“About everyone and for everything” in the theology of the Eucharist of St. Nikolai Kavasila: clarifying the meaning

Contents Abstract Introduction 1. Review of the article about. Mikhail Asmus: introduction to the issues and main conclusions 2. Interpretation of “διὰ πάντα” in the context of the teachings of St. Nicholas Cabasilas on the Eucharist as a Sacrifice 3. Interpretation of “κατὰ πάντα” in the context of the teachings of St. Nicholas Cabasilas on the Eucharist as Sacrifice 4. “Κατὰ πάντα” and anaphoras of the liturgy of St. Basil the Great and St. John Chrysostom: addressing the issue of the methodology of St. Nicholas Kavasila Conclusion This article examines the theological meaning of the final words of Anamnesis “about all and for all” in the context of the teachings of St. Nicholas Kavasila on the Eucharist as Sacrifice. The study is preceded by a brief review of the article by the priest. Mikhail Asmus ““About everyone and for everything” in anaphora; clarification of the meaning”, in which for the first time in Russian theological science a set of problems is formulated related to the theological understanding of the literal translation of the words “about all and for all” (κατὰ πάντα καὶ διὰ πάντα): “in accordance with everything and for the reason of everything.” Based on a detailed analysis of selected fragments from the “Explanation of the Divine Liturgy” by St. Nicholas Kavasila, in which the theological meaning of the words “about everyone and for everything” is revealed in one way or another, the following conclusions were made. The concept “πάντα” (everything) in relation to “διὰ” indicates all those benefits that were revealed by God in relation to all humanity, but especially the Economy of salvation accomplished by Christ. The concept “πάντα” (everything) in relation to “κατὰ” means everything that Christ did at the Last Supper. It was found that, based on the interpretation of St. Nicholas’s words “κατὰ πάντα,” the understanding of which causes the greatest difficulty, lies in his teaching about the Last Supper as a prototype of the Eucharistic Sacrifice performed by the Church. Thus, according to St. Nicholas, the Church, after the Eucharistic Sacrifice, makes an offering of gifts (bread and wine) in accordance with (κατὰ πάντα) as Christ did at the Last Supper, and for the reason (διὰ πάντα) of gratitude to God for all His benefits and for the Economy of salvation accomplished by Him. It was also found out that the idea of ​​correspondence between the Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Last Supper fully relates to anaphora and St. John Chrysostom, and St. Basil the Great. This article is a continuation of the research begun by St. Mikhail Asmus in the article ““About everyone and for everything” in anaphora; clarification of the meaning" [Asmus, 2000, 123–127]. In this study, Fr. Michael raises the problem of theological understanding of the exclamation “Thine from thine is offered to Thee for all and for all,” which accompanies the offering of gifts during the anaphora. As a matter of fact, the last words of this exclamation “about everyone and for everything” are problematic for understanding. Meanwhile, it is this exclamation that is key to understanding not only the meaning of the offering of gifts, but also the Eucharist itself as a Sacrifice. We will not retell in detail the article about. Michael, but let us briefly outline the conclusions to which the researcher came, and continue his research by turning to the theological thought of St. Nicholas Kavasila. As we will see, it is in the Eucharistology of St. Nicholas Kavasila, or rather in his teaching about the Eucharist as a Sacrifice, lie the answers to those questions that have not been resolved within the framework of the study of Fr. Mikhail. Let us also note that until now we have not encountered a single special study devoted to establishing the theological meaning of the words “about all and for all” within the framework of the Eucharistology of St. Nikolai Kavasila, neither in foreign nor in domestic research literature (see, in particular: [Elimanov, 2020, 174–204]). 1. Review of the article about. Mikhail Asmus: introduction to the issues and main conclusions Father Mikhail Asmus rightly notes that often the words of the anaphora “about everyone and for everything” are understood in the same way as the words “and about everyone and for everything” from the celebration of the Liturgy by the bishop’s rite or as similar words from the priestly rite “and everyone and everything” (καὶ πάντων καὶ πασῶν), with which the choir responds to the prayer of Intercession for church authorities. This point of view is shared by such prominent liturgists as Archimandrite. Cyprian (Kern) 1 and protopr. A. Schmeman [Schmeman, 1992, 156]. However, if the prayer of Intercession ends with all persons of the male (πάντων) and female (πασῶν) sex, then in the words of the Ascension “for all and for all” (κατὰ πάντα καὶ διὰ πάντα) both times the word “πάντα” is in the form of cf. kind, plural numbers, vin. case and is translated as “everything”. In addition, in the prayer of Intercession, the words “and everyone and everything” include the preposition “ὑπὲρ” 2, which, accordingly, can be more accurately translated as “about everyone and everything” (ὑπὲρ + Gen.), and not “κατὰ” and “διὰ”, as in the words of Ascension. Thus, he concludes. Mikhail, the intercessory meaning of the words “about everyone and for everything” “disappears by itself” [Asmus, 2000, 124]. Other liturgists either simply remain silent about the meaning of the words “κατὰ πάντα καὶ διὰ πάντα” and bypass the problematic area (see, for example: [Georgievsky, 1951, 106]; [Dmitrevsky, 1993, 295–296]), or they offer explanations that further confuse the reader 3 . Particularly noteworthy is the translation of Prof. E.I. Lovyagina: “In the original: κατὰ πάντα (over everything) καὶ διὰ πάντα (for everything), i.e. for all the above reasons and for all the above purposes” (quoted from: [Collection of ancient liturgies, 2007, 228]). Through an appeal to the ancient Greek original of the words “about everyone and for everything” (κατὰ πάντα καὶ διὰ πάντα) Fr. Mikhail very accurately and correctly gives their literal translation: “according to (κατά + Acc.) everything and for the reason (διά + Acc.) everything” (but not “about everything”, which would be expressed ὑπὲρ + Gen.)” [Asmus, 2000, 124]. Then he concludes that “the only thing to which πάντα - “everything” refers, is that list of the redemptive and economic works of Christ, the active remembrance of which is the offered thanksgiving sacrifice, namely: “this saving commandment (establishment of the Eucharist) and everything that was about us: the cross, the tomb, the three-day resurrection, to heaven ascension, sitting on the right hand, second and glorious coming again" [Asmus, 2000, 124]. The conclusion that the researcher makes thanks to the syntactic analysis of the words “about everyone and for everything” is that everything (πάντα) of the above (“cross, tomb, three-day resurrection ...”) is the reason (διά) of Eucharistic thanksgiving, which corresponds to the use of “πάντα” with the preposition “διά” [Asmus, 2000, 125]. However, the question of the correspondence (κατά) of the Eucharistic Sacrifice with all (πάντα) of the above remains unresolved in the study of Fr. Mikhail. This conclusion about. Michael that “πάντα” (everything) refers “exclusively to the list of redemptive and economic works” was accepted as something obvious. However, as will be shown later, this thesis stated by Fr. Mikhail on the basis of his research to clarify the meaning of “κατὰ πάντα” is not entirely correct. The consequence was that the subsequent search for a correspondence between the Eucharistic Sacrifice and the economy of salvation was not crowned with success. In trying to understand the meaning of this correspondence, Fr. Michael turns to the “comparative-critical method” and considers different types of Eucharistic prayers 4. As a result of the study, Fr. Mikhail distinguishes three groups of Anamnesis according to the principle of the unity of their semantic and textual structure. The first group includes anaphors, which, according to keywords, have the following structure: “remembering - bringing” 5. The second group included anaphors with the following structure: “remembering – we pray – we give thanks” 6 . In the third group of anaphors, the key and structure-forming concept was identified as “memory” 7 . As a result of considering all three groups, Fr. Mikhail makes a fair conclusion: “The causal meaning of the expression “διὰ πάντα” receives additional confirmation, while the expression “κατὰ πάντα” acquires even more vague outlines” [Asmus, 2000, 125]. The researcher also turns to St. Herman of Constantinople and right. Nikolai Kavasile which, as he notes, “each in his own way, again disappoints us.” Without stopping at the thought of St. Herman, let’s immediately talk about the subject of our research – the theology of the Eucharist of St. Nikolai Kavasila. According to Fr. Michael, St. Nikolai “intuitively comes to the curious thought that “the memory of the commandment teaches us both the very image of retribution and how to bring gifts 8.” This thought is able to some extent resolve the confusion with “κατὰ πάντα”, which, in this case, should be understood as a designation of the method of the Offering, corresponding to the Divine Establishment about it” [Asmus, 2000, 127]. At the same time, Fr. Michael makes a not entirely justified conclusion: “But in application to Anamnesis’ in St. Basil the Great’s bewilderment remains in force.” In the fourth paragraph of our study it will be shown that the interpretation of “κατὰ πάντα” proposed by St. Nicholas Kavasila in relation to the Eucharistic prayer of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, is fully applicable to the Eucharistic prayer of the liturgy of St. Basil the Great. Summing up his research, Fr. Michael formulates the conclusion of his research as follows, and also at the same time paves the way for further research: “So, in order to clarify the question that interests us [understanding κατὰ πάντα], we now have to study in detail the works of the Greek holy fathers for the correspondence of the Eucharistic sacrifice to the entire Economy of our salvation and look there for a similar verbal expression of this idea” [Asmus, 2000, 127]. As can be seen, this conclusion very much depends on the thesis outlined above, according to which “πάντα” (everything) refers only to “the list of the redemptive and economic works of Christ.” Thus, as a result of his research, Fr. Mikhail Asmus received the following results: 1) gifts are brought for the reason (διὰ πάντα) of gratitude to God “for everything that has happened to us: the cross, the coffin, the three days […]”; 2) the meaning of the expression “κατὰ πάντα” remains a mystery, since neither the text of the anaphora nor the holy fathers specify the correspondence (κατά) of the Eucharistic Sacrifice with the Economy of salvation. For Fr. Mikhail’s interpretation of “κατὰ πάντα καὶ διὰ πάντα” follows Met. Hilarion (Alfeev), however, he also finds it difficult to explain “κατὰ πάντα” (see: [Ilarion Alfeev, 2019, 523]). Having outlined the problems of the issue under consideration, as well as the main conclusions that Fr. Michael, you can turn to the Eucharistology of St. Nicholas Kavasila. The key text for understanding “κατὰ πάντα καὶ διὰ πάντα” is Chapter XLIX “Explanations of the Divine Liturgy,” which is entirely devoted to the problem of understanding the grateful aspect of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Let's look at how St. Nicholas understands the expressions “κατὰ πάντα” and “διὰ πάντα” in the context of his teaching about the Eucharist as a Sacrifice 9, and we will draw conclusions. 2. Interpretation of “διὰ πάντα” in the context of the teachings of St. Nicholas Kavasila on the Eucharist as Sacrifice First let's look at how St. Nicholas Cabasilas explains “for the reason” (διὰ πάντα) why gifts (bread and wine) are offered in the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Let us immediately note that here we will not find any fundamentally new meanings in comparison with those that Fr. Michael. However, a brief consideration of the interpretation of St. Nicholas's words "διὰ πάντα" will make some very important adjustments to what has already been said about. Michael, since St. Nicholas Kavasila understands these words in the context of his teaching about the Eucharist as a Sacrifice. The key place for understanding “διὰ πάντα” is the following passage (let’s call it fragment No. 1), which we present in full: The Church, imitating (μιμουμένη) Him [Christ], makes an offering of gifts not only propitiatory, but also grateful. This is evident from many other things, but especially from that prayer (εὐχῆς), where the entire purpose of the sacred rite is expressed. Having outlined everything that was given to us from God, and having given thanks for everything, and, finally, having spoken about the appearance of the Lord in the flesh, and about the establishment of the sacrament [of the Eucharist], and about how He commanded us to do [it], [the Church] adds: remembering this saving commandment and everything that happened for our sake: the cross and so on; then, having listed everything that followed the cross, he says: We bring to You what is Yours from Yours; in accordance with everything and for the reason of everything, we praise You, we bless You, we thank You, Lord, and we pray to You, our God. Do you see? That is, remembering good deeds, we make this gift 10. As Severian Salaville, editor of the critical text “Explanation of the Divine Liturgy,” believes, under the “prayer” (εὐχή), which St. speaks here of. Nicholas Kavasila, it is necessary to understand Anamnesis’: “This prayer corresponds to our Unde et memores, and which liturgists call by its initial [words] Anamnesis” 11. However, if you read this passage more carefully, you will notice that under the “prayer” that St. Nikolai, the entire prayer of the Eucharistic canon is understood. This can be seen from the following. St. Nicholas Kavasila notes that at the beginning of this prayer “everything that has been given to us from God is set forth,” 12 followed by thanksgiving “for everything,” a narrative about “the appearance of the Lord in the flesh,” about “the establishment of the sacrament [of the Eucharist],” and only then, at the end of this prayer, the Church “adds: remembering this saving commandment and everything that happened for our sake.” Therefore, according to St. Nicholas Kavasila, thanksgiving is performed for the reason (διὰ πάντα) of everything listed in the entire prayer of the Eucharistic canon, and not just what is stated in the Anamnesis. Saint Nicholas Cabasilas also emphasizes that the very idea of ​​the Church bringing bread and wine as a gift to God is determined precisely by the desire to thank God for His mercy: “To honor a benefactor with gifts for the benefits already given to us means to thank [him]” [Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio XLIX, 25. P. 288]. In this case, the offering of gifts is accompanied by “thanksgiving” (τὸ εὐχαριστεῖν) and “prayer” (τὸ ἱκετεύειν). So St. Nicholas builds the following structure of the Eucharistic prayer: offering (προσφέροντες) - giving thanks (εὐχαριστοῦμεν) - praying (δεόμεθα) 13. Since the gift offering is permeated with both thanksgiving and prayer, it is called grateful and propitiatory 14. According to the teachings of St. Nicholas Cabasilas, the very act of offering gifts (bread and wine), performed because of (διὰ πάντα) all the benefits of God shown to humanity throughout the history of its existence, has a deep theological meaning. The fact is that bread and wine are “the firstfruits of human life” (ἀπαρχὰς τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης ζωῆς) [Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio III, 2 // SC. 4. P. 72] and, as a consequence, the symbol (σῆμα) of his life [Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio III, 2 // SC. 4. P. 72]. Accordingly, the Eucharistic bread and wine symbolize the life of all those Christians who prayerfully participate in the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. During the Eucharist, Christians, under the guise of bread and wine, offer their entire lives as a gift to God, that is, they dedicate it to Him and promise to no longer live according to their own will, but according to the will of God in fulfilling His commandments 15 . God accepts this offering and gives the Church a return gift: the very Life, Body and Blood of Christ 16. Acceptance of the gift (τὸ οἰκειώσασθαι), thus, St. Nicholas Cabasilas identifies with his consecration [Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio XLVII, 4 // SC. 4 bis. P. 266]. So St. Nicholas builds a paradigm of the Eucharistic Sacrifice: “Life for life” (ζωὴν ἀλλαττόμεθα ζωῆς) [Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio IV, 3 // SC. 4. P. 76]. 3. Interpretation of “κατὰ πάντα” in the context of the teachings of St. Nicholas Kavasila on the Eucharist as Sacrifice The most important place where the interpretation of “κατὰ πάντα” is present is the following passage (fragment No. 2), which we also present in full: And this we do [that is, we make a gift offering], says [the Church], remembering two things: the commandment that [the Lord] gave us, saying: do this in remembrance of Me (Luke 22:19); and everything that was done for us. For the memory of good deeds encourages us only to repay and, in general, to bring something to the One who has shown us such countless mercies, and the memory of the commandment teaches us the very manner of retribution, and what kind of gifts it is appropriate to bring 17. Let us immediately note that the context of fragment No. 2 is precisely devoted to the theological understanding of the final words of Anamnesis (see: [Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio XLIX, 27–28. P. 288–290]). Here St. Nicholas Cabasilas very clearly and definitely clearly distinguishes “two things” (δύο τινῶν), in accordance with which the Eucharistic Sacrifice is performed: 1) “memory of good deeds” (ἡ μνήμη τῶν εὐεργεσιῶν), which motivates the Church to bring gifts in gratitude to God for the reason (διὰ πάντα) of all His benefits and for “everything that happened for our sake: the cross and so on”; 2) “memory of the commandment” (ἡ μνήμη τῆς ἐντολῆς), which indicates to the Church the subject of the offering (τίνα) - what needs to be offered (i.e. bread and wine); and on the way, the image (τὸ εἶδος) of this offering - how it should be brought. Under the commandment (ἐντολή) of St. Nicholas Kavasila understands the image of the Eucharistic Sacrifice established by Christ at the Last Supper. Thus, already here, following St. Nicholas, we can conclude that the Eucharistic Sacrifice offered by the Church is performed in accordance with everything (κατὰ πάντα) that Christ did at the Last Supper. In other words, the Church makes the Eucharistic Sacrifice in exactly the same way as Christ did. The words “κατὰ πάντα” indicate the image of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, which is in full accordance with its prototype - the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Last Supper. The next text (fragment No. 3), which needs to be considered, follows immediately after fragment No. 2, is its continuation and, in fact, the result of the theological reflections of St. Nicholas Kavasila on the meaning of the words “κατὰ πάντα καὶ διὰ πάντα”: We offer precisely the same offering that the Only Begotten Himself offered and showed 18 to You, God and Father, and [we] offer thanks, because He also gave thanks in offering [gifts]. Therefore, we do not bring anything of ourselves into this gift offering, for gifts are not our business, but belong to You, the Creator of everything, and this way of serving is not our invention. No, we did not desire it ourselves, not on our own and not by our own impulse and came to it, but You Yourself taught us, You Yourself prompted us through the Only Begotten Son. For this reason, what we bring to You is from You, [that is, it is what] You gave to us, [therefore this offering] is Yours according to everything and for the reason of everything 19. Here St. Nicholas Cabasilas continues his discussion of the Last Supper as a prototype of the Eucharistic Sacrifice performed by the Church, and focuses directly on the “memory of the commandment” (ἡ μνήμη τῆς ἐντολῆς), in accordance with which (κατὰ πάντα) is performed Eucharistic Sacrifice. He notes that the gifts themselves brought by the Church are not her “work,” but “belong” to God, and that is why “what we bring to You is from You.” In other words, if God had not given man a harvest, he would not have been able to bring God the fruits of this harvest, that is, bread and wine. Therefore, the gifts brought by the Church are in the full sense “Thine from thine” (Τὰ σὰ ἐκ τῶν σῶν). And not only the gifts (bread and wine) in the true sense are a “gift,” but also “this manner of service” itself (τῆς λατρείας οὗτος ὁ τύπος 20), that is, the “way” (τρόπος) of performing the Eucharistic Sacrifice was taught Christ at the Last Supper as a kind of “gift” to the Church. Since at the Last Supper, Christ, bringing gifts to the Father, thanked Him, so the Church, imitating Christ in everything, bringing gifts, thanks God for “everything that happened for our sake: the cross and so on.” Therefore, from fragment No. 3 it follows that, in fact, the “remembrance of the commandment” (ἡ μνήμη τῆς ἐντολῆς), which was discussed in fragment No. 2, teaches the Church and “remembrance of good deeds” (ἡ μνήμη τῶν εὐεργεσιῶν). In conclusion, St. Nicholas Kavasila concludes that “because of this” (τούτου χάριν) both the “gifts” and the “way” of performing the Eucharistic Sacrifice “are Yours according to everything and for the reason of everything.” It is obvious that in fragments No. 2 and No. 3 St. Nicholas Kavasila focuses on the key position of his teaching about the Eucharist as a Sacrifice: the Last Supper is the prototype of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, since it is itself a Eucharistic Sacrifice. Therefore, the sequence and structure of the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Last Supper and the Eucharistic Sacrifice performed by the Church are the same. This idea of ​​the identity of the two sacrifices - in terms of order of performance and structure - although implicit, is still quite obvious in fragments No. 2 and No. 3, but a clearer and more direct expression of this idea of ​​​​identity is present at the end of the second chapter of the Exposition of the Divine Liturgy (fragment No. 4): This is what Christ did when, taking bread and wine in his hands, he offered [them] to God and the Father: [He] brought them as gifts and, bringing them as a gift to [the Father], made [their] offering. And how do we know this? From the fact that the Church performs this [gift-giving] and calls it gifts. For she would not have done this if she had not known that Christ did so; she heard His command: “Do this” (Luke 22:19); and if she had acted differently, [bringing gifts in a different way], she would no longer imitate Him 21 . Eucharistic Sacrifice, according to the teaching of St. Nicholas Kavasila, consists of four stages: 1) “choosing a gift”, performed at the proskomedia, when a lamb is cut out of a lamb prosphora, and wine is poured into the chalice (see chapters IV and V “Explanations of the Divine Liturgy”); 2) the “offering of the gift,” which is performed throughout the entire liturgy; the culmination of this offering is the final words of the Anamnesis “Yours from yours […]” (see: II, III, V, X, XXIV ch.); 3) fulfillment, or, in other words, acceptance by God of sacrifice through the transposition of gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ (see: Chapter XXXII); 4) communion (see: Chapter LIII) 22. As can be seen from fragment No. 4, this rite of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, performed by the Church in four stages, is determined by the structure of the Eucharistic Sacrifice performed by Christ at the Last Supper. Christ first “takes bread and wine into his hands” (ἄρτον καὶ οἶνον ταῖς χερσὶ λαβὼν), that is, he performs the act of “choosing gifts”, then “brings” them to God the Father “as gifts” (ὡς δῶρα ταῦτα προσάγων), after this, having consecrated the gifts 23 into His Body and Blood, He communes the apostles. Thus, both Eucharistic Sacrifices have the same structure and consist of four stages: “choosing the gift (bread and wine)”, “offering the gift”, “performing the sacrifice”, “communion”. Having examined fragments Nos. 2, 3 and 4, let us again turn to fragment No. 1. The placement of punctuation marks in the last sentence of fragment No. 1 causes bewilderment: “We bring Yours from Yours to You; in accordance with everything and for the reason of everything, we praise You, we bless You […]" 24. Here, after the words “We bring Yours from Yours to You,” there is a colon (“·”), the analogue of which in Russian is a colon or semicolon. Thus, if we follow the logic of punctuation, it turns out that the words “in accordance with everything and for a reason” refer to “chanting and blessing” and not to “offering”. However, this arrangement of punctuation marks does not contradict the repeated statements of St. Nicholas Cabasilas that the Eucharistic offering is performed in accordance with how Christ did it at the Last Supper. The fact is that in the context of the problems of Chapter XLIX, from which fragment No. 1 is taken, St. It is important for Nicholas to prove to his opponents who denied the grateful aspect of the Eucharist 25 that not only the method of offering the Eucharistic gifts is in accordance with how Christ brought gifts at the Last Supper, but also that the Eucharistic thanksgiving itself for the Economy of salvation accomplished by Christ is also performed in accordance with the way Christ thanked the Father and prayed to Him at the Last Supper when offering gifts, as can be seen from fragment no. 1, but especially from fragment No. 3. Moreover, if you pay attention to the last sentence in fragment No. 1, you will notice that thanksgiving is the motivating reason for gift-giving, or as St. says. Nicholas Cabasilas, his intention, meaning (ὁ νοῦς) [Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio XLIX, 26. P. 288]. That is why the grateful character of the Eucharistic Sacrifice cannot be denied. So, from fragments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 we can conclude that the Eucharistic Sacrifice, according to the thought of St. Nicholas Kavasila, is not in accordance with the “Economy of our salvation”, as suggested by Fr. Mikhail Asmus at the end of his article [Asmus, 2002, 127], but in accordance with the way Christ performed it at the Last Supper. Therefore, the word “πάντα” (everything) in this case indicates not “a list of the redemptive and economic works of Christ” (“everything that happened about us: the cross, the tomb, the three-day resurrection [...]”) [Asmus, 2002, 124–125], but to everything that Christ did at the Last Supper. It is important to note that this correspondence between the Eucharistic Sacrifice performed by the Church and the Eucharistic Sacrifice performed by Christ mainly concerns the unity of their structure and order of execution. 4. “Κατὰ πάντα” and anaphoras of the liturgy of St. Basil the Great and St. John Chrysostom: addressing the issue of the methodology of St. Nicholas Kavasila In the first paragraph of our study it was already said that, in the opinion of Fr. Michael Asmus, in relation to the Anamnesis of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom’s “κατὰ πάντα” can be “understood as a designation of the method of the Offering corresponding to the Divine Ordinance regarding it,” however, in relation to the Anamnesis of the liturgy of St. Basil the Great “bewilderment remains in force” [Asmus, 2002, 127]. Indeed, if we compare the Anamnesis in both liturgies, we can see the following. According to the Anamnesis of the liturgy of St. Basil the Great, the Church makes the offering of gifts “for everyone and for everything,” remembering only “His saving suffering [...]” 26. While in the Anamnesis of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom notes that the Church makes the offering of gifts “for all and for all,” remembering not only “everything that was accomplished for our sake,” that is, the saving suffering of Christ, but also the “saving commandment” 27. Thus, it turns out that in relation to the Anamnesis of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, it can be argued that the offering of gifts is carried out in accordance with (κατὰ πάντα) the “saving commandment” taught by Christ at the Last Supper, and because of (διὰ πάντα) “everything that has been accomplished for us,” that is, because of gratitude to God for the Economy accomplished by Him; but in relation to the Anamnesis of the liturgy of St. Basil the Great, on the contrary, we will have to admit that the offering of gifts is made both in accordance with and because of only “His saving suffering.” If this statement is true, then it turns out that the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the liturgy of St. Basil the Great has no correspondence with the Last Supper, but corresponds only with the “saving suffering” of Christ. In order to understand whether the interpretation of “κατὰ πάντα καὶ διὰ πάντα” proposed by St. Nicholas Kavasila, refers only to the rites of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and is not applicable to the liturgy of St. Basil the Great, it is necessary to turn to the data of historical liturgics, and also, based on everything said above in the second and third paragraphs, to determine the methodology for theological understanding of the exclamation “Thine from Thine is offered to Thee for all and for all,” proposed by St. Nikolai Kavasila. According to N.D. Uspensky, the exclamation “Yours from Yours […]” is absent in the original texts of the anaphoras of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great, but is a subsequent insertion from anaphoras of the Alexandrian type (see: [Hanggi, Pahl, 1968, 101–141]), which was carried out no earlier than the 7th century. (see: [Uspensky, 2006, 388]) 28. So, for example, in the Alexandrian anaphora attributed to St. Gregory the Theologian, this exclamation is given as follows: “Τὰ σὰ ἐκ τῶν σῶν δώρων σοὶ προσφέροντες, κατὰ πάντα, καὶ διὰ πάντα, καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν" [Uspensky, 2006, 387] 29. Since the exclamation “Thine from Thine […]” was not originally contained in the anaphoras of St. John and St. Basil and is not an organic part of them, then the approach to establishing its meaning should not be exclusively contextual, but primarily theological. The point is that “Yours from Yours […]” cannot be considered as a direct and immediate continuation of the anaphora text that precedes it 30. But from a theological point of view, the exclamation “Thine from Thine […]”, without any doubt, must correspond to the theological ideas contained in the original anaphoras of St. John and St. Vasily. Therefore, it is impossible to correctly understand the expression “κατὰ πάντα καὶ διὰ πάντα” outside the general semantic context of the anaphors of St. John and St. Basil and, in general, outside the theology of the Eucharist. It was this contextual theological method that St. used. Nicholas Kavasila, when interpreting “κατὰ πάντα καὶ διὰ πάντα” within the framework of the anaphora of St. John Chrysostom. For example, as already shown above, St. Nicholas derives the doctrine of the grateful aspect of the Eucharist (διὰ πάντα) and the idea of ​​correspondence (κατὰ πάντα) of the Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Last Supper, on the one hand, from the text of the anaphora of St. John (“remembering this saving commandment and everything that was accomplished for our sake […]”), and on the other hand, from the very theology of the sacrament of the Eucharist, according to which, as St. Nicholas, the Last Supper is a prototype of the Eucharistic Sacrifice (see fragment No. 4) 31. Now, if as a methodological approach for understanding “κατὰ πάντα καὶ διὰ πάντα” in the context of the anaphora of St. Basil choose the contextual theological method, then one can easily be convinced that the interpretation of St. Nicholas Kavasila “κατὰ πάντα καὶ διὰ πάντα”, proposed in relation to the anaphora of the liturgy of St. John, is fully applicable to the anaphora of the liturgy of St. Vasily. Institutio 32 Eucharistic prayers to St. Basil the Great ends with the following words: “Leave us the memories of this saving suffering of Yours, which we offered according to His commandment 33. Although He went forth to His free and ever-memorable and life-giving death, in the night, in His nakedness, He gave Himself for the life of the world, receiving bread in His holy and pure hands, showing You, God and Father, thanking, blessing, sanctifying, breaking [...]" 34. Here St. Basil says that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is a “remembrance of the suffering” of Christ (ὑπομνήματα τοῦ σωτηρίου αὐτοῦ πάθους), which is “offered” to God the Father (προτεθείκαμεν ἐνώπιόν σου 35) in accordance with the commandment (κατὰ τὰς αὐτοῦ ἐντολάς) given by Christ at the Last Supper. It is noteworthy that this indication of the correspondence of the Eucharistic Sacrifice performed by the Church with the Eucharistic Sacrifice performed by Christ at the Last Supper, expressed in the construction “κατὰ τὰς ἐντολάς” (κατά + Acc.), has the same syntactic structure as “κατὰ πάντα" (κατά + Acc.). Now it becomes obvious how accurately and clearly St. Basil the Great expresses the indicated idea of ​​correspondence between the method of performing the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the liturgy and the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Last Supper: the Eucharistic Sacrifice is performed by the Church in exactly the same way as it was performed by Christ at the Last Supper. In the Institutio of the Eucharistic Prayer of St. John Chrysostom there is no indication that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is performed in accordance with how Christ performed it at the Last Supper. But this idea of correspondence, as noted above, is expressed in the Anamnesis in the words “remembering this saving commandment” (μεμνημένοι τοίνυν τῆς σωτηρίου ταύτης ἐντολῆς). Thus, in both Eucharistic prayers the idea of ​​correspondence is expressed only once, but in different places: in contrast to the Eucharistic prayer of St. John, in the Eucharistic Prayer of St. Basil, the idea of ​​correspondence is expressed not in Anamnesis, but in Institutio. We emphasize that the references to the correspondence of the Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Last Supper in both anaphoras are not later insertions, but belong to their compilers, St. Basil the Great and St. John Chrysostom (see: [Uspensky, 2006, 398–401]). From this we can conclude that this idea of ​​correspondence has important theological significance for understanding the sacrament of the Eucharist, which is also emphasized by St. Nikolai Kavasila. Also the logic of reasoning of those who subsequently inserted “κατὰ πάντα καὶ διὰ πάντα” into the text of the anaphora of St. Basil and St. John, and St. Nicholas Kavasila, coincides: the words “κατὰ πάντα καὶ διὰ πάντα”, which are an expression of the culmination of the act of offering gifts, refer not only to the Anamnesis, but to everything previously said in the Eucharistic prayer. Of course, apparently, St. Nicholas was not aware of the fact of interpolation of the exclamation “Thine from Thine […]”, but he intuitively uses the correct methodological approach, which allows him to determine the theological meaning of this exclamation within the framework of both anaphoras. From the above it follows that, firstly, the exclamation “Your from Yours […]” is not a continuation of the Anamnesis text, but a kind of theological formula that briefly expresses the whole essence of what was said earlier in both anaphoras; secondly, the idea of ​​correspondence between the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the liturgy and the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Last Supper is expressed in the anaphora of the liturgy of St. Basil in an even more vivid and distinct form than in the anaphora of St. John; thirdly, this correspondence expressed in “κατὰ πάντα” is explained by St. Basil in the Institutio, and not in the Anamnesis, as we see in St. John. The analysis of key fragments of the “Explanation of the Divine Liturgy”, devoted directly to the theology of the prayers of the Eucharistic canon, as well as the establishment of the methodological approach of St. Nicholas Kavasila's understanding of the words “κατὰ πάντα καὶ διὰ πάντα” allowed us to draw the following conclusions. In the anaphoras of St. John and St. Basil, the exclamation “Yours from Yours […]” itself is an interpolation and is not contained in the body of the original text of both anaphoras. Previously, researchers tried to understand the exclamation “Yours from Yours […]” as a literal continuation of the Anamnesis text, without taking into account the fact of interpolation and relying solely on the contextual method. This approach did not produce results, and the theological meaning of the cry within the framework of the contextual approach remained unclear. However, consideration of the exclamation “Thine from Thine […]” in the context of the teaching of St. Nicholas Kavasila on the Eucharist as a Sacrifice sheds light on issues related to the theological understanding of this exclamation. In his interpretation of the exclamation “Yours from Yours [...]” St. Nicholas Kavasila takes a contextual theological approach rather than a purely contextual one. Based on the chosen methodological approach, St. Nikolai refuses to understand “Yours from Yours […]” as a literal continuation of the sentence that opens the text of Anamnesis (“Remembering the slaughter […]”), but sees in “Yours from Yours […]” a logical continuation of the entire anaphora. According to the saint, the final words of the Anamnesis “κατὰ πάντα καὶ διὰ πάντα” apply not only to everything listed in the Anamnesis, but also to the entire Eucharistic prayer as a whole. The entire Eucharistic prayer – up to and including the words “κατὰ πάντα καὶ διὰ πάντα” – tells about in accordance with what and for what reason the act of offering gifts will take place, which will immediately follow their proclamation. According to the saint, “κατὰ πάντα καὶ διὰ πάντα” completes and, in a sense, briefly and theologically accurately summarizes everything that was said in Praefatio, Sanctus, Institutio and Anamnesis. With this approach to the interpretation of “κατὰ πάντα καὶ διὰ πάντα”, according to St. Nicholas Cabasilas, the word “everything” (πάντα) in the expression “because of everything” (διὰ πάντα) includes not only the works of the House of Christ listed in the Anamnesis, but in general all the benefits of God revealed to humanity, which are indicated by the entire text of the Eucharistic prayer up to and including the Anamnesis. In accordance with the same approach, St. Nicholas does not include the word “all” (πάντα) in the expression “in accordance with everything” (κατὰ πάντα) to the works of the House of Christ listed in the Anamnesis, but believes that it indicates the totality of all the actions performed by Christ at the Eucharistic Sacrifice during the Last Supper. St. Nicholas Cabasilas teaches that the Eucharistic Sacrifice performed by Christ at the Last Supper is the prototype for the Eucharistic Sacrifice performed by the Church. As the saint believes, it is through the prism of this theological position that it is necessary to understand not only “κατὰ πάντα καὶ διὰ πάντα,” but in general the entire theology of the Eucharist. Due to the fact that the Eucharistic Sacrifice performed by Christ at the Last Supper is the prototype for the Eucharistic Sacrifice performed by the Church, both Sacrifices have the same structure and image of execution and include the following stages: “choosing the gift (bread and wine)”, “offering the gift”, “performing the sacrifice”, “communion”. As a consequence, the “memory of the commandment” (ἡ μνήμη τῆς ἐντολῆς), that is, the memory of how at the Last Supper Christ commanded to perform the Eucharistic Sacrifice, determines, firstly, the image and order of the Eucharistic Sacrifice; secondly, its grateful aspect, since the Eucharistic Sacrifice performed by Christ at the Last Supper was accompanied by thanksgiving to God the Father. Thus, based on the theology of the Eucharist of St. Nicholas Cabasilas, we can give the following brief interpretation of “κατὰ πάντα καὶ διὰ πάντα”: The Church makes an offering of gifts to God 1) in accordance with (κατὰ πάντα), as Christ did at the Last Supper, 2) in gratitude to Him, for the reason all (διὰ πάντα) of His benefits revealed to humanity, including all the dispensation of salvation completed by Him. At the same time, as it has been established, the idea of ​​correspondence of the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Last Supper with the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the liturgy is explicitly present in the Eucharistic prayer and the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, and the liturgy of St. Basil the Great. Arranz (2003) - Arranz M. Selected works on liturgics. T. 1: Sacraments of the Byzantine Euchologia. M.: Institute of Philosophy, Theology and History of St. Thomas, 2003. Asmus (2000) – Asmus M., diac. “About everyone and for everything” in anaphora, clarification of the meaning // PSTBI Annual Theological Conference. Materials. M., 2000. pp. 123–127. Borner (2015) – Borner R. Byzantine interpretations of the 7th–15th centuries on the Divine Liturgy. M.: PSTGU, 2015. Vissarion Nechaev (2005) – Vissarion (Nechaev), bishop. Explanation of the Divine Liturgy. M.: Publishing house. Council of the Russian Orthodox Church; Dar, 2005. Georgievsky (1951) - Georgievsky A.I. Order of the Divine Liturgy. M.: Publication of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1951. Dmitrevsky (1993) - Dmitrevsky I. I. Historical, dogmatic and sacramental explanation of the Divine Liturgy. M.: Publishing department of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1993. [Reprint. reproduction ed. 1897]. Elimanov (2020) – Elimanov V. E. Eucharistology of St. Nikolai Kavasila: general overview and assessment of modern research // Metaphrast. 2020. No. 1 (3). pp. 174–204. Elimanov (2021) – Elimanov V. E. Teaching of St. Nicholas Kavasila on the Eucharist as a Sacrifice // Theological Bulletin. 2021. No. 1 (40). pp. 151–177. Zheltov (2001) – Zheltov M. S. Anaphora // Orthodox Encyclopedia. M.: Church and Scientific Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, 2001. T. 2. pp. 179–289. Hilarion Alfeev (2019) – Hilarion (Alfeev), Metropolitan. Liturgy. Historical and theological commentary on the Liturgies of John Chrysostom and Basil the Great. M.: Publishing house. house "Cognition"; Church-wide postgraduate and doctoral studies; Orthodox Encyclopedia, 2019. Karabinov (1908) - Karabinov I. A. Eucharistic prayer: (Anaphora): Experience of historical and liturgical analysis. St. Petersburg: Printing house of V. Kirshbaum, 1908. Cyprian Kern (2006) – Cyprian (Kern), archimandrite. Eucharist. M.: Church of St. Cosmas and Damian on Maroseyka, 2006. Missal (2003) – Missal. M.: Publishing house. Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, 2003. Collection of ancient liturgies (1874–1877) - Collection of ancient liturgies, eastern and western, translated into Russian: at 5 hours. St. Petersburg, 1874–1877. Collection of ancient liturgies (2007) – Collection of ancient liturgies, Eastern and Western. Anaphora: Eucharistic Prayer / Comp. A. V. Belousov. M.: Dar, 2007. Uspensky (2006) - Uspensky N.D. Byzantine liturgy: historical and liturgical research. Anaphora: experience of historical and liturgical analysis. M.: Publishing house. Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, 2006. Schmemann (1992) – Schmemann A., protopr. Eucharist. The Sacrament of the Kingdom, M.: Pilgrim, 1992. Anaphorae syriacae (1939–1981) – Anaphorae syriacae: Quotquot in codicibus adhuc repertae sunt. Vol. 1–3. Roma: Pontificium Inst. Orientalium Studiorum, 1939–1981. Hanggi, Pahl (1968) – Hanggi A., Pahl I. Prex Eucharistica: Textus e variis Liturgiis antiquoribus selecti. Freiburg, Éditions universitaires, 1968, pp. 101–141. (Spicilegium Friburgense. 12). Kallistos Ware (2005) – Kallistos (Ware), bishop. Not an Image or a Figure: St. Nicolas Cabasilas on the Eucharistic Sacrifice // Le Feu sur la terre. Melanges offerts au Père Boris Bobrinskoy pour son 80e anniversaire. Paris: Presses Saint-Serge-Institut de théologie orthodoxe, 2005. P. 141–153 (Analecta Sergiana. Vol. 3). Mantovanis (1984) – Mantovanis P. C. The Eucharistic Theology of Nicholas Cabasilas. PhD Thesis. Oxford: University of Oxford, 1984. Metso (2010) – Metso P. J. Divine Presence in the Eucharistic Theology of Nicholas Cabasilas. Joensuu: University of Eastern Finland, 2010. (Diss.). Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio / ed. S. Salaville // SC. No. 4 bis. 21967. P. 56–307. Tsirpanlis (1976) – Tsirpanlis C. N. The Liturgical and Mystical Theology of Nicholas Cabasilas. Athens, 1976, pp. 348–351. Ἀγγελόπολος (1965) – Ἀγγελόπολος Ἀ. Ἡ περὶ τῆς Θείας Εὐχαριστίας ὡς θυσίας καὶ ἀγιασμοῦ διδασκαλία τοῦ Νικολάου Καβάσιλα // Ὀρθόδοξος Ἐπιστασία. 1965. No. 123–125. Σ. 22, 30–31, 36–38. Τρεμπέλας (1935) – Τρεμπέλας Π. N. Αἱ τρεῖς λειτουργίαι κατὰ τοὺς ἐν Ἀθήναις κώδικας. Ἀθῆναι: Μ. Πατριαρχική Επιστημονική Επιτροπή, 1935. 243 σ. “The exclamation “Thine is offered to You by Thine” indicates that this sacrifice is “for everyone and for everything”” [Cyprian Kern, 2006. 264]. See: “[...] ὑπὲρ τῆς οἰκουμένης· ὑπὲρ τῆς ἁγίας, καθολικῆς καὶ ἀποστολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας· ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐν ἁγνείᾳ καὶ σεμνῇ πολιτείᾳ διαγόντων [[Τρεμπέλας, 1935, 120–121]. For example, ep. Vissarion (Nechaev) offers the following explanation: “We bring about everyone (about everything). “For all the reasons that were mentioned.” And for everything (for everything). "For all the purposes mentioned." [Vissarion Nechaev, 2005, 319]. Jerome. Mikhail (Arranz) believes that “the words “About everyone and for everything” (κατὰ πάντα καὶ διὰ πάντα) mean “always and everywhere”” [Arranz, 2003, 41]. Father Michael relies on: [Collection of ancient liturgies, 1874–1877]; [Anaphorae syriacae, 1939–1981]. This group “is represented by most of the anaphoras, starting from the Liturgy of the VIII book. Apostolic Constitutions and ending with the current Liturgies of the Orthodox, Nestorians, Armenians, Ethiopians and pre-reform Roman Catholics" [Asmus, 2000, 125]. These are mainly Syriac anaphors. This includes Western anaphoras of the Greek type, except Mediolan. The translation of this quote is not entirely correct. For a more accurate translation, see fragment No. 2. On the teaching of Cabasilas about the Eucharist as a Sacrifice, see in more detail: [Ἀγγελόπολος, 1965, 22, 30–31, 36–38]; [Kallistos Ware, 2005, 141–153]; [Metso, 2010, 81–146]; [Tsirpanlis, 1976, 348–351]; [Mantovanis, 1984, 239–258]; [Borner, 2015, 263–300]; [Elimanov, 2021, 151–177]. "Τοῦτον ἡ Ἐκκλησία μιμουμένη, οὐχ ἱκέσιον μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ χαριστήριον τὴν προσαγωγὴν ποιεῖται τῶν δώρων. Καὶ τοῦτο δείκνυσι μὲν καὶ ἑτέρωθεν, μάλιστα δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς εὐχῆς ἐν ᾗ πᾶς ὁ σκοπὸς περιέχεται τῆς ἱερουργίας. Διηγησαμένη γὰρ ἅπαντα τὰ παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ δοθέντα ἡμῖν καὶ ὑπὲρ πάντων εὐχαριστήσασα καὶ τελευταῖον προσθεῖσα τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου διὰ σαρκὸς παρουσίαν καὶ τὴν τοῦ μυστηρίου τούτου παράδοσιν, καὶ ὡς ἐνετείλατο καὶ ἡμῦτο ποιεῖν ἐπήγαγε “Μεμνημένοι τοίνυν τῆς σωτηρίου ταύτης ἐντολῆς καὶ πάντων τῶν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν γενομένων, τοῦ σταυροῦ", καὶ ἑξῆς πάντα καταλέξασα μετὰ τὸν μένων, τοῦ σταυροῦ”, καὶ ἑξῆς πάντα καταλέξασα μετὰ τὸν σταυρόν, εἶτά φησι· “Τὰ σὰ ἐκ τῶν σῶν σοὶ προσφέρομεν· κατὰ πάντα καὶ διὰ πάντα σὲ ὑμνοῦμεν, σὲ εὐλογοῦμεν, σοὶ εὐχαριστοῦμεν, Κύριε, καὶ δεόμεθά σου, ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν.” Ὁρᾷς; Τῶν εὐεργεσιῶν, φησί, μεμνημένοι ταύτην ποιούμεθα τὴν δωροφορίαν" [Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio XXXII, 10 // SC. 4. P. 288]. See note: Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio XXXII, 10 // SC. 4. P. 288]. Indeed, if we turn to the Eucharistic prayer of the liturgy of John Chrysostom, at the rite of which St. Nicholas Kavasila wrote his interpretation, we will see that in the first prayer (Praefatio) all those blessings “given to us from God” are listed: “You brought us from non-existence into existence and you raised up those who had fallen away, and you did not retreat, creating everything, until you raised us to heaven and gave us your future Kingdom [...]” [Sluzhebnik, 2003, 133–134]. "Προσφέροντες τὴν προσφορὰν ταύτην, σὲ ὑμνοῦμεν, σὲ εὐλογοῦμεν, σοὶ εὐχαριστοῦμεν, Κύριε, καὶ δεόμεθά σου, ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν". [Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio XLIX, 25. P. 288]. "Οὗτος ὁ νοῦς, φησί, τῆς προσαγωγῆς τῶν δώρων τὸ ὑμνεῖν, τὸ εὐχαριστεῖν, τὸ ἱκετεύειν, ὅπερ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐλέγομεν, ὥστε "[Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio XLIX, 26. P. 288]. The principle of “life for life”, according to St. Nicholas Cabasilas, refers to both the Eucharist and Baptism: “Καὶ ζωὴν ἀλλαττόμεθα ζωῆς καὶ τὴν μὲν προδίδομεν, τὴν δὲ ἀντ᾿ ἐκείνης λαμβάνομεν. Ἀλλ᾿ ἡ μὲν προδοσία τῆς ζωῆς ὁ θάνατος ἐν εἰκόνι τινὶ καὶ γραφῇ, ἡ δ᾿ ἀναβίωσις ζωή ἐστιν ἀληθής" [Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio IV, 3 // SC. 4. P. 76]. « Ὁ δὲ Θεὸς ταῦτα τὰ δῶρα οὕτως οἰκειοῦται, ὥστε αὐτὰ σῶμα καὶ αἷμα ποιεῖται τοῦ Μονογενοῦς" [Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio XLVII, 4 // SC. 4. P. 266]. "Καὶ ταῦτα ποιοῦμεν, φησί, δύο τινῶν μεμνημένοι, τῆς ἐντολῆς ἣν ἡμῖν ἐνετείλατο λέγων· “Τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν”, καὶ πάντων τῶν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν γενομένων· ἡ μὲν γὰρ μνήμη τῶν εὐεργεσιῶν ἁπλῶς εἰς ἀμοιβὴν ἡμᾶς προτρέπεται καὶ τὸ ὅλως τι προσενεγκεῖν τῷ οὕτω μυρίων ὑπάρξαντι αἰτία ???? "[Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio XLIX, 27. P. 288]. The Morphologia Graeca dictionary suggests translating Ch. ἀναδείκνυμι as “lift up and show”. This translation, in our opinion, more accurately corresponds to the thought expressed here by St. Nicholas Kavasila: Christ at the Last Supper made the same offering of gifts to God that the Church now makes during the liturgy. "Αὐτὴν ἐκείνην τὴν προσφορὰν προσάγομεν, ἣν αὐτὸς ὁ Μονογενὴς ἀνέδειξέ σοι, τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Πατρὶ καὶ εὐχαριστοῦμεν προσάγοντες, ὅτι καὶ αὐτὸς ἀναδεικνὺς αὐτὴν ηὐχαρίστει. → οὔτε γὰρ ἔργα ἡμῶν τὰ δῶρα ἀλλὰ σοῦ τοῦ πάντων δημιουργοῦ οὔτε ἡμετέρα ἐπίνοια τῆς λατρείας οὗτος ὁ τύπος, ἀλλ᾿ οὐδὲ προεθυμήθημεν οὐδ᾿ οἴκοθεν καὶ παρ᾿ ἑαυτῶν εἰς αὐτὴν ἐκινήθημεν· ἀλλ᾿ αὐτὸς ἐδίδαξας, αὐτὸς προετρέψω διὰ τοῦ Μονογενοῦς. Τούτου χάριν ἃ προσφέρομέν σοι ἐκ τῶν σῶν ὧν ἡμῖν ἔδωκας, σά "" [Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio XLIX, 27–28. P. 288–290]. S. Salaville offers a less accurate translation of the last sentence: “C’est pourquoi ce que nous vous offrons vient de vos propres biens que vous nous avez donnés; ces offrandes sont vôtres pour tout et en tout" [Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio XLIX, 27–28. P. 291]. In the manuscript “Parisinus 1213” instead of “τύπος” there is “τρόπος”, that is, literally, “way”, “method”. “Οὕτως ὁ Χριστὸς ἐποίησεν. Ὅτε γὰρ ἄρτον καὶ οἶνον ταῖς χερσὶ λαβὼν ἀνεδείκνυ τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Πατρί, ὡς δῶρα ταῦτα προσάγων, καὶ ἀνατίθεις ἀνεδείκνυ. Καὶ πόθεν δῆλον; ταῦτα προσάγων, καὶ ἀνατίθεις ἀνεδείκνυ. Καὶ πόθεν δῆλον; Ἐξ ὧν ἡ Ἐκκλησία τοῦτο ποιεῖ, καὶ δῶρα ταῦτα καλεῖ. Οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἐποίει, εἰ μὴ τὸν Χριστὸν ἔγνω τοῦτο ποιήσαντα. Ἤκουσε γὰρ αὐτοῦ κελεύσαντος· «Τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν"· καὶ οὐκ ἂν ἀνομοίως αὐτὸν ἐμιμήσατο." [Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio II, 6. P. 72]. For more information about the four stages of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, see: [Elimanov, 2021, 154–173]. In Chapter XXXI St. Nicholas Kavasila directly expresses the idea that prayer itself for sanctification, that is, for the acceptance of gifts, is also an imitation of Christ. At the Last Supper, Christ, bringing gifts to God the Father, “looked up to heaven” (εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἔβλεπε). This is the action of St. Nicholas interprets Cabasilas as a prayer, since with this example of Christ he proves the need for epiclesis. St. Nicholas Cabasilas repeatedly emphasizes that Christ, before performing any miracle, often prayed to the Father in order to show thereby that He performs this miracle not by the power of His human nature, but by His Divine nature, which is one with Him along with the Father. Also in the Eucharistic Sacrifice, “The Savior sanctifies not as a man, but as God, according to His Divine power, which He has one with the Father [and the Holy Spirit]” [Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio XXXI, 2. P. 200]. "Τὰ σὰ ἐκ τῶν σῶν σοὶ προσφέρομεν· κατὰ πάντα καὶ διὰ πάντα σὲ ὑμνοῦμεν, σὲ εὐλογοῦμεν […]" [Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio XLIX, 24. P. 288]. From the very title of Chapter XLIX it is clear to whom it is addressed: “Against those who say that the remembrance of saints at the Liturgy is a priestly prayer to God for them.” The chapter begins with the words: “But here some have fallen into error, considering the remembrance of the saints not as thanksgiving, but as prayer for them to God” [Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio XLIX, 1. P. 274]. However, as we saw in fragment No. 1, one of the arguments of St. Nicholas Cabasilas turned against his opponents by appealing specifically to the Last Supper, at which Christ “thanked [God the Father] for everything.” Anamnesis’ liturgy of St. Basil the Great: “In remembrance, O Master, we also remember His saving suffering, the life-giving Cross, the three-day burial, the resurrection from the dead, the ascension into heaven, at the right hand of You, God and the Father, the sitting, and glorious, and terrible His second coming, Yours from Yours brought to You for everyone and for everything” [Servant, 2003, 207]. Anamnesis’ liturgy of St. John Chrysostom: “Remembering this saving commandment, and everything that was about us: the Cross, the tomb, the three-day resurrection, the ascension to heaven, sitting at the right hand, the second and glorious coming again, Yours from Yours brings to You, for all and for all” [Servant, 2003, 136]. Complete reconstruction of the original texts of the anaphoras of St. John and St. Vasily, see: [Uspensky, 2006, 398–401]. Full text of the anaphora of St. Gregory, see: [Karabinov, 1908, 132–137]. The given excerpt from the anaphora of St. Gregory, N.D. Uspensky suggests translating as follows: “Bringing Yours from Your Gifts to You in everything and for everything and about everything.” The place “ἐν πᾶσιν” seems interesting. According to the Butler's dictionary, "ἐν" has 20 meanings. Based on the context of the exclamation “Yours from yours,” then among all the listed meanings, the 13th meaning is most suitable, where it is proposed to translate “ἐν + Dat.” as “through, with the help of something” (for example: ἐν δόλῳ Soph. - by cunning). Therefore, “πάντα” in the anaphora of St. Gregory appears not only as the “reason” (διὰ) and “correspondence” (πάντα), but also as “that through which/with the help of which” (ἐν) the Eucharistic Sacrifice is performed. This purely contextual approach is used in the study of Fr. Mikhail Asmus, see: [Asmus, 2002, 125–126]. Metropolitan follows him. Hilarion (Alfeev), see: [Ilarion Alfeev, 2019, 523]. Priest Mikhail Zheltov also notes the importance of using the contextual theological method in understanding anaphora: “The meaning and interpretation of anaphora are closely related to the theology of the sacraments, and primarily the Eucharist” [Zheltov, 2002, 289]. Institutio is part of the anaphora, which tells about the establishment of the sacrament of the Eucharist. The Institutio is located between Sanctus and Anamnesis. This sentence, which is especially important for us, is not a later insertion, like some other parts of the anaphora of St. Basil, but is included in the text of the anaphora written directly by St. Vasily, see other: [Uspensky, 2006, 362]. This sentence is also present in the Syriac liturgy of St. Basil the Great, see: [Collection of ancient liturgies, 2007, 248]. "Κατέλιπε δὲ ἡμῖν ὑπομνήματα τοῦ σωτηρίου αὐτοῦ πάθους ταῦτα, ἃ προτεθείκαμεν ἐνώπιόν σου, κατὰ τὰς αὐτοῦ ἐντολάς. Μέλλων γὰρ ἐξιέναι ἐπὶ τὸν ἑκούσιον, καὶ ἀοίδιμον καὶ ζωοποιὸν αὐτοῦ θάνατον, τῇ νυκτί, ᾗ παρεδίδου ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου ζωῆς, λαβὼν ἄρτον ἐπὶ τῶν ἁγίων αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀχράντων χειρῶν, καὶ ἀναδείξας σοὶ τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Πατρί, εὐχαριστήσας, εὐλογήσας, ἁγιάσας, κλάσας.” [Τρεμπέλας, 1935, 181–182]. The Institutio prayer is addressed to God the Father.