Scholarly Reading
7/28/26
Bouyer, Louis. (1968). "Ch. 7: The Alexandrian and Roman Eucharists." (pp. 187-243). In Eucharist: Theology and Spirituality of the Eucharistic Prayer. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame. (Personal Library)
The eucharist in the Roman canon, in use since the sixth century, is not very similar to that of Hippolytus or of Addai and Mari. The differences are so great as to lead Bouyer to conclude that it is not a descendant of either and that those earlier forms were unlikely to have been used in Rome (Bouyer 1968, p. 187). The changes are too extensive for Bouyer to embrace a scenario in which the schema in Hippolytus could have made such a transformation.
In this regard, Bouyer compares the liturgy found in Ambrose of Milan, which bears more similarity to the Roman canon than to Hippolytus (Bouyer 1968, p. 190). Yet to decide the order from Milan, in about a hundred years, supplanted that of Hippolytus as allegedly used in Rome, strikes Bouyer as an impossibility (Bouyer 1968, p. 191).
Rather than evaluating the claims of Hippolytus that unacceptable innovations were being made in Rome, Bouyer pursues the similarities between the intercessions in Alexandrian usage and those in the Roman canon (Bouyer 1968, p. 192). The Alexandrian rite shows an influence from the West Syrian rites, but with substantial rearrangement of the petitions. Bouyer describes the various portions of the eucharistic prayers and their meaning in some detail. He particularly finds that after the sanctus, the themes and most of the order of the prayers correspond closely to the Jewish meal prayers (Bouyer 1968, p. 197).
The Alexandrian liturgy bears comparison with an archaic work found as the Der Balizeh anaphora, as well as the anaphora of Serapion (Bouyer 1968, pp. 200 ff). In the Der Balizeh fragment, Bouyer finds language which is almost identical to that of the liturgy of St. Mark. In the anaphora of Serapion, a contemporary of Athanasius, Bouyer finds numerous peculiarities, but a strong correspondence to the liturgy of St. Mark (Bouyer 1968, p. 207).
Bouyer continues with a comparison and analysis of both the anamnesis and the epiclesis in Egyptian liturgies (Bouyer 1968, p. 209). In his analysis, Bouyer notes a number of elements which he considers to show evidence of direct dependence on other documents (Bouyer 1968, p. 211).
Having tied the Alexandrian eucharist to other liturgies of greater antiquity, Bouyer compares the Alexandrian and Roman eucharists, along with their possible antecedents. He finds considerable structural and verbal parallels (Bouyer 1968, p. 215). In the course of his extensive comparative comments, Bouyer also includes substantial theological commentary, discussing the doctrines which could lead to the specific wording and structure of the prayers.
Having discussed at length the parallels between the Alexandrian and Roman liturgy, Bouyer turns to an analysis of the Roman eucharist on its own merits (Bouyer 1968, p. 227). He first discusses at length the Proper Preface and its variability, which has, in the West, settled in a form of different prefaces according to the season of the church year (Bouyer 1968, p. 230). As he walks through the liturgy he concludes the similarity to Alexandrian liturgy likely shows dependence on it or that the two have a common ancestor. In the end of the chapter, he returns to Hippolytus, again emphasizing that the eucharistic liturgy in Hippolytus could not have developed into that of the Roman canon (Bouyer 1968, p. 243).
7/28/26
Bouyer, Louis. (1968). "Ch. 7: The Alexandrian and Roman Eucharists." (pp. 187-243). In Eucharist: Theology and Spirituality of the Eucharistic Prayer. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame. (Personal Library)
The eucharist in the Roman canon, in use since the sixth century, is not very similar to that of Hippolytus or of Addai and Mari. The differences are so great as to lead Bouyer to conclude that it is not a descendant of either and that those earlier forms were unlikely to have been used in Rome (Bouyer 1968, p. 187). The changes are too extensive for Bouyer to embrace a scenario in which the schema in Hippolytus could have made such a transformation.
In this regard, Bouyer compares the liturgy found in Ambrose of Milan, which bears more similarity to the Roman canon than to Hippolytus (Bouyer 1968, p. 190). Yet to decide the order from Milan, in about a hundred years, supplanted that of Hippolytus as allegedly used in Rome, strikes Bouyer as an impossibility (Bouyer 1968, p. 191).
Rather than evaluating the claims of Hippolytus that unacceptable innovations were being made in Rome, Bouyer pursues the similarities between the intercessions in Alexandrian usage and those in the Roman canon (Bouyer 1968, p. 192). The Alexandrian rite shows an influence from the West Syrian rites, but with substantial rearrangement of the petitions. Bouyer describes the various portions of the eucharistic prayers and their meaning in some detail. He particularly finds that after the sanctus, the themes and most of the order of the prayers correspond closely to the Jewish meal prayers (Bouyer 1968, p. 197).
The Alexandrian liturgy bears comparison with an archaic work found as the Der Balizeh anaphora, as well as the anaphora of Serapion (Bouyer 1968, pp. 200 ff). In the Der Balizeh fragment, Bouyer finds language which is almost identical to that of the liturgy of St. Mark. In the anaphora of Serapion, a contemporary of Athanasius, Bouyer finds numerous peculiarities, but a strong correspondence to the liturgy of St. Mark (Bouyer 1968, p. 207).
Bouyer continues with a comparison and analysis of both the anamnesis and the epiclesis in Egyptian liturgies (Bouyer 1968, p. 209). In his analysis, Bouyer notes a number of elements which he considers to show evidence of direct dependence on other documents (Bouyer 1968, p. 211).
Having tied the Alexandrian eucharist to other liturgies of greater antiquity, Bouyer compares the Alexandrian and Roman eucharists, along with their possible antecedents. He finds considerable structural and verbal parallels (Bouyer 1968, p. 215). In the course of his extensive comparative comments, Bouyer also includes substantial theological commentary, discussing the doctrines which could lead to the specific wording and structure of the prayers.
Having discussed at length the parallels between the Alexandrian and Roman liturgy, Bouyer turns to an analysis of the Roman eucharist on its own merits (Bouyer 1968, p. 227). He first discusses at length the Proper Preface and its variability, which has, in the West, settled in a form of different prefaces according to the season of the church year (Bouyer 1968, p. 230). As he walks through the liturgy he concludes the similarity to Alexandrian liturgy likely shows dependence on it or that the two have a common ancestor. In the end of the chapter, he returns to Hippolytus, again emphasizing that the eucharistic liturgy in Hippolytus could not have developed into that of the Roman canon (Bouyer 1968, p. 243).
RSS Feed