Anda di halaman 1dari 7

OCP, XLIV (1978)

Cyril's Mystagogical Catecheses


and the evolution
of the Jerusalem Anaphora
The five lectures of the Mystagogical Catecheses of Cyril
Jerusalem propose to "explain the significance of what was do
for you on that evening of your Baptism" (1). As the Mystagog
unfolds this explanation, he provides a close look at the rit
of Christian initiation as it was practiced at the close of t
Fourth Century in Jerusalem. The picture of Baptism and Euc
rist found here provides a glance at the Syrian liturgical traditi
as it moves into its classic structure. In this article I would li
to discuss the Jerusalem anaphora and those influences respo
sible for its evolution.
The Mystagogue announces that the ritual is the point
departure for his presentation, stating "on the principle th
seeing is believing, I delayed until the present occasion, calc
lating that after what you saw on that night I should find y
a readier audience" (2). The first three Mystagogical Cateche
are a point by point explanation of each event the neophyt
experienced during their Baptism. Mystagogical Catechesis
describes the Eucharistic elements and communion. Mystagogic
Catechesis V is a commentary on the ritual of the Eucharist fro
(1) tVrk d3'ij't"E: 7tpQe; ofLwV x<Z't"' ixdv'lJv YE:vofLev'lJv 't"ou
fLrk't"oe; e:crTl'eprkv. Mys. Cat. 1,1. All quotations come from CYR1I,
DE JE;RUSAI;EM, Catecheses Mystagogiques, Introduction, texte critiq
et notes de Auguste P1E;DAGNEI; (Sources Chretiennes - 126) Par
Les Editions du Cerf, 1966.
(2) AAA' crrktpwe; {j\jJLV &xo'ije; 7tOAAC{J 7tLcr't"o't"eprkv dVrkL, eX
fLE:VOV 't"QV 7trkp6v't"rk xrkLp6v, ISmue; E:(J7tpocrrky(Uyo't"epoue; ofLcxe; 7tE:PL 't"wv AE:yofLev
ix 't"w)-r'IJe; 't"'ije; e:cr7teprke; de; 't"QV tpcu't"E:Lv6't"E:poV XrkL E:ocu3ecr't"E:pov ArkLfLWVrk 't"o-
't"ou 7trkprk3dcrou JYlys, Cat. I, I.
Cyril's Catecheses and the Jerusalem Anaphora 53
WaShlng of the hands (3) to the concluding prayer. This means
the five lectures, Mys. Cat. IV stands in relief for two
r) it is the only lecture in which the Mystagogue does
co:mnletlt on the events in the order in which the neophytes
them, that is, he finds it necessary to speak of com-
and the presence of Christ in the Eucharistic elements
he discusses the anaphora and the Our Father (4). 2) This
only lecture which is not a point for point commentary
ritual. I would like to propose that Cyril had to give a
re (Mys. Cat. IV) different from the others because the
aristic synaxis, especially the anaphora, was not capable
ing interpreted as he wished to.
Before discussing the anaphora, a passing word must be
about the catechetical method of the Mystagogue. From
treatment on Baptism (Mys. Cat. I, Il, Ill) it can be estab-
ed that Cyril goes beyond the expected typological inter-
ation of sacramental activity and introduces a new method-
y for interpreting the liturgy. There are times when the
tagogue is not satisfied with only describing the ritual as an
'type, but feels that he must further describe the ritual as
mitation which brings the neophytes into oneness with Christ.
en this imitation (fL(fL"I)(n<;) takes place the individual now is
'mage (dxwv) of Christ. This notion of dXWV-fL(fL"I)O"L<; (5) focuses
Christ in such a way that the Mystagogue can say that sac-
ental activity is the place where the individual is identified
Christ to such an extent that what is true of Christ is now
true of the Christian (6). Wherever possible the Baptismal
rgy is interpreted in this fashion. Elsewhere I have suggested
it is because of this catechetical method of dxwv-fL(fL"I)O"L<;
Cyril takes the Old Syrian Baptismal rite, traditionally in-
(3) Since this is a commentary on the Baptismal Eucharist the
monies in the Baptistry substitute for the usual Word service. The
charistic synaxis begins with the washing of the hands,
(4) The 1VIystagogue describes Mys. Cat. IV as a commentary on
munion. T'ii 't"ou 0E:oU tpLArkVl}PCU7t(qt, iv 't"rkre; eXp-
't"cue; eXX'lJx6rk't"E: 7tE:p( 't"E: xd XplcrfLrk't"oe; XrkL crwfLrk't"oe;
rk'{p.rk't"oe; XpLcr't"OU. Mys. Cat. V, .J:.
(5) The clearest statement of this comes when Cyril summarizes
of the events surrounding the water bath in this fashion, iv dx6vL
IJcrLe;, iv eXA'IJ%dqt 31: crcu't"'IJP(rk. Mys. Cat. Il, 5.
(6) Confer these passages: Mys, Cat. Il, 2; 5-7; Ill, I; 2; 6;
55
Cyril's Catecheses and the Jerusalem Anaphora
establish that this was indeed what was happening in
when these lectures were preached, let us look closer
hat Cyril says about Eucharist. Mys. Cat. IV uses I Cor.
3 ff. as a point of departure (10). In this commentary on the
ds of Institution, Cyril establishes that Christ does have the
er to change the bread and wine (11). The elements, which
Old Testament types, are really the Body and Blood of
st (12), and in communion the individual is really made one
Christ (13). Mys. Cat. V is a running commentary on the
ts and the prayers of the Eucharistic synaxis. There is a
ing of hands (14), a kiss of peace (15), an analysis of each
se of the dialogue (16), a reference to a hymn of praise and
Sanctu5 (17), an epiclesis (18), and intercessions (19). Then
ws a verse by verse analysis of the Our Father (20). The lec-
concludes with a reference to the prayers associated with
union (21). Mys. Cat. V, then, is the same type of lecture
by Baumstark. The more traditional a prayer or liturgical
is, the slower it will yield to change. Anton BAUMS'I'ARK, Com-
Liturgy, revised by Bernard BO'I''I'E, trans. F. L. Cross, "\Vest-
1958, pp. 23-30 .
The heading of this lecture reads, KOOL
'''Eycil y&.p a7to -rou Kuplou il XO:L 7to:ps/)wxo:
XO:L -ra. Shepherd, however, points out that Cyril's comments
Cat. IV, I and 1YIys. Cat. IV, 7 do not follow this Pauline pas-
<>..".",.,+1" but represent a conflation of Matthew and Paul. MASSEY
JR., Eusebius and the Liturgy of Saint]a111es, in Yearbook
,itu:rgical Studies, IV (1963), p. 122. Lietzmann identifies the Syrian
the Institution Account as a combination of I Cor. I I :23-26 and
26:26-29 as it appears in Apostolic Constitutions VIII, 12. Hans
'tZl'.{ANN NIass and the Lord's Supper: A Study in the History of the
Dorothea REVE, trans. Leiden, 1953, pp. 20-2I.
Mys. Cat. IV, 1-4.
Mys. Cat. IV, 5-8.
Mys. Cat. IV, 9.
Mys. Cat. V, 2.
Mys. Cat. V, 3.
Mys. Cat. V, 4-5.
Mys. Cat. V, 6.
Mys. Cat. V, 7.
Mys. Cat. V, 8-10.
Mys. Cat. V, II-18.
Mys. Cat. V, 19-22.
E. J. Cutrone
terpreted as an antitype of the Baptism of Christ, and eXIJarlds
reinterprets it so that the water bath relates to the suffering a
death of Christ and the chrismation relates to the Baptism
Christ (7).
These lectures on Baptism, then, establish that Cyril
derstands the ritual as the place where the individual is identifi
with Christ in His central saving activity. The imitation is
seen as a re-enactment of the historical events of the life of Chri
but an occurrence in the neophytes of those salvific activities wh'
once happened in Christ. Cyril looks for an interpretation
ritual which clearly indicates this identity with Christ. T
notion is so forceful in Jerusalem that it results in both an
panded interpretation of the rites as well as the addition of
post-water-bath chrismation. It must be presumed that t
Mystagogue used this same methodological framework when
discussed the Eucharist, but the unusual relationship of M
Cat. IV to Mys. Cat. V indicates that he found it difficult to ap
readily to the Eucharistic prayer.
When Cyril comments on the anaphora in Mys. Cat.
does not use the language of Furthermore, as
be discussed below, the Mystagogue only gives a brief and
quick reference to each part of the anaphora. It is in Mys. Cat.
that Cyril seems to be much more comfortable in his explanati
of Eucharistic worship. In this fourth lecture Cyril goes to co
siderable lengths to note that Eucharistic worship is the pla
where the neophytes were made one with Christ. None of t
is found in his commentary on the anaphora. This seems to su
gest that the Mystagogue on the one hand knows a Baptism
ritual which is capable of reinterpretation and even ampli
cation (8), but on the other hand he also knows an anaphora whi
is not very compatible with his methodology.
further suggests that the anaphora is still in a very prinriti
state and has not yet been touched by the evolutionary forc
which had already reshaped the Baptismal ritual (9).
n For a full treatment of Cyril's application of his dX6>V-[Ll[L1J
methodology to Baptism confer my dissertation, Saving Presence
the Mystagogical Catecheses of Cyril of Jerusalem, presented to the
ology Department of Notre Dame University, April 1975.
(8) Ibid.
(9) This seems to be consistent with the laws of liturgical eve,lutio
54
57
Cyril's Catecheses and the Jerusalem Anaphora
does Cyril not mention the Institution Account or an
nesis when he describes the anaphora? There are three pos-
explanations. First, since he had already discussed this
in the whole of Mystagogical Catechesis IV, it is not neces-
to repeat it again in Mys. Cat. V. This seems an unlikely
lanation because it does not explain why the sequence of
hts has been inverted. A second explanation has been pro-
d by Kretschmar. Noting that Cyril is taken with fear and
for the Eucharist (24), Kretschmar believes that Cyril must
already known a silent part of the anaphora. He proposes
from the Sanctus to the epic1esis there was a reverential
(25). He proposes that the anaphora did in fact contain
an Institution Account as well as an anamnesis, but, since
e prayers were recited in silence, it was not necessary for
Mystagogue to comment (26). The final explanation is simple
direct: the anaphora used in Jerusalem did not have the
rds of Institution nor a formal anamnesis.
Before discussing this last point it shoUld be noted that
ain problems tend to emerge if Cyril knew an anaphora which
have the Words of Institution. The most serious problem
s from his approach to all ritual. The recital
he Institution and its accompanying anamnesis in the Jeru-
m tradition highlight Christ, His very words, His death,
ial, resurrection and ascension (27). Cyril's whole catechetical
hod is centered in Christ, and he sees ritual as the place of
tification with Him. Since this is the case, it is very hard
elieve that Cyril would be silent about that one section of
anaphora which best fits into his explanation. Why should
Mystagogue go through all of the trouble of reinterpreting
(0pCJ.V, IVlys. Cat. V, 4 and XCJ.t cppLxw8E(j'l"a-
Mys. Cat. V, 9.
(25) Georg KRETSCHMAR, Die friihe Geschiclzte der J erusalemer Li-
ie, in: Jalwb1.lch fur Liturgie und Hymnologie, II (1956-57), pp. 30-33.
(26) For a similar argument see Anthony A. STEPHENSON, Tlze
,1'ks of Saint Cyril of Jerusalem - II (The Fathers of the Church - 64)
shington, 1970, p. 194, nt. 16.
(27) The anamnesis in the Anaphora of J ames, the Brother of the
reads as follows, MEI-tV'tJl-tivOL OQV xCJ.t o[ &1-tCJ.p'l"WAOt '1"(';)
xCJ.t 'l"OU (j'l"CJ.U(jOU xd 'l"OU 1}CJ.va'l"ou xCJ.t
ex VEXpWV XCJ.t &v68ou . . B. C. MERCIER,
de saint Jacques (Patrologia Orientalis- 26) Paris, 1946, P. 204.
E. J. Cutrone
(22) Mys. Cat. IV, 3.
(23) Mys. Cat. V, 6-7.
as the first three Mystagogical Catecheses which,
the announced plan of these lectures, explain what the
phytes experienced. Only Mystagogical Catechesis IV
fit into this pattern.
It is also very important to mention what is not found
each one of these lectures. In Mys. Cat. IV there is no referell
to any ritual except communion (22). And even though Cy
does speak of communion here, he is not primarily interested
an explanation of the ritual, but a demonstration that the eff
of communion is a oneness with Christ. The Mystagogue d
not comment on the ritual of communion until the Fifth Lectll
where he dedicates four paragraphs to the subject (Mys. Cat.
19-22). Further, in this Fourth Lecture, even though Cyril d
quote an Institution Narrative and does speak specifically of t
presence of Christ in the elements, at no place does he menti(j
that the Institution Narrative is related to the ritual. This Na
rative and the other biblical references are described apart fro
ritual or prayer. This is unusual because in all of the other fo
lectures the Mystagogue always relates his commentary to
ritual or a prayer.
In the Fifth Lecture the Mystagogue returns to his discu
sion of the ritual. While Cyril is careful to discuss each phra
of the dialogue and each phrase of the Our Father, he does n
mention the Words of Institution, nor does he give any ind
that there was any type of formal anamnetic prayer. T
anaphora is very abbreviated, passing from the hymn of prai
to the epic1esis and the intercessions (23). This gives us the
usual situation of an Institution Narrative which is discussed
connection with communion, but not even mentioned within t
framework of the anaphora. If the Mystagogue had been faithf
to his announced purpose and to his usual procedure in the fir
three lectures, his treatment of the Eucharist would not ha
begun with the Words of Institution, as it does in Mys. Cat. I
but with the washing of hands. The last two lectures
discuss the Eucharistic liturgy. Instead the Fourth Lecture
a treatment of Eucharist which is independent of liturgy.
find the reason why this is so, we must turn to the anap]nol'a
59
creation
Cyril's Catecheses and the Jerusalem Anaphora
CYRIL
Dialogue
Praise for
Sanctus
the best interpretation of the text. Furthermore, this
unthinkable since the Syrian tradition provides no litur-
c10cument prior to Cyril which directly and definitively
lshes the presence of the '\Vords of Institution in the an-
References to Eucharist are found in Chapters 9, la
4- of Didache. The recital of Institution is not present in
fthese chapters (31). The best textual tradition of the a-
ta of the Apostles Addai and Mari does not contain an In-
Ion Account (32). Richardson places Apostolic Constitcutions
JAMES
Dialogue
Praise for creation
Sanctus
The economy of salvation
'Words of Institution
Anamnesis
Epiclesis Epiclesis
Intercessions Intercessions
in his analysis of the basic structure of J ames, Basil, A pos-
onstitution VIII, 12 and Addai and Mari, concludes that there
ing in the first part of the anaphora which demands that an In-
on Account be present. "In short, these four liturgical documents,
opening thanksgiving is concluded by a doxology or a qanona,
onstitute a complete and closed euchologia which does not demand
prolonged by anything at all, either a Sanctus or a narrative".
GIER, The Origins of the Eucharistic PI'ayer: From the Last Supper
Eucharist, in: Studia Liturgica, IX (1973), p. 179.
(31) Rordorf believes that chapters 9 and IO of Didache are not
aristic prayers properly speaking, but prayers used at the ritual
celebrated in connection with Baptism. He finds that the only
t reference to Eucharist is in Didache I4. In any case Didache does
ffer in either place a recital of the Words of Institution. Willy
ORF, La Didache, in: L'Eucharistie des premiers chrtftiens (Le point
bgique- 17) Paris, 1976, pp. 7-28.
(32) Recent literature and new manuscript evidence make it clear
the traditional arguments for an Institution Account in the A-
ora of Addai and Mari are difficult to substantiate. Emmanuel Cu-
E, The AnapllOra of the Apostles: Implications of the ll,/[ar Esa'ya
in: Theological Studies, XXXIV (I973), 624-642. Macomber, how-
suggests that Addai and Mari and the Maronite Anaphora of St.
had a common origin in an anaphora which did have an Insti-
Account. He does admit that this hypothesis is not as solidly
ded as he might wish. William F. MACOMBER, The l\JIaron.ite and
(28) l\JIys. Cat. V, 4-12.
(29) "I find it difficult to assume that in this one case by 'ne
Cyril meant 'after a great part of the prayer had been said'. And if
did mean that, why associate the invocation so closely with the Sanct
l1
'Next, having sanctified ourselves with these spiritual hymns, we c
upon God, etc ... '?" Gregory DIX, The Shape of the Londo
Dacre Press, 1945, p. 198.
(30) A comparison of the anaphora as described by the Mystagog
with the Anaphora of James, the Brother of the Lord can be diagram
E. J. Cutrone
the anointing and water bath and introduce a new chriS:tna
to accommodate his new vision of the rite, and then not
mention a very obvious and natural prayer which says sp
cally what he wants to develop? The only appropriate answ
that Cyril knew an anaphora which did not have an Institti
Account. Even if, as Kretschmar suggests, the Words of I
tution were recited silently, it is difficult to imagine and in
sistent with his approach that Cyril would not have give
least some passing comment to that effect. Mys. Cat. IV
him ample opportunity to state that this recital of Christ
place in the liturgy. But he did not. Everywhere else Cyr
at great pains to explain each thing that happened. He disc1.t
each phrase of the dialogue, he enumerates all of the inter
sions, he analyses each section of the Our Father, and he descri
each gesture used at communion. This concern for detail se
so great that it is hard to imagine that Cyril would not have 111
tioned a silent part of the anaphora. Since he does not ment
either silence or the Words of Institution, it seems safe to c
dude that they were not there.
Furthermore, the textual argument proposed by G.
seems most convincing. As the Mystagogue begins to expl
a different part of the anaphora he uses the word d't'C< (28).
argues that this word always points to what follows immediaty
Elsewhere, when Cyril is commenting on events that are
sequential, he uses [LE't'<X 't'c<ihot. Thus, since Mys. Cat. V, 7 beg
with Ehc< and not [LE't'<X 't'C<\>'t'C< we have a textual argument t
the Mystagogue was describing an anaphora in which the epic1e
followed immediately upon the Sanctus which is described
Mys. Cat. V, 6 (29).
Is it possible, then, to assume that Cyril knew an anaph6
'which had no Words of Institution (30)? Such an explanati
61
Cyril's Catecheses and the Jerusalem Anaphora
possibilities: I) a complete anaphora which is
in its very structure, 2) the celebration of divine power
Sanctus, which has a memorial character, and 3) the
of salvation which concludes with the Words of Insti-
leads to a distinct anamnetic prayer (36). More par-
he feels that Jerusalem knows an anamnesis of the
which is centered on the praise of creation. In this
Eucharistic prayer the anamnesis has completed its func-
the manifestation of the power of God in the Sanctus (37).
M. Metzger finds three types of anamneses in Apostolic
The oldest element in these three is the anamnesis
marvels of God that accompanied creation (38). Having
Apostolic Constitutions VII, 33-38, with Apostolic Con-
VII, 25, and Apostolic o n s t t ~ t t o n s VIII, 12, Metzger
he can demonstrate an evolution in the Eucharistic
especially in the anamnetic portion of the anaphora (39).
ms to me that Jerusalem is likewise undergoing this evo-
of the anaphora when the Mystagogue preaches.
Ligier and Metzger are correct, it then becomes possible
topose that the Mystagogue knew a Syrian anaphora com-
el of anamnesis, epiclesis and intercessions, but one which
(36) "La premiere sera consacree aux structures anaphoriques in-
enciees, oil la celebration et l'anamnese ne sont pas encore sepa-
la seconde, a la celebration divine devenue une partie distincte et
dant le Sanctus; la troisieme, al'economie du saInt, qni va de l'em-
me dn Sanctns jnsqn'an recit de l'institntion, a cette section que
appellerons ici, apres d'antres, ana11111ese au sens large, distingnee
'anamnese proprement dite qui suit la consecration". Louis LIGIER,
'bration divine et ana1nnese dans la premiere partie de l' anaphore ou
on de la messe orientale, in: Eucharisties d'Orient et d'Occident, n,
40 .
(37) Ibid., pp. 155-56.
(3B) "L'ana11111ese des merveilles que Dieu a accomplies par son
constitue pratiquement une nouvelle 'eucharistie' avec son intro-
tion en forme de benediction: 'Saint es-tu en verite et parfaitement
t ... '. Ici se retrouvent egalement des elements sans doute ante-
11.rs aux Constitutions apostoliques: une enumeration des interven-
ns divines sous l'ancienne Alliance, une liste des chatiments qui ont
ppe les impies, une liste de paradoxes christologiques". Marcel ME'J'z-
, Les deux prieres eucharistiques des Constitutions apostoliques, in:
ue des sciences religieuses, XLV (1971), 56-57.
(39) Ibid., p. 73.
E. J. Cutrone 60
Chaldean Versions of the Anaphora of the Apostles, in: Orientalia
stiana Periodica, XXXVII (1971), 72-78. [Editor's Note: When we
ceived this article for publication we had not yet published the art
of Jose Manuel SANCHEZ-CARO, La anafora de Addai y lV/ari y la ana
maronita Sarrar: intento de reconstrucci6n de la fuente primitiva con
OCP XLIII (1977) 41-69. This explains why there is no reference
it in the present article.]
(33) "What we have to note in any case, however, is that the
sence of the words of recital from the received liturgies of Jerusal
(Cyril) and Seleucia-Ctesiphon (Addai and Mari) helps to show how
Syrian A. C. VIII could use such freedom in its own form of the
LIE'J'ZMANN, lV/ass and the Lord's Supper, p. 411.
(34) Marcel ME'J'ZGER, La Didascalie et les Constitutions Apostoliq
in: L' Eucharistie des premiers clmJtiens (Le point theologique - 17) Pa
1976, pp. 187-93.
(35) Bernard Botte proposes that anamneses fall into two ty
the first corresponds to &'vaiLv'f),n<; of Lk. 22:19 and I Cor. II:2-25. T
second is connected with the verb xccrayyzAAE:-rE: of the Pauline acco11.,
found in I Cor. I I :26. In both cases the anamnesis is related direc
to the institution in such a way that Botte insists, "impossible do
qu'une anaphore ait une anallliJ.esis sans avoir de recit de l'institutio
Bernard BO'J"J'E, Proble1tl,es de l' anamnesis, in: Journal of Ecclesiasti
History, V (1954), 16. Botte continues this article on the premise,'
est tout aussi vrai de dire qu'une anaphore qui a une ana11111esis d
avoir, ou du moins avoir eu, un recit de l'institution." p. 17. He arg
that Addai and Mari once had the words of institution. This
was restated in 1965 in Proble11le de 1'anaphore syrienne des Apotres
et 1I1ari, in: L'Orient Syrien X (1965), pp. 89-106; and as recently as
in Les anaphores syriennes orientales, in: Eucharisties d'Orient et
cident, II, pp. 22-23.
VIII, in which there is a narrative that differs from
Testament, after Cyril and finds no influence from the
gogue (33). Metzger states that Cyril is a contemporary of A
tolic Constitutions (34), This absence of hard liturgical data
to the preaching of the Mystagogical Catecheses makes it
sible to seriously consider that Jerusalem did not know a.
naphora with the Words of Institution when the Mystag
preached.
Traditionally, such an anaphora was unthinkable becaus
Institution Account followed by a distinct anamnetic prayer
considered to be essential to any true anaphora (35). More ree
ly, however, Louis Ligier has proposed that it is possible to s
of a Eucharistic anamnesis in a much broader sense. He
42) MERCIER, La liturgie de saint J acques, p. 200.
43) Ibid., p. 200. For a complete study of the background ma-
the anaphora of James, see, Andre TARBY, La priere eucharistique
hse de Jerusalem (Theologie historique - XVII) Paris, 1972.
Cyril's Catecheses and the Jerusalem Anaphora 63
a ritual and an anaphora which is compatible with his
hetical method, he must first offer his vision of Eucharistic
ip before he can continue to comment on the ritual the
Baptized have witnessed. Thus the whole of this lecture
'ns how the neophytes are made one with Christ in com-
on. By contrast the commentaries found in Mystagogical
hesis V are terse and without a great deal of perspective.
Cyril describes the Baptismal ritual, he concentrates on
entral events of the water bath (Mys. Cat. Il, 5-8) and chris-
on (Mys. Cat. Ill, 2-3; 5-7) by treating them in great detail
giving specific interpretations. Such a treatment of the
aristic ritual cannot be found. Since the anaphora is the
1 prayer of the Eucharistic synaxis, we would expect the
gogue to offer his primary interpretation of Eucharist as
mments on this prayer. But he does not, and I propose
his further demonstrates that the anaphora did not con-
an Institution Account, or a formal anamnesis.
It is only after these lectures have been preached, and no
t in great part because of them, that the evolutionary process
es the anaphora. The Eucharistic prayer is expanded by
ing those elements which were primary in the Mystagogue's
.i Direct and pointed references to Christ are incorporated.
of this fact is found in the anaphora of J ames, the
of the Lord. In the post-Sanctus prayer of J ames, Jesus
111ediately mentioned as the one aL' 00 TeX 7teXVTIX E7tOL-tJO"IXC; (42)
there is direct reference to dxwv in the next sentence, 0
IXC; tX7t6 &v&pUl7tOV XIXT' dx6vIX XlXt 0fLolwO"LV (43). Had
known such an anaphora as this, it would not have been
sary for him to interrupt his commentary on the ritual as
es in Mys. Cat. IV. He could have proceeded with the com-
ry because the prayer would have been compatible with
XWV-fLlfL"f)O"LC; methodology. Since he does not, it seems we
conclude that these direct references to Jesus in the post-
us and the use of dxwv, together with the Institution Ac-
and the anamnesis found in J ames, are developments in
E. J. Cutrone
(40) ME:'t"Ot 't"CXU't"CX [Lv'IJ[LOVE:UO[LE:V oupcxvou, Y.<Y.L y'ij<;, Y.CXL '&CXAeXcrcr"IJ<;,
&cr't"pwv, rreXcr'lJ<; Y.'t"(crE:w<; AOYLY.'ij<; 't"E: Y.CXL &.A6you, opcx't"'ij<; 't"E: Y.CXL &'opeX
&'yyeAwv, &'pXcxyyeAwv, iluvcX[J.E:WV, &pxwv, .&p6vwv, 't"OW
't"WV rroAurrpocr6)7tWV .. , Y.CXL crE:pcxep([L. Mys. Cat. V, 6.
(41) Cyril was exiled three times from Jerusalem. During this t
it is altogether possible that he does encounter Eucharistic prayers w
do contain an Institution Account. This makes it possible for hi
know a liturgical formula which was not yet present in Jerusa
Shepherd proposes that Eusebius did know a liturgical formula
Institution Account. MASSEY SHEPHERD, Eusebius and the
Saint Jalnes, in: Yearbook of Liturgical Studies, IV (1963),
did not have an Institution Account. Such a Eucharistic pt
contains the basic elements of all anaphorae. The anam
known to Cyril was simply one that praised God for the mat
of creation. The commemoration is of the heavens, earth,
and sun, moon and stars, and the whole of rational and irrati
creation, as well as the ranks of angels (40). Since this anam
is primarily concerned with creation, very little emphasis is
cused on Christ and there is no need to include the recital of
Words of Institution. The anamnesis concludes with the San
and is immediately followed by the epiclesis. The anaphora
with the intercessions.
This means that Jerusalem had an anaphora very si
to Addai and Mari when the Mystagogue preached. While
an anaphora is very Syrian in its themes and structure,
not readily give itself to the catechetical method of the My
gogue. Cyril wants to explain Eucharist in a Christocentric
ner. He would like to interpret the Eucharistic ritual in ni
the same manner that he interpreted the Baptismal ritual:
ritual is the point at which the neophyte is made one with
central saving activity of Christ. Since the anaphora does
make direct and pointed references to Christ, and since the
tagogue feels that he is unable to introduce any new elell.
into the ritual, he must do the next best thing. He offers
interpretation of Eucharist before he discusses the liturgy.
Mystagogical Catechesis IV, Cyril, using the framework of
dxwv-fLl[J:fJO"LC; methodology, naturally turns to the Last Su
and the Words of Institution as an interpretation of the Eue
ristic meal (41).
It is in this Fourth Lecture that we find the true Euchari
interest of the Mystagogue. Despite the fact that he does
62
E. J. Cutrone
the Jerusalem anaphora which come after the preaching
Mystagogical Catecheses.
Cyril's Mystagogical Catecheses, then, offer a very
and interesting view of the Syrian anaphora as it errler:ges
its classic shape found in the anaphora of J ames, the
of the Lord. If my interpretation is correct, the
finds an anaphora in Jerusalem which is very similar to
and Mari, that is, it has an anamnesis which is the ce1ebra
of divine power and does not contain the Words of Institut
The Mystagogue, however, approaches ritual as a point of di
contact with Christ and wishes to explain it according to d
ll-tll-1)cnc;. To do this the anaphora must have direct and poi
references to Jesus. For whatever reason the Mystagogue is
able to introduce any change into the Eucharistic prayer a
did with the Baptismal liturgy. He therefore offers his in
pretation of Eucharist in Mystagogical Catechesis IV where
is able to give direct and pointed references to Jesus in an dx.
manner. It is this vision of Eucharist which is later
corporated into the anaphora. This means that the Syrian
aphora evolves, not out of a desire to reenact the historical eve
of Christ, but out of that dX.WV-ll-Lll-1)GLC; methodology, so
elaborated by Cyril. The anaphora now speaks directly of C
in His central saving activity.
Quincy College, Theology Department,
Quincy, Illinois 6230I
Emmanuel J oseph CUTRONE

Anda mungkin juga menyukai