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