Jump to content

Talk:Anaphora (liturgy)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Untitled

I knocked this out pretty quickly, so I am sure that there are gramatical errors. I have an annoying habit leaving words out when I am writing quickly. I was also pretty sloppy about links. I would therefore welcome any corrections of sort. ----Midnite Critic 8 July 2005 04:18 (UTC)

Was that also you who did the edit unlogged-in? If so, could you please say if you typed the prayers out from memory, or did you copy them from a particular Trebnik/Euchologion/Liturgikon? I don't want to be a translation bigot so I'm not going to change it in all particulars if this represents a text actually in use somewhere, but if you just entered it in from memory I'd rather use a published version.
In any event, thanks for making this article less "stubby". It's not bad at all for something you just quickly hammered out. Csernica 8 July 2005 05:51 (UTC)

Yes, it was me in both cases. Thanks for the good editing as well as the wikifying. The text is roughly that of Hapgood, but from memory. If I get to it today, I will add external links to actual texts online. --Midnite Critic 8 July 2005 17:40 (UTC)

I'll update it later from Archbishop Dimitry's Trebnik then. Hapgood can be a little funky at times, and that probably accounts for some of the oddities I spotted. External links are good too. Csernica 8 July 2005 20:20 (UTC)

Go for it. Dimitry is good. U OCA DOS? --Midnite Critic 8 July 2005 20:39 (UTC)

No, DOW, but that's the Trebnik we have a blessing to use around here. Csernica 8 July 2005 22:37 (UTC)

Anaphora of Hippolytus

There's no reason to take this as normative since it's our sole witness from the period, and is really useful only for historical comparison or a discussion of liturgical development. Although many elements of modern anaphoras are present in it, not all are, making it less useful as a "universal" outline. Most significantly, the Sanctus is missing, as well as the concluding Intercessions. (see [1]) As written, the article asserts that they're present though. Since both feature so prominently in the modern Liturgy we can't avoid mentioning them in any reasonably informative outline, but Hippolytus did not have them. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll agree that it might not be normative for all traditions -- I was taught that it was, especially for the current Liturgies in the ECUSA and UMC and that it weighed heavily in the rewrite of the Luthern liturgy, as well. I referenced Gregory Dix The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome, Bishop and Martyr. London: Alban Press, 1992, as well as The Shape of the Liturgy. I was under the impression that it was instrumental with the Roman reforms, at least for a starting point. Dix makes reference to a Latin palmpset that has large lacunae, but references the Apolstolic Tradition of Hippolytus for the Sanctus. (See Bernard Botte, La Tradition Apostolique. Sources Chretiennes, 11 bis, 1984) What's really missing is the Agnus Dei and prayers for intercession, 10 commandments, Lord's Prayer. Lucien Deiss also makes note of it (I believe, I don't have the book with me right now) in Springtime of the Liturgy. Are there other references for the missing Sanctus? (I'm really curious b/c I didn't realize that it was considered "missing" -- I was only aware of the debates around the weakness of the epiclesis. Reverend Mommy 23:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb[reply]
Angus dei, the Lord's Prayer, and the Decalogue are not and AFAIK never have been part of the anaphora, which in all traditions begins with Let us lift up our hearts and in most modern Liturgies ends after the Intercessions, so they can't really be said to be "missing" from it. Angus dei and the Decalogue don't occur in the Byzantine Liturgies at all.
The Sanctus is also missing from this edition [2], based on Botte and Dix. I'm not at home, but once there I might have a source or two in one of my books. I wasn't aware of this myself until I started researching this in reference to this edit, so if I encountered it earlier I might have missed or forgotten it. (Since I didn't know that some denominations referred to this Liturgy in recent reforms, I was unaware of its modern relevance and perhaps didn't pay it the attention I should have.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. I'll look it up as well when I get home tomorrow. I remember something that supports the Sanctus, but don't remember where it is. I'm enjoying the conversation, BTW. It's nice to meet another liturgy geek. Reverend Mommy 01:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb[reply]
Mea Culpa. I'm in the library -- the source I was thinking about has been discredited. Woe is me! I'm WRONG WRONG WRONG and you are correct. Reverend Mommy 14:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb[reply]
You realize, do you not, that this is the Internet? Admitting one is wrong is so real-life. Behaving like a Christian too! Honestly, what's the net coming to?
Seriously though, it's a good thing you have more complete references to hand than I do. The reason I didn't remember much about the AH, although it rang a bell, is because of a discussion of it I read as a possible source for some portions of the anaphora in the Apostolic Constitutions. It didn't go into much detail at all about it. I was just going to yield to you if your print sources said otherwise. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, right is better.... =o) I misremembered. That's the beauty of Wikipedia -- bit lso it's downfall. Reverend Mommy 20:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb[reply]

Intro

BTW, I like what you did with the introduction -- it makes much more sense now. I still think it's a Roman/Eastern POV, though. There are a lot of us sacramental protestants that would be uncomfortable with some of the language. Us Methodist types still call it "communion" or "the Lord's Supper" even though communion is technically only part of the rite. Also, I think the Agnus Dei, Gloria, Doxlogy, 10 commandments, prayers for intercession, the Lord's prayer and the Mysterion (memorial acclimation) should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Reverend Mommy 23:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb[reply]

See what you think of it now. I linked "Communion" to "Eucharist" for want of a better one. Communion is a dab page, and the "Communion rite" link there points to a section of Mass (liturgy), which seems to me is not the best target.
I would totally agree. I know I get a little Roman Catholic hostile, but I would agree about that call 100%. I'm wondering why there are so many pages about this. They don't link very logically either. It seems to me that there are several pages that should be linked, edited and made to correlate better. For instance, there's a Eucharist, Eucharist Discipline, Eucharistic Theology, Eucharistic Theologies Contrasted, and so on. Reverend Mommy 01:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb[reply]
Many of these other articles were split from Eucharist when they began to take up too much space there and detracted from its focus.
You don't have to be RC-hostile to resist making their ideas the focus of any article on a subject. They could perhaps be organized better. I've not been paying much attention to them myself. Occasionally a subject gets too contentious for me to want to contribute much, and if memory serves this was one such case. But perhaps things have cooled down a bit now. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am frankly not very up on Protestant liturgies, and so may make omissions of ignorance. Please don't hesitate to expand any expressions you feel are exclusionary. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
likewise. =o) Reverend Mommy 01:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb[reply]
By the way, why do you believe the elements you mentioned should be included somewhere? They're part of many Liturgies, yes, but have they ever been part of an anaphora? TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yes, but usually incorrectly (IMHO). The Anaphora echoes the four-fold action, the larger rite of Word and Table echo the structure of the Anaphora. The most often "migrating" is the Lord's prayer. If you look at a dozen liturgies, it never seems to settle in the same place twice. Sometimes inside the Anaphora, sometimes not. Sometimes during the narrative portion, sometimes just before the fraction, sometimes after. In the history of the sacrament, each of the things I've mentioned has been inside the anaphora for certain communities. I've often wondered if it says something about their context or social location (what they choose to place where and so on.) For myself, I am uncomfortable with an anaphora that does not include both a verba and an epiclesis. Other Methodist pastors would never celebrate without a prayer of confession before the Great Thanksgiving. It all speaks to your Christology and Soteriology. Reverend Mommy 01:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb[reply]
Well yes, it is incorrect. ;) I suppose you're speaking mainly of relatively modern liturgies? The impression I get from my reading -- I'm much more familiar with Eastern types -- is that where this occurs it's a distinct minority usage both in terms of modern numbers and historically. (I have in fact never seen an ancient anaphora that contained, for example, the Lord's Prayer, although it usually occurs somewhere in the Liturgy.) So if it's done it should certainly be mentioned, but it would lend undue weight to make it too prominent IMO. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me -- on Monday perhaps. Reverend Mommy 20:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb[reply]
What about to add a setion for the historical anaphoras? A list of all the III-V centuries anaphoras known, even if no more in use. A ntv 22:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anaphora (liturgy). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anaphora (liturgy). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anaphora_(liturgy)&oldid=1198665105"