I have a question, unfortunately again, regarding language in the new pew book. I refer to Page 55, with the word Anaphora at the top. The deacon says: "Let us stand aright; let us stand in awe; let us be attentive to offer the Holy Anaphora in peace."

I assume that Anaphora is the Eucharistic Prayer prayed aloud by the presider that follows Holy, Holy, Holy acclamation led by the leader of song and sung by the assembly. Is that correct? During the Anaphora don't we offer the bread and wine and subsequently Body and Blood of Jesus to the Father?

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?

I thought it was the latter and not the former. Is my Catholic understanding of what's being done incorrect?

Can someone explain?

We offer the Anaphora through the priest. Only the priest can pray the Anaphora but he does so in the name of all, which is why the priest prays: Offering You, Your own, from Your own, always and everywhere. And we respond: We praise You, we bless You, we thank You, O Lord, and we pray to You, our God.

Thanks for this Father Lance, but it does not answer my question, please see above. I'm still confused. 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?

John

The word Anaphora literally means Offering, so the Greek original actually does say "let us attend that we may offer the holy "Anaphora" in peace. Anaphora is the root word of the Irish Aifrinn, and similar words in some other languages, each of which means "Mass".

That said, however, in English the word "Anaphora" has come to mean what the moderns prefer to call the "Eucharistic Prayer", or in Latin the Actio Missae. Hence to speak of "offering the Anaphora" in an English text could easily be misleading (and I am choosing my words charitably).

Fr. serge

Thank you Fr. Serge, you're right. Upon further research I've found in the glossary in the back of the pew book on page 462 Anaphora defined as: "the great prayer of thanksgiving at the heart of the Divine Liturgy.

I've found the Greek which says:
Stomen kalos, stomen meta fabou proskhomen, tan hagian anaforan en eiran prosferiev.

Compare that to the official text published in Rome:
Stiamo con devozione, stiamo con timore, attenti ad offrire in pace la santa oblazione.

Or the Slavonic:
Stanim dobr'i, stanim so strachom, vonmim, svjatoje voznosenije vo mir'i prinositi.

Now I'm more confused. While I understand that "anaphora" means offering, the pew book clearly defines it as the prayer and not the oblation.

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?

I think that I need more instruction in regards to the choice of the use of this word because I would believe that we're offering the Eucharistic Prayer.

John K

Let us stand aright, let us stand with fear, let us be attentive so that we may offer the holy sacrifice in peace.
Most people know what a sacrifice is.

In that particular sentence I would suggest oblation, since the word sacrifice occurs in the people's response "A Mercy of Peace, a Sacrifice of Praise" - or, for those who share my own prefernce for the Old Rite, Mercy, Peace, Sacrifice and Song".

Fr. Serge

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.

Fr. David,

Thank you for explaining the reasoning used in the translation.

Thank you for clarifying the Catholic understanding of the sacrifice offered during the Anaphora. That was and is my understanding of what happens during this prayer.

My confusion lies in the fact that the revised text uses "Anaphora" in the introductory call to this prayer issued by the deacon. The glossary in the pew book defines "Anaphora" as the prayer itself. So logically to me, it seems that we are offering the prayer and not the unbloody, spiritual sacrifice of Christ.

If anaphora in that call to worship proclaimed by the deacon means, the offering and not the prayer itself, it makes sense to me. If not, it seems like we've departed from the Catholic understanding of WHAT/WHO is offered during the Eucharistic Prayer.

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.

Thanks for your time. John K

Thank you for clarifying the Catholic understanding of the sacrifice offered during the Anaphora. That was and is my understanding of what happens during this prayer.

My confusion lies in the fact that the revised text uses "Anaphora" in the introductory call to this prayer issued by the deacon. The glossary in the pew book defines "Anaphora" as the prayer itself. So logically to me, it seems that we are offering the prayer and not the unbloody, spiritual sacrifice of Christ.

If anaphora in that call to worship proclaimed by the deacon means, the offering and not the prayer itself, it makes sense to me. If not, it seems like we've departed from the Catholic understanding of WHAT/WHO is offered during the Eucharistic Prayer.

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.

Thanks for your time. John K

Dear Father David,

I had no idea till this thread began that this was the language of the introductory dialogue for the anaphora in the new Byzantine order modeled from the St. John Chrysostom liturgy.

Of all the current changes in the Byzantine expression of the rite that people have decried on this Forum, this, is the most dangerous and pernicious theologically. This is the one that the priests must refuse for the salvation of souls.

I am sitting here with Father Casimir's history book in my lap and I sense deeply that Father is banging on the walls of his tomb begging to be let out to right this terrible wrong.

The heart of the liturgy of the faithful is the central sacrifice of the eucharist, the re-presentation of the bloody sacrifice of the Cross, in an unbloody manner.

IF you insist that we refer to the formal technical name of what we are called actually to attend to in this introductory dialogue, the name of the action is the anamnesis!!

To take the focus of the priest and people away from the grateful anticipation of that central institution of the sacrifice is not any kind of a return to our eastern root.

What the liturgical committee has instituted and approved, in this singular word change, is a perversion of the entire action of the divine liturgy.

As in the sequencing of your reply above, the focus is first drawn to OUR praise song, and finally, finally, finally we come upon a moment in time out of time, but by then the damage is done. We are already looking more to ourselves and the wonders of our own gratitude, than to Him.

Until this changes I am convinced there is no divine liturgy in the Byzantine Church and will never again attend where this change has been instituted.

And I will be expressing my concerns to Rome.

How this did not come out FIRST on this Forum, I will leave to the rest to try and decide.

Blessings to all,

Mary

Dear Mary,

You say "Until this changes I am convinced there is no divine liturgy in the Byzantine Church and will never again attend where this change has been instituted."

What would lead you to such a drastic conclusion? "Anaphora" is in the Greek text, isn't it?

So what is "to offer" in Greek in the above statement? Is it from the same root as anaphora?

Perhaps it is this ambiguity about the term "anaphora" that allowed the ""Anaphora" of Adai and Mari" to be approved or recognized, if you prefer. The argument there was that there was no one point, ie, no institution narrative, at which the intention of the unbloody sacrifice was made evident, but the intention is there "in a dispersed euchological way."


These are my confused thoughts. On an argument from the lesser known to the less know--not a very good way to proceed.

My word, so there are now Ruthenian "Old Believer's". A good deal about all of this has been surprising to me, so I guess that shouldn't.