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

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.

I make the statement that I make because there has been a conscious effort on the part of the liturgical revisionists of the Byzantine Metropolia of Pittsburgh to remove our attention from the Oblation, from the Sacrifice, from the divine Offering and place that attention on the prayerful and holy offering of the people. This focal change is very clearly stated by Father David in his earlier response here. One�s focus is quite consciously and purposefully turned to the prayers added to the sacramental act itself, the High Priestly Sacrifice.

In speaking of the earliest Eucharistic practice in the Church of the Cup of Blessing and the Breaking of the Bread and Words of Institution, Father Casimir Kucharek says of those prayers:

�Since such short and simple action was all out of proportion with the importance and majesty of what was being done [the offering of the High Priestly Oblation], there was an obvious need for an expanded ceremonial.�

And just as obviously the Byzantine Church has decided that there is an obvious need to turn the entire focus of the Liturgy of the Faithful from the Holy Oblation, to the extended ceremonial. Father David clearly states in his response:

�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."�

This particular accretion is a perversion of the divine liturgy that strips the work of the central intention of the Church in the celebration of the sacramental mystery of Eucharist.

I do not level this charge lightly and I have never in my life run away from any place on account of poorly done liturgies. This is not some esoteric exercise for me, and I do not joke about the conclusion that I have drawn.

I will offer text from one of our catechetical works and follow with Father David�s recent explanation of the necessity for the change in the text, from oblation or sacrifice, to �anaphora.�

From "Life and Worship. The Mystery of Christ Among Us." p. 68

"The true focus of the Divine Liturgy is ...nothing less than the celebration of the New Covenant our God has made with us in Jesus Christ. It is our entry into the mystery of the death and resurrection of Christ, of his physical glorification in the heavens, and of His second coming which we await."

Later in the same text on pages 73-74, the authors cite the three Hebrew elements in Jewish worship that have been incorporated into Christian divine liturgies, east and west, and have remained a part of our liturgical structures until today. Those three elements are found in 1) in the synagogue as places of prayer and learning, 2) in the home, in the breaking of bread together and sharing in a meal, and 3) in priestly sacrifice.

Of the priestly sacrifice the catechetical text says the following on page 73: �Jewish worship had several different elements. Most important were the rites of sacrifice in which offerings�were presented to the Lord�they [sacrifices] were primarily the office of the priests who were responsible for offering them on behalf of the nation.�

And then on pages 74 and 75: �Several [patristic] Fathers noted that He [Jesus] not only gave the command [for anamnesis], but he also gave the Church the power to fulfill it in a unique way when he bestowed his Holy Spirit upon it. Because the Spirit works in the Church, our remembrance is not simply a human action of recalling the past. Through the power of the Holy Spirit, our recalling of Christ�s action becomes the occasion for Him to transform our gifts into the sacrificed Body which rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and is continually offering Himself for us. And so it is our way of entering personally into the only offering truly acceptable to God; acceptable because it is Christ Himself Who is both the Priest and the Offering. And so because Christ�s command receives this fullness of power in the Holy Spirit, the Eucharistic Meal became from the first the Church�s unique act of experiencing the presence of its sacrificed Lord.�

Compare this latter teaching with that offered by Father David:

�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.�

Father David,

We, the faithful, do not offer the sacrifice of praise in the Liturgy. The sacrifice of praise, the Holy Oblation of peace is offered by Jesus, Lord, Master, High Priest and Offering.

Until this jurisdiction restores Jesus, Lord, Master, High Priest and Offering, to His rightful place in the Liturgy of the Faithful, I will not attend one of our falsified liturgies.

Mary Elizabeth Lanser

Mary Elizabeth,

You might consider discussing this with your priest in the coming months. The promulgation is not in effect for another 3 months, which would allow you time to seek spiritual guidance from the Church without violating your conscience.

In portuguese we say Estejamos atentos... para oferecer em paz a santa obla��o (holy oblation).

I'm afraid I still don't get it.

"Let us be attentive to offer the holy oblation (anaphora in Greek() in peace."

"An offering of peace, a sacrifice of praise."

It's clear from the text that we offer the anaphora, and it's further clear from the text that it is an offering of peace, a sacrifice of praise.

If you have a problem with the notion that the faithful offer the anaphora, joining ourselves to the sacrifice of Christ, then you have a problem with the liturgy of John Chrysostom, which clearly calls us to stand aright and be attentive, so that *we* may offer the holy anaphora.

Is the Liturgy wrong?

Everyone who belongs to a Ruthenian parish knows that in the '65 Liturgicon the word is "Oblation." "Let us be attentive, to offer the Holy Oblation in peace." "Oblation" is the word chosen in this place also in the Antiochian and OCA English Liturgies. So why strike out a perfectly good idiomatic, understandable English word, and replace it with a word which is strange, awkward, and unlike Theotokos, has no history of devotional use in our language? Do the revisers now dislike words of Latin derivation? Or is the real nature of the liturgical action made just all too plain by the word oblation?

"Anaphora," comes from ana: up; and phero: carry, bear, lift. It is used in Hebrews 7:27 (anapherein) and translated "to offer up sacrifice." In our liturgical context, it clearly means that which is offered up as a sacrifice. It does not refer primarily to the offering of a prayer, but to the sacrifice of Christ: "We offer to You Yours of Your own." Therefore it is right to retain the word "oblation." This is a proper translation.

And so I am left wondering, what is really behind this needless change?

Gabriel

Some other comparisons, Gabriel:
2001 Melkite translation: ...to offer the holy oblation in peace.
1988 UGCC translation:...to offer in peace the holy oblation.
1999 ROCOR Priest's Service Book translation:...offer the holy oblation in peace.

It's clearly defined in the glossary of the pew book that the Anaphora is the Eucharistic Prayer and not the oblation. If it was a matter of the anaphora=the oblation and explained that way, that would be a whole different ball of bee's wax.

I hope you are not questioning the epicletic efficacy of the Anaphora of Sts. Addai and Mari in its very ancient form without the "Institution narrative". The Church certainly does not, as can be seen in the recent (and much needed) statement between the Chaldeans and Assyrians.

It perplexes me, but I do not question it. Here I must have faith seeking understanding.

I'll grant that it is sometimes difficult for those coming from a traditional Latin sacramental understanding to grasp, where the "institutional narrative" is a central feature, and the epicletic content more indirect, sort of the reverse of the example of Sts. Addai and Mari. The epicletic content is less direct, i.e. the Supplices te rogamus of the traditional Roman Canon.

Most translators up to now have assumed that the word "Anaphora" used by the deacon in the introduction to the anaphora was being used in a generic sense - oblation, offering, or some such. However, it is being used in a specific sense, to refer to the prayer that the priest is about to say and which in the Orthodox tradition is called the "anaphora." (Cf. St. John Chrysostom, On the Acts of the Apostles 18,5)
I am very, very, very sorry that the glossary does not identify anaphora with oblation, but you can't always say everything. I think my comments that the "sacrifice of praise" that we offer is to be identified with the one true sacrifice of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ would suffice. I know that among those more sensitive to traditional questions, any suggestion that the Divine Liturgy is not a sacrifice would be met with condemnation.
The fact is too that the Liturgy is a "Divine" Liturgy, that it is offered by our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ would also be clear from my comments. Apparently Mary Elizabeth Lanser did not take it in that sense. Therefore, let me reaffirm, the Divine Liturgy is a divine action as the very title of my book, taken from the deacon's instruction to the priest to begin, "time for the Lord to act," should make abundantly clear. Our difficulty seems to be that we cannot admit/understand? that even if God acts, it is also our action. We, after all, as the anaphora affirms, offer to God what is God's own. We can do this because we have been commissioned by God - "Do this in memory of me," (The Greek word for memory is anamnesis, which is a part/aspect of the anaphora) and because we form with Jesus the mystical body of Christ, "And he put all things beneath his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of the one who fills all things in every way." This should not be a problem. There are many passages in the Liturgy affirming that we are offering the sacrifice, albeit in union with Christ, who is the head of his body, the church. Our prayer has value only because we are praying (hence offering the sacrifice) together with our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ.

Father David offers some serious food for thought here. Anaphora is the Greek word used in this opening exhortation following the Symbol of Faith, so it cannot simply be ruled out. On the other hand, Anaphora is also used in the LXX text of the final verse of Psalm 50, and I�ve not encountered any suggestion that it should be retained in English in that context.

The word itself is rich in meaning and has been around for a very long time; it did not originate with the LXX but that translation of Psalm 50 is probably the gate-way to the Scriptural use, and eventual Christian use, of this term. The root seems to mean some form of rising up or elevating movement � which fits nicely in the context of offering something to God.

In the opening exhortation, the phrase �to offer the Holy Anaphora� seems to me to imply fairly clearly that a specific Anaphora is meant, with a special significance. Any offering to God becomes holy by the act of offering, but that this particular Anaphora is called that means that it is outstandingly Holy, uniquely Holy � and since that exhortation introduces the Action of the Eucharist, the significance of THE Anaphora is surely the specific Anaphora which we are about to offer � this exhortation does not introduce the passing of the collection plate!

So, while in English I might consider �oblation� a reasonable translation, and perhaps more easily understood, there does not appear to be any reason to take issue with the published Ruthenian text on the point � I must admit to being mildly pleased, because I remember someone almost fifty years ago trying to tell me that the use of such a word in any context at all was a clear sign of insanity!

The use of the term Anaphora is by no means limited to the Eastern Orthodox tradition; Roman Catholic students of liturgy know and use this term without being disturbed by it [the difference between the Anaphora and the Canon of the Mass is that the Anaphora includes what the Latins call the Preface, while the Canon does not].

However, the Anaphora is more than just the words of the prayer � the Anaphora includes the Action which is accomplished by God and the Church in and through that prayer. It is possible for us to unite ourselves to that action without even understanding the language in which the prayer is being read, or knowing with certainty precisely which version of the prayer is being used on a particular occasion (this could happen to any of us; it has happened to me when I have attended celebrations of the Alexandrian Liturgy, either in Coptic or in Ge�ez, since I know next to nothing of these languages).

To another of Father David�s points, the Eucharistic Sacrifice is certainly identified with the Sacrifice of Our Savior on the Cross; that is the Faith of the Church and most versions of the Anaphora make that clear. I�ve not encountered any denial of this teaching among either Orthodox Christians or Greek-Catholics.

Equally of course, the expression �the Divine Liturgy� is meant to be taken seriously � and it underscores what I have already stressed, the unity of the action of God and the Church in what takes place.

I�m not at all sure why it would be difficult to grasp the point that God and the Church act together in the Eucharistic Sacrifice. I could follow this theme at great length �but not this minute. Father Alexander Schmemann, of holy memory, enjoyed pointing out that man was created for the express purpose of offering rational thanks to God on behalf of the whole physical creation (the stars in the sky, or the birds singing, or my dog being his happy-go-lucky self, are all offering thanks to God, but they don�t know it. We, who are both corporeal and rational, are supposed to offer thanks to God and to be aware that this is what we are doing).

The idea that God and man cooperate in various ways is scarcely novel � did not the Incarnation require the consent of the Virgin Mary? Do the Holy Mysteries not require someone (normally a bishop or priest) to administer them? Yet is God not the primary agent in the Holy Mysteries? I myself certainly could not accomplish the Divine Liturgy, or forgive sins � God has chosen to do these and other things through His priests, including this particular priest, and certainly not because of any special merit of mine.

So on this one Father David has my complete sympathy. My only difficulty is that I don�t understand what the problem is, apart from the use of a term which is not in common speech and which many people might find a bit of a challenge.

Fr. Serge

Father David (DP) wrote:

DP: �Most translators up to now have assumed that the word "Anaphora" used by the deacon in the introduction to the anaphora was being used in a generic sense - oblation, offering, or some such. However, it is being used in a specific sense, to refer to the prayer that the priest is about to say and which in the Orthodox tradition is called the "anaphora." (Cf. St. John Chrysostom, On the Acts of the Apostles 18,5)�

JK: And how did anyone know that the word was being used wrong? So using the translated words �oblation, offering, or some such� all this time by multiple jurisdictions, Catholic and Orthodox has been a mistranslation of this phrase? And no one caught it until the Liturgical Committee from the Ruthenian Metropolitan Church sui juris of Pittsburgh came along and figured it out?

DP: �I am very, very, very sorry that the glossary does not identify anaphora with oblation, but you can't always say everything. I think my comments that the "sacrifice of praise" that we offer is to be identified with the one true sacrifice of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ would suffice. I know that among those more sensitive to traditional questions, any suggestion that the Divine Liturgy is not a sacrifice would be met with condemnation.�

JK: I�m sorry as well that �offering or oblation� was not part of the definition either. Us laymen, oops! laypersons have been taught, by the nuns, by the priests, by the bishops, by the Liturgy, that the Eucharistic prayer is where the �sacrifice of praise� is offered. Now all of the sudden, it�s the prayer itself that is offered? The prayer is the �sacrifice of praise?� Can�t you see past your own scholarship what a huge change in emphasis this is?

DP: �The fact is too that the Liturgy is a "Divine" Liturgy, that it is offered by our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ would also be clear from my comments. Apparently Mary Elizabeth Lanser did not take it in that sense. Therefore, let me reaffirm, the Divine Liturgy is a divine action as the very title of my book, taken from the deacon's instruction to the priest to begin, "time for the Lord to act," should make abundantly clear. Our difficulty seems to be that we cannot admit/understand? that even if God acts, it is also our action. We, after all, as the anaphora affirms, offer to God what is God's own.�

JK: What are we offering to Him? �We offer to you, yours of your own...� What is God�s own? The Eucharistic prayer the priest is (we are) praying? I don�t think that I�ve ever heard from any priest or bishop, or liturgist, or theologian that what is �God�s own� is this prayer. I have heard it is His Son�s Body and Blood that we�re offering �in behalf of all and for all.� I�ve read your book�but most Ruthenian Greek Catholics of the Pittsburgh Metropolitan Church sui juris I know have not.

DP: �We can do this because we have been commissioned by God - "Do this in memory of me," (The Greek word for memory is anamnesis, which is a part/aspect of the anaphora) and because we form with Jesus the mystical body of Christ, "And he put all things beneath his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of the one who fills all things in every way." This should not be a problem. There are many passages in the Liturgy affirming that we are offering the sacrifice, albeit in union with Christ, who is the head of his body, the church. Our prayer has value only because we are praying (hence offering the sacrifice) together with our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ.�


I still have not had an answer to my several questions, so I�ll recap them directly from my posts:

1st time: �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?�

2nd time: �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?�

3rd time: �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?�

4th time: �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.�


Finally, here�s a �new, fresh translation� or such of one of my above questions:

-How would one translate �voznosenije� or for that matter �anaphora� into modern American English (not GREEK!) accessible for today�s worshipping assembly? There�s no good word?

John K the layman�oops! layperson. Oh heck, I�m just one of �us all!�

I see your dilemma, John.

The Eastern Churches give the name Anaphora to the Eucharistic prayer. The term comes from the Greek and means to lift on high or to elevate. Therefore, it has the meaning of offering, which is the principal action that is taking place. As already noted, during the Eucharistic service we seek to unite ourselves with the sacrificial offering of the Body and Blood of Christ, so as to achieve union with God.
http://www.stmaron.org/anaphora.html

Now, if the Anaphora is the Eucharistic prayer, surely the Anaphora is not being offered. The bread and wine is being offered which will become the Body and Blood of Christ--the Holy Oblation!

Now I am disturbed also.

It seemed to me that this question has actually been answered in an earlier note from Father David:



Mary

Dear Father,

I would like to prepare a response to your note and Father David's. I will need to ask for clarification from you on a point or two.

In doing so I am only going to address those comments of yours and Father David's that are of concern to me, so if I do not address some of your good words, it is only because they do not make up any part of what is of concern to me here, and will only serve to confuse things if I try to defend against something that is not at issue in my mind.



In this first quote, it is not quite clear to me if you mean that the Sacramental Action of the Liturgy of the Faithful subsists in the Anaphora, or if the Anaphora subsists in or as the Sacramental Action.

It seems to me that you are saying that the Sacramental Action of the Liturgy of the Faithful subsists in the Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer, thereby making the Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer a supra category, in emphasis, of the Action itself...but perhaps that is not what you mean?

As I have said often enough now, my concern here is a matter of categorical focus in the Liturgy of the Faithful, on the part of the faithful.

That focus will be established in the divine liturgy, at the beginning of the Introductory Dialogue, in a similar way to that which is employed in the Latin rite Preface in the Oratre,fratres, where it is clear that the emphasis is on the offering, the oblation, the sacrifice.

I have never heard it said that the focus on the Action of Lifting Up or Oblation is a characteristic of only the western rites:



And then of course the Canon, the core equivalent of the Anaphora, as you remarked earlier, ends with these words:



Also in another paragraph of your note, you said:



Is it your intention to say that the eucharistic sacrifice is identified with the passion, death, resurrection, and ascension of our Redeemer King?

Or do you mean that the Action of the liturgy of the faithful is the continuing passion, death, ressurection, and ascension of our Redeemer King made present to us on earth through the sacramental action of Eucharist?

Thank you for you patience.

Mary Elizabeth

Priest: Orate, fratres: ut meum ac vestrum sacrificium acceptabile fiat apud Deum Patrem omnipotem.

Pray brethern that my sacrifice and your sacrifice....

Our sacrifice is not a translation of the Latin.

My understanding of the distinction made in the Latin text is that the sacrifice of the priest is qualitatively different, for obvious reasons, than the sacrifice of the faithful.

It's late, and I shall need to read the response to some of my comments carefully. For the immediate moment, let me address the matter of the Orate, Fratres (which is not part of the Preface, nor is it properly addressed to the laity):

The Orate, Fratres is an old exhortation, originally addressed by the bishop who is the main celebrant to his concelebrating presbyters. Keep that firmly in mind, and the confusion vanishes.

Consider the text The Bishop says to the Presbyters:


And the Presbyters respond to the Bishop:


So: the Bishop quite properly calls his presbyters his "brothers", and refers to "my sacrifice and yours" - without going into the whole question of the development of concelebration, the Bishop and the Presbyters were certainly doing something together.

The Presbyters answer the Bishop: "May the Lord receive this Sacrifice from thy hands - notice, the presbyters do NOT say "from our hands". "For our utility" (I am using an over-literal translation here) - the "our" refers quite specifically to the presbyters - and the good of all His holy Church" - which in this case means the assembled faithful.

None of this has anything at all to do with the "priesthood of the laity"; it is between the Bishop and the Presbyters.

The exchange has been transformed into an exchange between the main celebrant and the laity - this is one of the more deplorable features of the Nous Ordo.

More tomorrow, God willing.

Fr. Serge

Unfortunately post-schism Latin theology and practice may not be the best comparison model. By approving of private masses the Latin Church relegated the laity to a non-essential role, an observer of the actions of the priest, until Vatican II. The Eastern Church, which didn't accept the idea of private liturgies, saw the participation of the laity as essential while maintaining the distinction between priest and laity. Both offer but in different capacities.

I think it is also worth noting that it is the deacon, the link between the laity and the priest, the nave and the sanctuary, that physically lifts and offers the Holy Gifts during the prayer: "Offering You, Your own, from Your own, always and everywhere." which the priest says.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Father,

Thank you for taking the time, and I look forward to more tomorrow.

It was wrong of me, stupid even, to say that the Orate, Fratres was part of the Preface. I knew better actually, and it was sloppy of me.

The real comparison that I was trying to draw was a textual similarity, in terms of direct reference to sacrifice and oblation, between the Invitation to Prayer that is the Orate, Fratres as it exists in the current Latin rite just prior to their Eucharistic Prayer and Preface, and the Introductory Dialogue as it existed in the Byzantine rite as the opening to the Eucharistic Prayer.

I was also aware of the "transformation" that you find deplorable in the Novus Ordo and the Orate, Fratres. What used to annoy me more than the re-forming of the text itself, was the fact that we were issued and responded to that "Grand Invitation" while seated on our respective duffs...at least we, the people, were parked. On occasion I would rise spontaneously to my feet during that exchange, so I am happy to note that it is now ordinary to do so rather than odd.

Also, lest I forget, my emphasis remains on the focus of the language of the Introductory Dialogue and not on the relationship between priest and laity, or laity and sacramental action, though I suppose my use of comparative texts is imperfect in its comparison, and does lead to other kinds of observations and discussions.

Nonetheless I remain unconvinced concerning the theological soundness of the retention of the Greek, as in "Holy Anaphora," as a call to listen to the Eucharistic Prayer, prayerfully. I think I understand Father David in that correctly.

I searched out and found an old bit of text that I remembered from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger that will speak nicely for me tomorrow or when I have time. It surely recognizes many things that Father David and you have said, and yet leaves room for my deep concerns as well. I hope to be able to type it all in tomorrow.

All of this is very interesting and I do enjoying reading your instructive posts.

So thank you again and good night.

Mary

I will keep that firmly in mind. That makes much more sense.

While your at it, any thoughts on why the English translation of the suscipiat leaves out holy as in "all His holy Church?"

Sorry - as you might suspect, I am no enthusiast of the ICEL versions, and I have no wish to explain or defend them!

Fr. Serge

Dear Mary Elizabeth:

You write that


Unfortunately, it�s not quite clear to me what the question is. The Eucharistic Sacrifice is the �rational Sacrifice�, and is dependent upon several conditions:

The Sacrifice cannot be accomplished without an ordained priest (Bishop or presbyter will do), employing for the purpose what we usually term �matter, form, and intention�. The matter is the bread and wine, the intention is to do what the Church does, and the form is the words of the Anaphora. This all takes place within what is commonly referred to as the Liturgy of the Faithful (because in earlier times only the baptized Faithful were permitted to be present). The bread and the wine, the pronunciation of the Anaphora (whether aloud or in mystica, the priest must actually speak the words, not just scan them or think them), the responses of the faithful, the intention of the priest are all components of the Sacramental Action. So, for that matter, are certain requirements which the Church makes, to do with such matters as the specific texts, the vestments, the sacred vessels, the necessary preparation, and so on � to a degree these can differ from one Local Church to another (a Local Church may require either leavened bread or unleavened bread, for example). Red wine is preferable, but the Church tolerates the use of white wine.

The Sacramental Action continues beyond the Anaphora � the reception of Holy Communion is an essential part of that Action (a priest may not serve the Divine Liturgy without receiving Holy Communion). In these areas also the Church has made certain regulations which there is no need to repeat here.


You write that:


I�m not at all sure what you mean here, so I can�t respond adequately. Certain thoughts come to mind, but I hesitate to express those thoughts without a fuller statement as to the nature of the question.

You write that:


What do you mean by �categorical focus�? Does anyone in this discussion appear to be suggesting that the Faithful at the Divine Liturgy should not be focused on what is taking place? If so, don�t worry � I�ve often been amazed to discover just how closely people are paying attention, even when I think they aren�t!

I trust that you have read the full text of the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom and the full text of the Divine Liturgy of Saint Basil the Great attentively � it would be impossible to read that text and not realize that the Church understands what is taking place as a Great Sacrifice, an oblation. So what problem are you discerning, and why?

You write that:


Neither have I � and such a statement would be utterly inaccurate. You may have misunderstood a term I mentioned � the expression Actio Missae as a synonym for the Anaphora is naturally found only in the West. Is it possible that you are searching for a difference where no difference exists?

Please allow me to suggest that you read Saint John Chrysostom�s classic work On the Priesthood . It may set your mind at rest, at least to some degree.

For the sake of Christ, forgive me.

Fr. Serge

Dear Father,

I am slowly finding my way around the new software here. You'd think I'd learned my lesson earlier but I clearly did not. With the wayward stroke of an ENTER key, I managed to wipe out a good 30 minutes worth of mulling and typing. I am too frustrated to try and reconstruct. I went off on something of a rabbit trail because your note here reminded me of an interesting story that is simply not destined to go to print tonight.

What you've written above is essentially sufficient to my needs for the moment. It is what I expected, but to be honest it was not entirely clear at first. Certainly clear now and plenty familiar.

With respect to St. John Chrysostom's On the Priesthood, I seem to constantly be referring people to it. Seems as though, for many, the eternal priesthood is some sort of odd papal accretion.

Thank you for the time that you took and sorry for the brief response but I am going now to soak these fat thumbs so I don't clip another key later. Next time I am going to compose my responses somewhere else and plug them in here later.

Mary Elizabeth

Dear Father David,

In all of the historical texts on the St. John Chrysostom divine liturgy, written in English, that I have been able to gather over the years, from both Catholic and Orthodox sources, the Introductory Dialogue has been described as being initially a rubric that was by the time of the eighth century already incorporated into the liturgy as part of the spoken text.

St. John Chrysostom taught that the text was calling the assembly to stand �in fear and trembling, with gravity and a courageous spirit� in full and willing anticipation of being participants in the Holy Oblation, which is, in the context of the Sacramental Action, the Sacrifice of Christ who took upon himself the full weight of our sins, the full participation of our everlasting lives.

Christ joins us to himself in that great moment of his passion and death, so that we may die with him to rise again in everlasting peace and love.

This particular moment in the liturgy calls us to bear in mind the sacramental act of dying so that we may live.

In this very real sacramental sense it draws us back to our Baptismal promises and links the two sacramental actions of Baptism and Eucharist together in the living presence of the assembly, standing before their Lord, Master and King.

In none of those studies of the history of the liturgy have I been able to find any reference to the Introductory Dialogue where one could take from the explanation the assertion that, and I paraphrase now, �� translators up to now have assumed that the Greek word anaphora used by the deacon in the introduction to the Anaphora, a technical term in English or Greek to mean the Eucharistic Prayer, was being used in a �generic sense - oblation, offering, or some such�.�

I simply can find nothing that indicates that this statement about our rising and offering a Holy Oblation is some sort of generic offering�that could have been bread or grapes or olive oil or lengths of cloth or some such thing.

No.

By the time this text reaches its eighth century iteration in the form of this particular liturgy, it is clear that the Holy Oblation, is the High Priest and Sacrifice, Jesus Christ, in whose presence we are to stand in awe.

There is no �some such� at all about the very specific Holy Oblation that is said to be being offered� anaphora is not taught as being simply the ensuing Eucharistic Prayer, and not merely listened to as you have indicated, at that moment in the liturgy.

In all of the liturgical histories and commentaries that I can find, we are called, at that moment, to be active and awestruck participants in the Sacramental Action initiated by Christ, the High Priest and Oblation, through his minister here on earth, along with the assembly gathered and standing with dignity and awe.

If you are going to insist that anaphora in the Introductory Dialogue has always, up until the 21st century Byzantine new order, been translated as a �generic some such�, given the importance of the subject, it is incumbent upon you to document the sources for that assertion.

***************

The following is a beautiful catechesis on the very subject of the Eucharist as a perfect sacrifice of praise. Note the numbered rank order in which the Holy Father then spoke of the various elements and the meanings, of our Holy Oblation.

Dear Father David,

It's clear that Mary Elizabeth, aka ElijahMaria, has a large hidden agenda - but I am unable to discern just what that agenda is, much less to address it adequately. As a Maronite Benedictine friend once told me, it is possible to find heresy in almost any liturgical text or gesture if one is willing to throw one's doctrinal net widely enough, but that beyond a certain point, it's time to have a cup of tea and go to bed.

If you have any insight into what this poor woman is really distressed about, that would probably be interesting. As it is, I studied the Eucharist under Louis Bouyer, who would not have been overly patient with what she is writing.

Hope your Lent is going well, and that you have a grace-filled Pascha.

Serge

Father Serge and Father David, your blessings!

If I may interject: I have also read another version of Mary Elizabeth's announcement which she made in another forum, and I think I may be able to provide a bit of the insight you requested.

Sometimes, when a reader encounters a new translation of a formal text, especially if he expects a hidden agenda, he may infer (without requiring particular evidence) that the new text contains an implicit denial of the old.

Thus:

1. "They now want us to say 'offer the holy Anaphora' instead of 'offer the holy oblation' - so they must trying to say that we are NOT offering a sacrifice, but only a prayer."

2. "They now want us to say 'Theotokos' instead of 'Mother of God' - so they must not WANT us to have a warm, personal relationship with the Mother of God."

One of the hallmarks of Catholic and Orthodox liturgy (and of Christian orthodoxy in general) is a tendency toward a "both and" rather than "either/or." The Eucharist is a sacrifice of praise AND a re-presentation of the death and resurrection of the Lord; we offer the Body and Blood, AND our praise, AND ourselves together with the whole creation, all through the hands of the High Priest. Mary is Theotokos AND Mother of God, with all the depth of each title.

Catechesis on ANY translation change is critical, but just as important is an attitude of humility on the part of both the shepherds and the flock. Most especially during this season of the Fast, we find ourselves oh so very willing to throw stones, and attribute dark motives to others. Kyrie eleison!

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

P.S. One more small example of this hermeneutic: the new text of the resurrectional troparion in tone 4 (quite properly) refers to 'the women disciples' rather than simply 'the women'. I have twice been told by concerned laymen that this is a clear sign that the Liturgical Commission is trying to prepare us for the ordination of women to the priesthood, and the phrase 'the women disciples' is actual proof thereof.

Dear Jeff,

Nobody will accuse me of being a partisan supporter of the new Ruthenian version of the Liturgy. But attempting, for instance, to suggest that one would use the word "Theotokos" in order to distance the faithful from the Mother of God is absurd. It is a matter of linguistic and dogmatic accuracy - anyone who knows the depth of Byzantine liturgical texts in honor and veneration of the Holy Theotokos will surely realize that.

As to the issue of the Eucharistic Sacrifice (a doctrine which is not in doubt, so far as I know): several years ago I was invited to lecture to a clergy group here in Ireland about the idea of Sacrifice as expressed in the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom. My audience was bowled over - not by my erudition, but by the clear and copious references that our Divine Liturgy provides. I fail to grasp how anyone could read our liturgical text and not understand this.

The Greek text justifies the use of the word "Anaphora" in that diaconal admonition. My only criticism is that the faithful - to say nothing of the occasional visitors - are unlikely to know what the word means. It's true, of course, that this applies to other words in the liturgical vocabulary, but it seems a bit strange to use this one, which does not have any special dogmatic significance (although the Slavonic voznoshenie may be nothing more than a calque for Anaphora.

Fr. Serge

Ever notice how the Revisionists always compare the Revised Divine Liturgy to the worst examples of liturgy among our parishes? The comparison point should be the full Recension and the parishes that celebrate it � not the worst examples. But if they compared it to the best that would make the differences between the Revised Divine Liturgy and the Real Ruthenian Liturgy even more obvious.

This sums up my problem with changing from �Mother of God� to �Theotokos.� �Theotokos� is accurate. No one knows what it means. �Mother of God� is less accurate. Everyone knows what it means. The whole world knows who she is.

I might consider Mr. Mierzejewski's proposition that I am calamity howling except for this letter from Father David Petras that goes along quite well with his earlier assertion that anaphora never had a clear meaning, until now, in the English liturgical text in the Introductory Dialogue of the Eucharistic Prayer.

You will note in this letter quoted below that Father David explicitly states that we are to understand the Holy Anaphora in its technical sense of the Eucharistic Prayer. The letter makes the meaning of the new non-translation of "anaphora" abundantly clear.

There is NO reason in any English liturgical translation to leave a Greek word in its Greek form UNLESS one intends to use it in a technical sense.

In Greek the word means a 'lifting up'...and has been translated as oblation for centuries.

In Greek and English the term Anaphora has come to be used as the equal expression for 'Eucharistic Prayer'....and that is precisely what the Byzantine new order of the divine liturgy intends it to mean.

In that, none of us need to guess. Already, it has been explained quite adequately by Father David.

We are being called to listen to the Eucharistic Prayer, aka the Anaphora.

May I suggest again a reading of Pope John Paul II's catechesis on the perfect sacrifice of praise to see where and how the current Byzantine iteration of the liturgy is now lacking.

Mary

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

"Theotokos" is a word of direct dogmatic importance, canonized by the Council of Ephesus; the Church cannot abandon this term. Pope John Paul II of holy memory did much to make this term better known, so the least we can do is take the hint and continue.

Fr. Serge

Dear Father,

This has been my point all along. For the greater part of its history as a spoken part of the liturgy, the dialogue in question has been used to affirm our whole and willing participation, body and soul, in the Holy Oblation.

This new order of meaning, as you have explained it as listening to prayer, may not deny the sacrifice, but it surely no longer affirms it, or our active and willing and dignified participation in it.

The Ruthenian Byzantine liturgy has now changed the entire meaning of that moment in the liturgy and your explanations here affirm that.

The change is entirely whimsical and unnecessary and weakens the moment, by placing the emphasis on listening to words rather than offering an oblation. I don't think I've ever seen a better example of liturgical quietism.

My decision stands. I will not attend.

Mary Elizabeth

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

Thanks for answering my question Mary. That's food for thought.
Indigo

Just remembered: Among the Bulgarians, the blessed bread that the rest of us call Antidoron is called "naphora" - obviously the same word.

Fr. Serge

And the bread that is prepared on the paten during the Rite of Preparation is "prosphora." Equally obviously, the same word. From "phorein."

Since this particular change in the liturgy was just mentioned in another topic thread, I thought it might be good to refresh our attention to it.

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.

Whether people realize or agree or not this is far more insidious a change than any use of horizontal language.

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

Mary

While doing my morning reading, I chanced upon the following explanation of "anaphora."

I think this cleary indicates, in striking language, that in our liturgy a Holy Anaphora is far more than a prayer, prayed prayerfully....Mary


St. John Chrysostom and the parousia of the Holy Spirit [orthodoxresearchinstitute.org]

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

Mary [/quote]

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

I don't know that announcing that our priests don't care about doctrinal errors is all that much of a positive statement, Nick.

I am sure there are those whose eyes would light on that statement, gleefully, saying that they knew all along our priests were too lethargic to recognize a theological truth if they fell over it.

I've heard that said in fact, so I don't think your assertion says anything very positive about your pastor.

It is for that reason that I think I would wait to hear from your pastor about whether or not he cares about theological truths. Let him tell us that he does not care, as you say.

He might tell me that pastoral concerns come first, in very practical terms, but I would think he would also say that theological truths are the foundation of that which is pastoral.

Mary

"The anaphora of the Eucharist has as its prototype the anaphora of the sacrifice of Christ to God the Father."

These words, in parentheses, are not the words of Chrysostom, but the words of a commentator on Chrysostom. And the commentator is correct. This would seem to me to be a justification for using the word "anaphora" to refer to the eucharistic prayer. When we kiss a material icon of paint and wood, according to theology, our veneration passes to the prototype of the image depicted. Certainly, all the more reason to "be attentive to the anaphora," for in this way we are united to the sacrifice of Christ, whose body is the Church. That the anaphora that we pray has this wondrous, spiritual, enfolded, immanent meaning is what the eucharistic mystery is about. The difficulty in this thread seems to be the enunciation of this identity.

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.

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