well.

M.

This is my understanding too of the fundamental issue causing differing views on the meaning of the word "anaphora" as used in the invocation of the deacon:

Let us stand well/aright, let us stand in awe/fear, let us be attentive, to offer the holy Anaphora in peace.

We should be able to agree, however, that the use of the word in this context is not wrong: it is the appropriate form for the word as used in the liturgy in Greek. There is the separate issue of accuracy and understanding - whether it is preferable to translate (vozno�čenije/oblation) or transliterate (anaphora).

Also, if there are questionable opinions expressed by anyone on the meaning of anaphora as used here it is a concern; if those opinions form an official catechesis it is serious concern; if they are a magisterial teaching it is a very grave concern: but they do not per se invalidate the liturgy.

I think both views reach the same destination as to the fullness of the words and action that the invocation directs. Let me try to summarize the essentials of each (and I make no claim that I have succeeded).

View 1. Anaphora is the totality of the words and actions designated as such in the liturgy. It is a technical term and was known in that sense by Chrysostom. Its beginning is as designated in the 2007 liturgicon (Chrysostom, p 71) by the heading Anaphora (My question: I'm not sure where its end is indicated). It is prayer (words, actions, sacrifice) prayerfully prayed (done, accomplished). We join ourselves to the priest in offering the anaphora.

View 2. Anaphora is a sacrificial term; the anaphora is the oblation, the offering. In offering the anaphora/oblation we join ourselves to the prayers and actions of the priest as indicated in the liturgicon. But it is not intended as a technical term, a chunk of the liturgy, but is our engagement in the actual offering: what we do so that the Lord also may act; what is offered and how it is offered. It is experiential, the mystical moment of offering (prosperein) the holy offering (anaphoran).

A question I have about view 1 is that it seems to have the liturgy refer to itself; this seems out of character. It's as though the priest were to say, in an analogous way, "Let us offer (words and actions) the eucharistic prayer" rather than "Let us give thanks to the Lord."; or to overstate the difference to make the point, the deacon saying "Master perform Part III, the fractionation" rather than "Master, break the holy bread." I wonder too if the term "anaphora" was used in the liturgy before it was understood in the technical sense.

Dn. Anthony

Dear Deacon Anthony,

I had hoped others might have responded to you.

The answer to your inquiry depends on what you mean by the "technical" sense.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/1089/euchpray.html



The action referred to in the Fathers as "anaphora" technically meant oblation, offering, sacrafice.

Later it came to be the title for a suite of prayers that surrounded the sacramental formulary and became incorporated into the formularly that were known to the Fathers as the eucharistia.

Mary

PS: I am aware that the article cited above is not directly tied to this topic. I was just using the footnote to be illustrative of the meaning of "anaphora" for the Fathers and to indicate what it meant when finally added into the liturgy.

Dear Deacon Anthony,

Given the importance of lex orandi, lex credendi this latter statement of yours is timed quite nicely at this point in the thread.

I have read Father David's teaching to our Catechists from across the Metropolia that is available at his website, I have his statements here, and I have hearsay evidence from his talks to priests from Parma and Passaic.

Based on those evidences and other public writing from Father David, I think that the theology and pneumatology underlying some of the changes in the RDL, do indeed render that theology as an official catechesis, and the liturgy as a new order of liturgical intent, as well as a revised translation.

If or when I encounter priests that I know are captivated and convicted by the new order of liturgical intent, then, according to my conscience, I am not obliged to attend that liturgy or accept it as something salutory for my salvation.

When I encounter priests who are not convicted by the new order of liturgical intent, then I will feel less constrained in my attendance.

However, it is a liturgy that has been promulgated by our bishops and in that sense, clearly, is a licit liturgy.

For the purposes of private discernment only, it seems to me that one would need to know the intent of the priest at this point to know whether or not the entire liturgy, itself, is truly valid, with respect to the received liturgical theology of the universal Church, or if the liturgy will be offered in the new order of liturgical intent.

And until the official catechesis was to be officially corrected, then the discernment of validity remains a private one that sets parents against catechists, laity against priest, priest against hiearch, in far too many instances to be truly healthy for the Church.

Mary

I pray that the Hierarch is cognizant of the fracturing that is taking place in the BCC. The current push for vocations is somewhat ironic given the current division. I myself, had seriously considered the deaconate program before the new order Liturgy was promulgated. Now I find myself struggling whether or not to stay in the BCC.

Mary (and all),

I intended "technical" to be understood in the sense opposite the one stated by you, that is for me meaning, "used in or peculiar to a specific field or profession; specialized" rather than what I would term an intrinsic sense. I believe we are saying the same thing. Using the quote and applying my terminology:

Technical use: "The Eucharistic Prayer is called Anaphora in the 4th century Apostolic Constitutions."

Intrinsic use: "Eucharist means thanksgiving, anaphora means sacrifice."

I had wanted to comment on this thread for some time but was delayed because I wanted to review the scriptural uses (LXX and NT) of the roots prospher* and anapher* etc. (the use of verb forms is much richer than the noun forms). The result is almost self evident: one does not find the usage of prayers and actions that are a part of a sacred liturgy but rather in the basic sense of carrying/taking and offering (as in a sacrifice).

As a deacon I would like to know what exactly I'm inviting "us" to offer. I'm still willing to be educated to the contrary, but it seems to me the actual use in the liturgy intends the meaning of vozno�čenije/oblation; and with that as our end, and in order to effect it, we in union with the priest bring to pass words and actions that have been designated since at least the 4th c. also as Anaphora.

Dn. Anthony

ps In my original post, a typo, prosperein should be prospherein.

Rome is quite concerned about the issue of retaining original words when these words change the theological meaning of a text. See this example:


http://www.adoremus.org/98-01_cdwletter.htm

Dear Deacon Anthony,

Lovely reply, thank you. I am just going to address one part here and the second part in a later note.

I know there has been some confusion over our emphasis on Oblation, in this discussion, so I thought I'd take this time to see if we could clear that up a bit so that when we use the term oblation, it is not thought that we are decrying the loss of the bloody footprints, and the Cross in the Byzantine liturgy.

Because of that confusion, the difficulties experienced in the RDL, with regard to a Holy Oblation, are likened to the tradition among those of the Latin rite to see the "sacrifice" of the mass almost wholely in terms of the sacrifice of the Cross.

In the east, oblation means a complete and whole offering, rather than merely evoking images of the bloody footprints of Calvary.

Rather we have long been taught that the Holiest of Oblations is inclusive of the life, death, resurrection and ascension of the Son, to the Father.

In fact, a Holy Oblation, in my mind and for my part is a total relinquishment of self to the Father, through the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit that is then joined to the Oblation of the Son, eternally offerd to the Father, in the glory and power of the Holy Spirit, which is Divine Caritas.

Oblation is kenosis. It is the emptying of self. It is the self-conscious willed offering of one's whole being poured out, according to the divine will, in memory of the redemptive actions of our Lord.

How does this fit with your understanding?

Mary

PS: It should be noted that the Latin Church believes the same thing concerning the Eucharistic Oblation, and teaches the same thing concerning sacrifice but, unlike the east, the west has had a steady drift in focus that has come to emphasize the passion and death, at the expense of the life and resurrection of our Lord.

In that way the Eschaton for the west has drifted "out there" in the future somewhere....while for the east we live the Eschaton daily through our divine liturgy.