Scholarly Reflections
Mazza, Enrico. "Chapter Seven: The Roman Canon." The Origins of the Eucharistic Prayer (tr. Ronald E. Lane). Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1995, 240-286.
Mazza refers to the eucharistic prayer used in the Roman tradition as the Roman Canon, though it may bear a variety of names in different times and places (Mazza 1995, 240). The text itself went through modifications at first but has been essentially unchanged since the time of Gregory the Great. Determining original authorship or textual relationships has proveen difficult, as scholars often read their own theological bases for understanding it back in history to superimpose them on the text (Mazza 1995, 242-243). Mazza observes a challenge posed by the structural difficulties. He notes, for example, that elements do not follow the same order as that of other anaphoras. This makes it more difficult to identify sources (Mazza 1995, 244).
Mazza finds substantial textual parallels between the Roman Canon and the Alexandrian anaphora, analogies not found elsewhere (Mazza 1995, 245). To make for a clearer picture, he eliminates the elements which he is certain were ot originally part of the work (Mazza 1995, 246).
Ultimately, Mazza finds the oldest form of the Roman Canon to be contained in the De Sacramentis by Ambrose, probably dating from 380-396 (Mazza 1995, 246). A gap is filled in by the liber ordinum liturgy, which dates between Ambrose and the Roman Canon (Mazza 1995, 247). Mazza creates a harmonization of the three texts. He then discusses the similarities of these and some additional readings of prayers in some detail. Unfortunately, he does not consistently provide sufficient detail that a reader such as myself, not intimately familiar with the Latin allusions to portions of Roman liturgy, would understand. However, in sum, Mazza notes that the parallels to the Roman Canon are mostly older than Ambrose, with roots particularly in the anaphora of Saint Mark as found in its root of the Strasbourg gr. 254 Papyrus (Mazza 1995, 252).
The preface in the Alexandrian liturgy "is divided into two parts" (Mazza 1995, 255). The first part blesses God for his creation. The second part makes a theological comment giving reasons to praise God based on the blessings of his creation (Mazza 1995, 256). Mazza finds and presents a number of later preface texts which have the same bipartite structure. He further notes that most are prefaces not followed by a Sanctus, thus suggesting an early tradition (Mazza 1995, 257). The second strophe often takes the form of an offering of a sacrifice of praise, a feature Mazza illustrates with several examples (Mazza 1995, 259-260). In the course of time, the preface became simply a single part structure, centered on the giving of thanks. The second strophe, with the sacrificial language, rather than disappearing, moved to a position after the (inserted) Sanctus, and began with the words te igitur (Mazza 1995, 260). Mazza proceeds to compare the Alexandrian text with the later te igitur wording. He finds structural and verbal similarities which suggest a consistent stream of development (Mazza 1995, 263).
After these prayers, both the Roman Canon and the Alexandrian anaphora continue with two prayers, "supra quae" and "supplices" (Mazza 1995, 269). Mazza observes that the Roman Canon has divided one unit of the Alexandrian anaphora into two, and has inverted the conceptual order (Mazza 1995, 269). Mazza considers these prayers to belong to this tradition of the anaphoras and not to have been imported from elsewhere. Following this segment of the prayers is a commendation of the dead, found both in the Roman and Alexandrian traditions (Mazza 1995, 272). Again, Mazza considers a direct relationshipo to exist between the Alexandrian and Roman liturgies.
To illustrate the similarity in structure between the Alexandrian and Roman texts, Mazza presents them in prallel columns (Mazza 1995, 275ff). Though Mazza cannot establish the relationship of the two anaphoras, there are clear parallelisms. Mazza is convinced that further structural analysis will eventually lead to a relationship and understanding of the various texts which contribute to this liturgy (Mazza 1995, 280).
Mazza's conclusion is that the two anaphoras have roots in one source, but developed along slightly different lines, the Alexandrian being more organic in nature and the Roman using a more deliberate theological process (Mazza 1995, 283-284).