8/10/2019 Cutrone, Cyril's Mystagogical Catecheses and the Evolution of the Jerusalem Anaphora

1/7

8/10/2019 Cutrone, Cyril's Mystagogical Catecheses and the Evolution of the Jerusalem Anaphora

2/7

55

yril s

Catecheses

an d

th e

J e r u sa l e m An a ph o r a

establish that this was indeed

what

was happening

in

when these lectures were preached, le t us look closer

ha t Cyril says about Eucharist. Mys. Cat

IV

uses I Cor.

3 ff. as a point of departure (10). In this commentary on th e

ds of Institution, Cyril establishes that Christ does have th e

er

to

change th e bread

an d

wine

(11).

Th e elements, which

Old Testament types, are real ly

th e

Body an d Blood of

st 12 , an d

in

communion th e individual i s r ea lly made one

Christ 13 .

Mys. Cat

V is a

running commentary

on th e

ts an d th e prayers of th e Eucharistic synaxis.

There

is a

ing of hands 14 , a kiss of peace (15),

an

analysis of each

se of

th e

dialogue

16 ,

a reference to a

hymn

of praise

an d

Sanctu5 (17), an epiclesis

18 ,

an d intercessions

(19). Then

ws

a verse by verse analysis of

th e

Ou r

Father (20).

Th e lec-

concludes with a reference to th e prayers associated

with

union 21 .

Mys. Cat

V, then, is

th e

same

type

of lecture

by

B au mstar k. Th e

more traditional

a

prayer or l i tur gic al

is, th e slower

it

will yield to change.

Anton BAUMS'I'ARK,

Com

Liturgy revised by

Bernard BO'I''I'E, trans.

F. L.

Cross, \Vest

1

95

8

,

pp .

2

3-3

0

.

Th e

heading

of

t hi s l ec tu re

reads,

OO

a v r l . y v W H ~ r i j ~

7 t p O ~

~ m O - r o A i j ~ .

Eycil

y .p 7 t O : P S A O : ~ O V a7to

-rou Kuplou

XO:L

7to:ps/)wxo:

XO:L -ra. 1 : ~ i j ~ . Shepherd, however, points

ou t t hat

Cyril s comments

Cat

IV , I an d 1YIys

Cat

IV, 7

do no t

follow t hi s P au l in e p a s-

.. . ,.,+1 b ut

represent

a conflation of M a tt h ew a n d Paul. MASSEY

S H E P ] E I E ] ~ D JR., Eusebius and the Liturgy of S a in t]a111es in Yearbook

itu:rgical Studies IV

1963), p.

122.

Lietzmann identifies

th e

Syrian

th e Institution Account

as

a combination of I Cor. I I :23-26 an d

26:26-29

as

t appears in

Apostolic Constitutions

VIII, 12. Hans

tZl {ANN

NIass an d the L ord s S up p er: A

Study in

the History

of

the

Dorothea REVE, trans. Leiden, 1953, pp . 2 0 -2 I.

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,

I I 18

Mys. Cat

V 19-22.

E

J.

Cutrone

terpreted as

an antitype

of th e

Baptism

of Christ, an d eXIJarlds

reinterprets it so that th e water bath relates to th e suffering a

death

of Christ an d

th e

chrismation relates to the Baptism

Christ

(7).

These lec tu res on Bapti sm, then, establish that Cyril

derstands th e

ritual as th e place where th e individual is identifi

with Christ in H is c e nt ra l saving activity.

The imitation

is

seen as a re-enactment of

th e

historical

events

of

th e

life of Chri

bu t an

occurrence

in th e

neophytes of

those

salvific activities wh

once happened

in

Christ. Cyril looks for

an

interpretation

ritual which clear ly indicates

this

identity

with

Christ. T

notion is so forceful

in

Jerusalem

that

it results in

both

an

panded interpretation of

th e

rites as well as th e addition of

post-water-bath chrismation. t must be presumed

that

t

Mystagogue used

this

same methodological framework when

discussed

th e

Eucharist, bu t th e unusual relationship of

Cat IV

to Mys.

Cat

V indicates that he found it difficult to ap

d x w v - { J . ( { J . t J c r L ~

readily to

th e

Eucharistic prayer.

When Cyril comments on th e anaphora in Mys. Cat

does

no t

use th e language of d x w v - { J . { J . t J c r L ~ . Furthermore, as

be discussed below, th e Mystagogue only gives a brief an d

quick reference to each

part

of

th e

anaphora.

t

is

in Mys. Cat

that Cyril seems to

be

much more comfortable in his explanati

of Eucharistic worship.

In

t h is f ou r th lecture Cyril goes to co

siderable lengths to note th a t Eucharistic worship is

th e

pla

where th e neophytes were made one with Christ. None of t

is found

in

h is c om me nt ar y o n th e anaphora. This seems to su

gest that th e Mystagogue

on

th e one

hand

knows a Bapt ism

ritual wh ic h i s capab le of reinterpretation an d even ampli

cation (8), bu t on th e other

hand

he also knows

an

anaphora whi

is no t very compatible with his

e b { , 6 : J V - { J . ( { J . t J c r L ~

methodology.

further suggests that

th e

a na ph or a i s s ti ll in a very prinriti

state

an d ha s no t ye t been touched by th e evolutionary forc

which

ha d

already reshaped

th e

B a pt i sm a l r it u al (9).

n

Fo r

a full

treatment

o f C yr il s application of hi s

dX6>V-[Ll[L1J

methodology to Baptism confer my dissertation,

Saving Presence

the Mystagogical Catecheses

of Cyril

of

Jerusalem

presented

to th e

ology

Department

of N ot re D am e

U ni ve r si t y, A pr il 1975.

(8) Ibid.

(9)

This

seems to be consistent w it h t he laws of liturgical eve,lutio

54

8/10/2019 Cutrone, Cyril's Mystagogical Catecheses and the Evolution of the Jerusalem Anaphora

3/7

57

yril s Catecheses

a nd t h e J er us al em

Anaphora

does Cyril no t mention th e

Institution

A cc ou nt o r an

nesis when

he

describes th e

a na ph or a? T he re

are three pos

explanations. First, since

he

ha d

already

discussed

this

in

th e

whole of Mystagogical Catechesis IV,

it

is no t neces

t o r ep ea t it

again in Mys

Cat

V.

This

seems

an

unlikely

lanation

because it does no t explain why th e s eq ue nc e of

hts has

been inverted. A second explanation

h as b ee n

pro

d by Kretschmar. Noting that Cyril is taken with fear an d

for th e

Eucharist

(24), Kretschmar believes

that

Cyril

must

a lr ea dy k no wn a s il en t part of th e anaphora.

He

proposes

from

th e

Sanctus

to the

epic1esis

there

w as a r ev er en ti al

25 .

He proposes that th e a na ph or a d id in fact contain

a n I n st i tu t io n

Acco unt as well as

an

anamnesis,

but,

since

e prayers were recited in silence, it was no t necessary for

Mystagogue

to

comment

26 . Th e

final

explanation

is simple

direct:

th e anaphora

used

in Jerusalem

did

n ot have th e

rd s of

Institution no r

a f or ma l a na mn es is .

Before discussing

this

l as t p oi nt it shoUld be noted that

ain problems tend

to

emerge

if

Cyril knew

an

anaphora

which

have

th e

Wo rd s of

I ns ti tu ti on . T he most

serious problem

s from his c l x w v - [ L ( [ L ' l J c r ~ ~

approach to

all ritual.

The

recital

he

Institution

an d

it s

accompanying anamnesis in th e Jeru

m

tradition

highlight Christ, Hi s

very

words, His death,

ial, resurrection an d ascension (27). Cyril s whole catechetical

h od i s c en te re d in Christ,

an d

h e sees

ritual

as

th e

p lac e of

tification with

Him.

Since this is th e case, it is v er y h ar d

elieve that Cyril would be

silent

about that one s ec ti on of

anaphora which best

fits

i nt o h is

explanation.

Wh y

should

Mystagogue go through all of th e t ro ub le of

reinterpreting

( 2 ~ ) c p p L x w 8 E ( j ' l a ' l ' ~ v

0pCJ.V

IVlys Cat V, 4 an d ' I ~ ~

Y ( C J . ~

XCJ.t cppLxw8E(j'l a-

7 t P O X E L l - t i V ~ ~ . u ( j ( C J . ~ , Mys Cat V, 9.

(25) Georg KRETSCHMAR, Die friihe Geschiclzte der J erusalemer Li -

ie

in :

Jalwb1 lch

fu r

Liturgie

und

Hymnologie

1956-57),

pp . 30-33.

(26) Fo r a similar argument see Anthony A. STEPHENSON, Tlze

1 ks of

Saint

Cyril of Jerusalem - The Fathers of th e Church

-

64)

shington,

1970, p.

194, nt . 16.

(27)

Th e

anamnesis

in

th e

Anaphora

of

J

ames, th e Brother

of

th e

r ea ds a s

follows,

MEI-tV'tJl-tivOL OQV xCJ.t ' ~ I - t E t ~

o[

1-tCJ.p'l WAOt 1 ( ;) ~ W t O L W V

7 t C J . 1 } ~ l - t a ' l w v

xCJ.t 'l OU

( j W ' I ' ~ p ( o u (j'l CJ.U(jOU x

'l OU 1}CJ.va'l ou

xCJ.t ' I ~ ~

l C J . C P ~ ~

' l P L ' ~

ex VEXpWV V M ' I ( j E W ~ XCJ.t O O P O L V O U ~ v68ou .

B. C.

MERCIER,

de saint

Jacques Patrologia

Orientalis-

26) Paris, 1946, P.

20

4.

E. J. Cutrone

22

Mys

Cat IV ,

3.

23

Mys

Cat

V

6-7.

as

th e

first

three

Mystagogical Catecheses which,

th e announced

plan

of t he se l ec tu res ,

explain

w ha t t he

phytes experienced. Only Mystagogical Catechesis

IV

fit

i nt o t hi s p at te rn .

is also

v er y i m po r ta n t to mention what

is

t

found

each

o ne of t he se l ec tu re s. In

Mys

Cat IV there i s n o r ef er ell

to

any ritual

except

communion

(22). An d

even

though

Cy

does speak of communion here, he is no t primarily

interested

an explanation of th e ritual, bu t a demonstration

that

th e

eff

of c om mu ni on is a oneness

with

Christ.

Th e

Mystagogue d

no t comment on th e ritual of communion

until

t he F if th Lectll

w he re h e d ed ic at es f ou r paragraphs to th e subject Mys Cat

19-22).

Further, in this Fourth

Lecture, even

though

C yr il d

quote

an

Institution

Narrative an d

does

speak

specifically of

t

p re se nc e of C hr is t

in

th e elements,

a t

n o p la ce does he menti j

that th e I n st i tu t io n N ar ra ti ve i s r el a te d to the

ritual.

This Na

r at iv e a nd th e other

biblical references

ar e

described

apart

fro

ritual

o r p ra ye r.

This

is

unusual

because

in

all of th e

other

fo

lectures

th e

M ys ta go gu e a lw ay s r el at es

h is c om me nt ar y

to

ritual o r a p ra ye r.

In t he F if th Lecture th e Mystagogue returns

to

h is d is cu

s io n of th e r it ua l. While Cyril is careful to discuss each phra

of th e dialogue

an d

each phrase of

th e Ou r Father, he

does n

mention

th e Words

of

I ns t it u ti o n, n o r

does

he

give

an y

ind

c a t i ~ n that there

was

an y

type of formal

anamnetic

prayer. T

anaphora

is

very

abbreviated, passing from th e h ym n of p ra i

to the epic1esis

an d

th e intercessions

(23). This

gives us

th e

usual

situation

of

an Institution Narrative

which

is

discussed

connection with communion, b ut no t even

mentioned

within t

framework of th e anaphora. fth e Mystagogue ha d been faithf

to

hi s

announced purpose an d to

hi s

usual procedure in th e fir

three lectures,

hi s treatment

of th e Eucharist would no t ha

begun

with

th e

Words

of Institution, as it does in Mys Cat I

bu t with

th e

w as hi ng of h an ds .

Th e

last t wo l ec tu re s

discuss th e Eucharistic liturgy.

Instead t he F ou rt h Lecture

a treatment of Eucharist w hi ch is independent of

liturgy.

find

th e

reason

wh y t hi s

is so, we must turn to the anap]nol a

8/10/2019 Cutrone, Cyril's Mystagogical Catecheses and the Evolution of the Jerusalem Anaphora

4/7

59

creation

Cyril s Catecheses

and the Jerusalem Anaphora

CYRIL

Dialogue

Praise for

Sanctus

the best interpretation of th e

text.

Furthermore,

this

unthinkable since the Syrian tradition p ro vi de s n o litur

c10cument prior

to

C yr il w hi ch d ir ec tl y

and

definitively

lshes the presence of the \Vords of Institution

in

the an

References

to Eucharist

a re fou nd in Cha pt er s 9,

4

of Didache.

The

r ec it al of

Institution

is

not present in

fthese chapters

31).

The bes t textual tradition

of

the

a

ta of

the

Apostles Addai and M ar i d oe s

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

In tercessions Intercessions

in his analysis

of th e basic structure of J a me s , B as il ,

A pos-

onstitution VIII,

12

an d

Addai

and

Mari, concludes that there

ing

in

th e first part of th e

anaphora which

demands that

an

In

on Account

be

present. In short , these four li turgical documents,

opening thanksgiving

is

concluded by a

doxology

or a qanona

onstitute a complete an d closed

euchologia

which does no t

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 no t

aristic prayers proper ly speak ing, but p rayers u sed at t he r it ua l

celebrated in connection with Baptism. He finds that

th e

only

t reference

to Eucharist

is in Didache I4. In

any

case Didache does

ffer in ei ther p lace a recital of th e Words of Institution.

Willy

ORF, La Didache in: L Eucharistie des

premiers

chrtftiens

Le

point

bgique- 17) Paris, 1976, pp . 7-28.

32) Recen t l it erature and new manuscript

evidence

make

it clear

the tradi tional

arguments for an Ins ti tu ti on Account

in th e

A

ora of Addai an d Mari are difficult

to subs tant ia te. Emmanuel

Cu

E, The

AnapllOra

of

the A post les: Implications

of

the ll [ar

Esa ya

in: Theological Studies XXXIV I973), 624-642.

Macomber,

how-

suggests that Addai an d Mari an d th e Maronite Anaphora of St .

had

a

common origin

in an anaphora

which

did

h av e a n I nsti

Account. He does admit that this hypothesis

is

no t

as sol id ly

ded

as he

might

wish. Wil li am F .

MACOMBER, The l\JIaron.ite

and

28

l\JIys. Cat.

V , 4- 12.

29) I find i t difficult

to assume

that

in this

one ca se

by

ne

Cyril

meant

after a great part of the praye r ha d been said .

And

d id mean that,

why associate

the invocation

so

closely with the Sanct

l

Next, hav ing sanctified

ourselves

with these

spiritual

hymns,

we

c

upon

God,

etc

?

Gregory

DIX, The

Shape

of

the L i t ~ r g y Londo

Dacre Press , 1945, p . 198.

30)

A comparison

of

the anaphora as described b y t he

Mystagog

with the Anaphora

of

J

ames,

the Bro ther

of

th e Lor d c an b e diagram

E. J. Cutrone

th e anointing

and

water

bath

and introduce

a new chriS:tna

to a cco mmod at e his new vis ion of th e rite, and th en 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

no t have an Institti

Account.

Even

if, as

Kretschmar

suggests,

th e Words

of I

tution

w er e r ec it ed sil en tl y,

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

r ec it al of C hr is t

place

in the

liturgy.

But

he

did not. Everywhe re

else Cyr

at

great pains to explain each

thing

that happened. He disc1.t

each

phrase

of

th e

dialogue, he enumerates all of

th e

inter

sion s, h e a na ly se s e ac h sec ti on o f

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

no t have 111

tioned a silent part of the anaphora. Since

he

does not ment

either

sil en ce o r the Words of

Institution, it

seems safe

to

c

dude that they

were

no t

there.

Furthermore, t he t ex tu al argument

proposed

by G.

seems most convincing. As th e Mystagogue begins to expl

a different part of the

anaphora

he uses th e word d t C