www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology The Nature of the Anaphora

Per Fr. Elias's recommendation, I have reposted my last two posts from Fr. Deacon Lance's thread.

I would like to take this topic in a new direction since Mr. Administrator would rather conclude things FOR me that I do not agree with. I hope to narrow the focus down to the *nature* of the Anaphora. Hopefully, this won't lead us to make conclusions about the iconostasis or what direction the celebrant faces. (Personally, I've attended Byzantine Catholic liturgies where the priest faced the people from behind the altar and had no iconostasis. At least the Anaphora was prayed silently!)

Fr. Deacon Thomas George of the OCA wrote an excellent article on some points that touch on the Anaphora prayed silently. The complete text is offered at this link:

http://www.jacwell.org/Spring_2001/words_of_life.htm

All capitalizations are mine. I offer this in addition to what I already said in my previous posts.

* * * * * * *

Examining the liturgy's Anaphora prayer, the prayer of thanksgiving and offering which begins with the words "It is meet and right," we see that it is an address intoned to God the Father by the bishop and the people of God. In other terms it is a duet (for lack of a better word) of the Royal Priesthood in praise and thanksgiving to God. In this duet, the cleric (bishop or priest) and the people each have parts that are intoned aloud, although the prayer itself is singular and is prayed by all together. The Anaphora prayer ends with both the priest and the people intoning the "Amen." The subject and verbs used in the Anaphora are in the plural, "we" remember, "we" offer, "we" praise. Thus, the whole community offers this thanksgiving to God.

This prayer is not merely recited, but chanted or intoned. THE UNFORTUNATE PRACTICE OF A SILENT ANAPHORA with exclamations of the last few words before the change of "singer," be it priest or people, BECAME COMMON AFTER THE 6TH CENTURY. The exclamations were ALOUD so the next "singer" would have a cue when to begin his part. THIS INNOVATION CAUSED MUCH OF THE DUET TO BE EXPRESSED INAUDIBLY, with the people NOT HEARING a large portion of the Anaphora prayer.�

In time the people's perception of one of these exclamations changed. Indeed the text of the prayer itself was actually changed later (13-14th century) TO ACCOMMODATE THIS NEW PERCEPTION. What had been a single sentence, started by the priest and completed by the people, now became two sentences, one for the priest and another for the people. "Thine own of Thine own we offer unto Thee on behalf of all and for all" was the first. "We hymn Thee, we bless Thee, we thank Thee, O Lord" was the second.

If we examine the original language and grammar of the texts used by the Church before the 13th century we see "Thine own of Thine own we offer unto Thee", was originally a clause of a large complex sentence which reads:

Remembering this saving commandment, and all those
things which have come to pass for us, ... and His second
and glorious Coming, offering Thine own of Thine own to
Thee, on account of all things and because of all things we
hymn Thee, we bless Thee, we thank Thee, O Lord.

The compound verb of this long sentence was not "we offer" but "we hymn Thee, we bless Thee, we thank Thee." Rephrasing it may help us to understand its intended meaning:

As we remember this saving commandment, and all those
things which have come to pass for us, ... and His second
and glorious Coming, as we offer Thee Thy Gifts from
Thy Gifts, we hymn Thee, we bless Thee, we thank
Thee, O Lord, on account of all things and because of all
things.

This sentence of the offering prayer is shared between the priest and the people. It clearly demonstrates that THE THANKSGIVING (THE EUCHARIST) IS AN OFFERING MADE BY THE PRIEST AND THE PEOPLE: "As WE remember,... as WE offer, ... WE hymn Thee..."

Restoring the original words of St. John Chrysostom's anaphora prayer ALLOWS US TO PERCEIVE ITS TRUE MEANING AND TO FORSAKE THE MISLEADING 13TH CENTURY REVISION, �

�

�On account of (or according to) all things and because of all things" is the literal and basic meaning of the Greek words in this sentence, "kata panta kai dia panta." These words should not to be tied to the act of offering but to "we hymn Thee, we bless Thee, we thank Thee" as Fr. Ephrem Lash noted at a recent SVS Summer Institute. But what do these words mean? Let's explore one possibility.

I believe this phrase refers back to events listed at the beginning of the sentence, "Remembering (keeping in mind) ... all those things that have come to pass for us" and to the final event, the "second and glorious Coming." It refers to everything God has done to save us, and to everything He has promised and will do at the end of this age: our deliverance from the powers of this world, the Judgment, and the complete inauguration of the Kingdom. This sentence "sung" by the priest and completed by the people can be translated as:

On account of all Thou hast done and for all Thou wilt do
we hymn Thee, we bless Thee, and we thank Thee, O
Lord.

In any case the phrase is intended to explain why we hymn, bless, and thank the Lord.

The following phrase, "And we pray Thee, O our God", is the beginning of another sentence (the Epiclesis) which asks for the descent of the Holy Spirit upon us and upon the offered Gifts. I must note that 'pray' is used here in its archaic English meaning of 'to ask earnestly' (p. 2267 of the Compact Oxford English Dictionary). The underlying Greek could be translated as 'we beseech Thee' or 'we implore Thee'. The meaning is to offer a petition to someone not just because you want something from him but because you NEED something from him. This sentence is also an example of the duet of the people (who begin it) and the priest (who completes the thought) seen previously when the people say, "It is meet and right", followed by the priest repeating the words silently in the altar.

Today the latter half of the priest's next sentence is heard by the people, but if we examine all of it we see it clearly repeats and completes the thought initiated by the people.

Again we offer Thee this reasonable and bloodless
worship, and we ask Thee, and pray Thee, and supplicate
Thee: Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these
offered Gifts, and make this bread the precious Body of
Thy Christ, and that which is this cup, the precious Blood
of Thy Christ, making the change by Thy Holy Spirit...

While we have only reviewed the Anaphora of St. John, the Anaphora of St. Basil also demonstrates the same meanings we have presented here. THE PRACTICE OF SILENT PRAYER AND SHORT AUDIBLE EXCLAMATIONS IN THE LITURGY HAS LED TO UNINTENTIONAL BUT FALSE PERCEPTIONS OF THE WORDS OF ST. JOHN AND ST. BASIL. While this practice may have been caused by an increase in the size of the buildings the Church used in worship and the natural limitations of the human voice, there is no necessity in this day of amplifiers and microphones to keep this innovation. THESE MEN HAVE GIVEN THE CHURCH TWO MAGNIFICENT EXPRESSIONS OF HER FAITH. IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO HEAR THEIR WORDS CORRECTLY AND TO SHARE THEIR FAITH WITH THE GENERATIONS TO COME.

* * * * * * *

It is interesting how the �unfortunate practice� of the silent Anaphora is considered an �innovation� by someone educated at St. Vladimir�s Seminary. I am unaware that the OCA has labeled Fr. Deacon Thomas George a �Revisionist.� He is only telling it like it is. Such revisionist innovations as a silent Anaphora can alter the true meaning of our theology.

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:

Does this article by a member of the OCA help discern what genre the Anaphora is?

Does a silent Anaphora bring out the best in its meaning, both linguistically and theologically?

And again, what exactly is the difference between the Anaphora of St. John Chrysostom and the Anaphora of St. Basil the Great if both are taken silently?

What prevents the shorter one (John's) from being prayed silently if the longer one (Basil's) is prescribed?

What prevents pastors from properly celebrating the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great, including the special chant melodies, if there is absolutely nothing for the people to distinguish it from St. John's Liturgy?

Who is "us?" since "us" is used 36 times in the Anaphora of St. Basil?

So, let's consider the nature or the genre (type) of Anaphoric prayer. Is the Anaphora, by its very essence, a PRIVATE prayer? I would like others to participate too.

God bless,
Joe Thur

Is the Anaphora a private prayer? Certainly not - and if anybody has ever claimed the contrary, I am unaware of it.
The first response "It is meet and right" is better done without the later addition "to worship the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Trinity One in Essence and Undivided".
The prayer itself is not singular; the verbs are in the plural (we pray, we offer, etc.) regardless of whether a given paragraph is aloud or silent.
I may well be mistaken, but I'm inclined to think that the historic origin of the silent recitation of the Anaphora is to be found in the composition of complex and prolonged chants - the priest got tired of waiting. I saw an example of this phenomenon at a Latin High Mass (novus ordo) for a feast about 20 years ago; the choir sang an elaborate Renaissance polyphonic setting of the Sanctus, taking a good five minutes to do so, while the poor priest, visibly uncomfortable, was staring across the disoriented altar.
Punctuation of texts from 2,000 years ago has inevitably varied, as examining older texts will readily confirm. But I wouldn't be inclined to build too much on this. As for the specific matter of "Thine own of Thine own . . ." it is crucial to keep in mind that the verbal is that clause is properly NOT "we offer" but rather "offering" - the whole paragraph depends upon the three verbs sung by the people in the clause which concludes the paragraph: we sing to Thee, we bless Thee, we worship Thee, O Lord, and we pray to Thee, O our God. But this is hardly a new insight. Church-Slavonic retains the participle prinosiashche. Modern Greek texts unfortunately use prospheromon, but older and better Greek texts invariably used prospherontes - one can look it up in Trembelas quite easily.
hymn Thee, we bless Thee, we thank Thee, O Lord.
Thee, O Lord, on account of all things and because of all
things.
"Thine own of Thine own" is a Scriptural quote. "Kata panta kai dia panta" is notoriously difficult to translate, but doesn't have much of an effect on the present discussion. I would view Father Ephrem's translation as a bit too free - a more elegant translation preserves the unclarity of the original (which is desirable, since we really aren't sure of the meaning and therefore should not pre-empt one opinion in our English versions): Thine own of Thine own, offering unto Thee in all and for all.
One can, quite correctly, use "we beseech Thee" as the closing verb of the response - Father Michael Gelsinger's translation did precisely that in *Orthodox Hymns in English* published in the 1930s (often called "the blue book") and still in use.
So far, so good. But Joe is clearly using this to bolster his argument in favor of offering the Anaphora aloud. I have already expressed my opinion of the matter, and that opinion has not changed.

We do not have some sort of "disciplina arcani" in this matter. It is necessary and proper that the priest should from time to time in his sermons go through the Anaphora (or both Anaphoras, to be more precise) and expound them - the notion that people will "understand" these most profound texts simply because they are read aloud is childish - and probe their several levels and nuances of meaning, their Scriptural and patristic background, and their significance in our worship and in our lives. When that is done, THEN the occasional offering of the Anaphora aloud will have a strong effect.
To call the silent Anaphora a revisionist innovation is an abuse of words.

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:

Does this article by a member of the OCA help discern what genre the Anaphora is? - Well, it certainly could. There are many other important works that I would recommend, and I am waiting impatiently for Father Archimandrite Robert Taft to offer us the promised volume on the subject.

Does a silent Anaphora bring out the best in its meaning, both linguistically and theologically? - by itself, NO. As part of a much larger mystagogic catechesis, quite possibly YES.

And again, what exactly is the difference between the Anaphora of St. John Chrysostom and the Anaphora of St. Basil the Great if both are taken silently? - the differences are exactly the same whether the anaphora is silent or aloud.

What prevents the shorter one (John's) from being prayed silently if the longer one (Basil's) is prescribed? - this is prevented by the conscience of the priest, if the priest is so equipped!

What prevents pastors from properly celebrating the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great, including the special chant melodies, if there is absolutely nothing for the people to distinguish it from St. John's Liturgy? - nothing that I know of!

Who is "us?" since "us" is used 36 times in the Anaphora of St. Basil? - well, one could reasonably assume that "us" has "the Christian faithful here assembled" for the antecedent. No doubt someone could be found to defend the idea that instead, the entire Universal Church is the antecedent, but that is not my preferred interpretation.

Now a question of my own - why this desire (indeed this compulsion) to dogmatize on a matter which admits of pluralism?

Incognitus

Joe,

As I have already stated numerous times, there are a few within the OCA who also wish to take the anaphora aloud. Father Alexander Schmemann, of blessed memory, was of the opinion that the anaphora should be taken aloud about 3 or 4 times a year but not consistently.

I have also stated many times now that since there are no specific rubrics regarding the praying of the anaphora out loud or silently then the freedom of the individual priest should be respected.

I note that in the article Father George made no reference to mandating that the anaphora be prayed out loud as is occurring in our Byzantine-Ruthenian Church. Indeed, such a mandate would be unthinkable anywhere in the rest of Orthodoxy. There is not a single local Orthodox Church anywhere in the world that has decided to take upon itself the revision of our common tradition with mandated changes in the liturgy.

As I have also noted numerous times, if the Spirit is leading the Byzantine Church in organic development and growth of the Divine Liturgy then mandates will not be needed. It is wrong for one small branch of the Byzantine Church to revise the liturgical inheritance that belongs to all Byzantine Christians.

I will also note that each of the questions you pose is nothing more than a reflection on your personal preferences for the liturgy.

Admin

Incognitus,

Although this was not the intent of your response, in one aspect you are correct, children will understand the profound truths by their parents speaking aloud to them. So in a manner of speaking this is "childish".

There certainly is something dynamic about the spoken word. The author of Genesis writes, "God said," which is a sign of his creative action. And does not Saint Paul himself write, "Salvation comes by hearing"?

As to your comment about polyphonic chants, I understood these developed to cover the periods of silence when the priest prayed "secretly", but I could be wrong.

Incognitus,

I am sorry if this whole topic is taken as a desire or compulsion to dogmatize. I really didn't want it to be taken as such. I would like to raise issue with the phenomenon of fundamentalism, especially rigid liturgical fundamentalism.

Without a doubt, our anaphoras are theologically loaded. But you mention pluralism.

The pluralism you speak about is praxis, I believe, how something is done in practice. In this case, whether the Anaphora is taken aloud or silently. Yes, you are correct. The Anaphora is taken in so many different ways even in one's own eparchy. Some clergy take it all silently except for the mandatory verses to be taken out loud. Some clergy finish the parts of the prayer after the people finish singing their responses or hymns. Some clergy take blocks of it in total out loud, but will never take the Epiclesis out loud (too Orthodox). Still others will take everything out loud. As you can probably agree, the praxis is not consistent.

But liturgical reform always came following when praxis got out of hand. We saw it in the gradual demise of Anaphoras-prayed-from-the-hip and the regulation of hymnography to be based on biblical texts. Liturgical shape may be pluralistic, but mostly in those areas Taft considers "soft spots," namely (1) the entrance rites, (2) the transfer of the gifts, and (2) the communion and dismissal rites. This is becuase, unlike the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist's core parts (scriptural lessons and eucharistic prayer), there were no precendents.

Despite all the pluralism in our liturgies, there still remains a basic shape at its core. The same goes for the Anaphora. In our tradition, it is basically Trinitarian-ecclesiastical. Our Creed follows the same pattern. Whether this can infer a correct praxis in its execution (silent or aloud) is worthy of discussion.

I am not a liturgical expert. But when a public prayer is taken aloud only in certain bits and pieces, I would have to consider the reasons why some parts are taken aloud and others are not. What are the criteria for deciding what parts of a public prayer get taken aloud? And what prompted some of clergy to take the Institution Narrative ever so slowly and in a louder voice followed by raising the chalice and diskos (or paten for some clergy) aloft high over their heads for a long spell for the laity to adore and see? If the argument wants to make a connection between silent prayers and public awareness, what was the purpose of such Eucharistic Expositions? Some clergy even stepped to the side of the altar while pointing to the chalice and paten while permitting the laity to gaze at them. Of course, this praxis was rejected by Rome.

Historically, there are parts of the prayer that imply or demand a people's response, people other than the celebrant (hence the reason why private Liturgies/Masses are an oxymoron). Schmemann mentions this in his Eucharist book on the chapter on the Assembly. But if we only take those parts aloud because of absolute necessity (this particular part demands an immediate response from the people) and leave others silent (no people's response here, so forget it), then I would have to question it.

If one takes a math class, it helps if all the steps are written out and not just the axioms and theorems. There is nothing worse than a math text assuming you know all the intermediate steps in between to get from the 'given' to the 'answer.' The complete Anaphora out loud permits dummies like me to appreciate the entire context of why I am at worship. An Anaphora is a mastery of literary and theological achievement. Hopefully and joyfully, the message of the liturgical author will sink in to my thick skull. I can always read a book about the Anaphora, but where is the beauty if I cannot participate and immerse myself into it? Maybe I am idealistic, not revisionistic?

Joe

Administrator,

It is obvious that you will always reduce the issue down to my personal preferences, a pure ad hominem approach to solving any issue while totally ignoring the possibility that you have any personal preferences.

Excuse, me Mr. Adminstrator, but not everything we hold as true is a matter of personal preference. There are many issues I do not agree with, but I try to seek the meaning of them.

You continually wage the personal preferences finger against me as if the praxis of many clergy who are instituting such changes is besides the point. I also prefer NOT to include the Filioque in the Creed and NOT excommunicate fully initiated Byzantine Christian youths. Does my preference make it wrong to reform such inorganic changes?

If I hold steady because of 'personal preferences,' you hold steady because of rigid fundamentalism.

But this thread was to consider the 'nature' of the Anaphora, not its praxis. Please stick to the issue. And is the Anaphora, by nature, a "private" prayer?

Joe

John,

You forget one of the basic tenets of our theology: that cooperation with the Holy Spirit (synergy) is needed. The Holy Spirit isn't going to do it all for us. Liturgical forms change because WE change it.

But please permit others to weigh in on the topic. I would like to hear from them too. Thanks.

Joe

The Autonomous Orthodox Church of Finland, under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, did make such a revision. As is stated in "Feast of Faith" by the now reposed Archbishop Paul of Finland (bracketed text my own):

"In the Finnish Orthodox Church, the second and third shortcoming mentioned by Schmemann [secret prayers and the distinction between clergy and laity during Communion] have been eliminated in the 1985 handbook. The prayers of the Liturgy [not just the Anaphora] are to be read aloud and the clergy are not to be seperated behind closed doors from the rest of the people of God during Communion. The prayer before Communion is to be recited together, and Communion is to be given to the faithful immediately after it is given to the clergy."

Depending on who is talking, Finland is often held up as either a liturgical paradise or a modernist den of heresy.

Just FYI.

Dave

Dave,

Thank you for your post and I stand corrected. There is at least one Orthodox Church which has mandated the taking of the anaphora out loud. This does not change my opinion. The taking aloud of the anaphora should not be mandated. As I have consistently argued, liberty must be allowed.

Admin

Well, I wasn't out to change your opinion.

Dave

Joe,

I am not engaging in an ad hominem against you. Your arguments clearly show that you believe that your personal preferences are in line with the Holy Spirit and that you believe that mine are not. I respectfully disagree.

You accuse me of �rigid fundamentalism�.

I have consistently argued that the individual priest should have the freedom to take the anaphora silently or aloud and that there should be no mandate.

I have consistently argued that the right of the individual priest to celebrate the traditional liturgy should be preserved and the revisions should not be mandated.

There is no way you can accuse me of being a �rigid fundamentalist� on any liturgical issue. Arguing for the freedom of the individual priest on these issues hardly qualifies as either �rigid� or �fundamental�.

Further, you claim that the topic of this thread was the nature of the anaphora, not its praxis.

Yet the article you quoted does not deal with the nature of the anaphora but the praxis of praying it silently or aloud. And the portions of the text you have capitalized are those referring to the praxis of taking the anaphora aloud or silently.

Also, of your six questions four deal directly with the praxis of praying the anaphora silently and two of your questions indirectly deal with this praxis. You can not tell me that your issue is not one of praxis when everything you have posted is about praxis and none of it about the actual nature of the text of the anaphora. If you wanted to discuss the nature of the anaphora you should have actually posted on the nature of the anaphora.

Admin

Joe,

Liturgical forms change not because we change them on our own accord but because we allow the Holy Spirit to lead us. This is exactly why I argue for the freedom of the individual priest to pray the anaphora aloud or silently. If, in two hundred years, the custom of taking the anaphora aloud is universal in Byzantine Orthodoxy, so be it. If it is the will of the Holy Spirit then mandates will not be necessary.

In the meantime we will not be able to understand the prompting of the Holy Spirit if we continue to be so ignorant of our liturgical tradition.

Admin

Well stated. I quite agree.

Romans 8: 26 In the Old Testament silence was often the only possible response at awesome manifestations of God, such as the burning bush and the Shekinah.

Looking at the rubrics of the ancient Syriac Anaphora of the 12 Apostles, it takes a "both and" approach. The Institution is sung aloud, but the epicletic text is read silently by the priest.

I think there is a post-Enlightenment mindset in the West that everything needs to be presented in an understandable, "accessible", "available", etc. manner. Sometimes at those most solemn moments, silence is certainly appropriate before the majesty of God. I don't think everything needs to be "heard" in the strictly physical sense to experience, appreciate or reverently behold the Mysteries, especially if the Divine Liturgy is otherwise sung and taken in its fullness.

I disagree, as the "theology", the Anaphora, is not being changed or removed. Some of the most fervent parishes I know of liturgically would have nothing other than a silent Anaphora.

I agree that any change in this regard with the Anaphora should not be promulgated. For one thing, there are far too many liturgical promulgations already on the books which are currently ignored, as this one would likely also be.

OK. I see. This is more about the "rights" of the priest to celebrate the Liturgy anyway he feels. Then if a priest doesn't want to communicate a fully initiated infant or toddler, that is HIS prerogative. If the priest wants to keep the Filioque in the Creed, that is HIS prerogative. If a priest wants to institute Eucharistic Ministers, that is his prerogative. No priest should have to feel that he is obliged to follow any guidelines if it goes against his own personal preference or spirituality. The Liturgy is HIS game and he can be an employee of the people. I see now. I has nothing to do with the Anaphora. It has everything to do with preserving the rights of each individual priest as being his own bishop. The church is in the hands of the presbyters.

Joe Thur,
Byzantine Presbyterian Catholic