Eucharist

The Old Testament & the Eucharist

Sacrifice of expiation for Sin & the Eucharist

Covenant & the Eucharist

The Suffering Servant of the Lord & the Eucharist

The Institution of the Eucharist

The Discourse on the Bread of Life and the Eucharist

The Eucharist as Sacrament of Christ’s Living presence among Us

Living the Eucharist

The Liturgy of the Eucharist

The word, Eucharist is derived from 'eucharistein' which means to give thanks. Some biblical scholars are of the opinion that, in the time of Jesus, this Greek word did have the nuance of “praise”. Their argument is based on the manner both Paul (1 Cor. 11, 23-25) and Luke (Lk. 22, 19-20) present the Eucharistic words of Jesus. They use the word, 'eucharistein' both for the bread and the cup. In a strictly Jewish Palestinian setting, one was supposed to pronounce a blessing or praise over the bread and a thanksgiving over the cup. Hence Mark (Mk.14, 22-24) and Mathew (Mt. 26, 26-28) follow this tradition in reporting the Eucharistic words of Jesus. Paul and Luke, on the other hand, represent the gentile Greek setting of the word, where 'eucharistein could have both meanings, namely praise and thanksgiving.

The Greek word, 'Eucharistia', appears, for the first time, as a technical term for the Eucharist, in Didache (The teaching of the twelve apostles). This document is dated to the period between the end of the first century and middle of the second century A.D. In chapter 10, there is a short description of how the Eucharist has to be celebrated. This was probably the way the first Christians celebrated the Eucharist. A point to be noted here is the absence of the eucharistic words of Jesus. Many explain this saying that these words were taken for granted, because the emphasis here is on the detailed description of the ritual.

The next important thing is how we are to understand the Eucharist as praise and thanksgiving. To do this, we have to go back to the original context of the Eucharist. According to the gospels of Mathew, Mark and Luke, Jesus is reported to have instituted the Eucharist in a Jewish Passover context (Mt. 26,17-19; Mk. 14, 12-16; Lk. 22, 7-13). John connects Jesus’ Discourse on the Bread of Life with the Jewish Passover (Jn. 6, 4). Passover, at that time, was praise and thanksgiving to God for the great act of liberation of the Israelites from the bondage in Egypt. In the same vein, Eucharist was understood as praise and thanksgiving for God’s great act of liberation of mankind, from the bondage of sin, put into effect through the ministry and the death of Jesus. “..for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.”(Mt.26, 28).

The New Testament develops many principal themes in the Old Testament. The reason for this is the fact that the writers of the New Testament had the Old Testament as their Sacred Scripture. Hence the New Testament was always understood as fulfilling the expectations of the Old Testament. Jesus too is often seen quoting that his mission fulfils the Old Testament expectation (Mt. 13, 14-15; Lk. 4, 18-21). The principal Old Testament themes associated with the Eucharist are Passover, Sacrifice of expiation for sin, Covenant and the Suffering Servant of the Lord. Here, we intend to elaborate on the above-mentioned themes in order to get a better understanding of the Eucharist.

Passover and the Eucharist

The gospels according to Mathew, Mark and Luke clearly indicate to us that Jesus instituted the Eucharist in a Jewish Passover context (Mathew 26, 17-30; Mark 14, 12-26; Luke 22, 7-20). Another important connection between the Eucharist and the Jewish Passover is the aspect of memorial common to both ( Exodus 12, 14 : 1 Cor. 11, 24-25; Lk. 22, 19). The Passover was essentially a memorial. The special Hebrew word for memorial, is “zikkaron”. This meant making an event of the past alive, active and present’. It can be explained by referring to the Passover ritual. Those who took part in the Passover festival ate bitter herbs and unleavened bread. The bitter herbs symbolized the bitter sufferings their ancestors endured during slavery in Egypt. Unsavory, unleavened bread, eaten in the form of a tiny morsel, referred to the scarcity of food during slavery in Egypt. Hence the Israelites in eating bitter herbs and unleavened bread identified themselves with the situation of slavery of their ancestors in Egypt, as they could not experience slavery in Egypt physically. The reason is slavery of their ancestors, once over, could not be repeated. Therefore what they were trying to do was to make the bitter experience of their ancestors their own, alive and present, but in a different way.

The memorial aspect of the Eucharist is clearly manifested in the Eucharistic Words of Jesus.” Do this in memory of me.” The Greek word used for ‘memorial’ in the New Testament is ‘anamnesis’. Most of the experts prefer to understand it in the context of the Jewish Passover. The Eucharistic words of Jesus clearly refer to his death on the cross.” This is my body given for you….my blood shed for you….” This does not mean that the event at Calvary is repeated at every celebration of the Eucharist. The New Testament scriptures affirm that the death of Jesus cannot be repeated (Romans 6, 9-10; Hebrews 9, 25-28). Hence the sacrifice of Jesus once offered on the cross remains effective and open for all ages. In the eucharistic memorial, we identify ourselves with Jesus’ sacrificial death, by our own sacrifice of ourselves. This is done by our breaking and emptying ourselves for the sake of others, as Jesus did. Then the saving effect of his sacrifice begins to work in us.

The sacrifice of expiation for sin had a special place in Israelite worship. It was offered in different forms for different categories of people, namely for priests, the people at large, the royalty and for private persons (Leviticus 4,1-35).The most important part of this sacrifice was the ritual concerning the blood of the slain animal. In the Old Testament, blood was understood both as carrier of life and medium for the expiation of sin (Leviticus 17, 11). Hence the blood of the slain animal was sprinkled on the altar, and applied on its four horns which were considered to be most sacred part of the altar. It was the belief among the Israelites that this rite would bring about remission of sins because, through the sprinkling of blood on the altar, life was said to be given back to God to whom all life belongs. It amounted to offering of one’s own life since the one, for whose sins the sacrifice was offered, identified oneself with the victim, by laying hands on its head.

The New Testament interprets the death of Jesus as a supreme sacrifice for the expiation of sins (John 1, 29; Ephesians 1, 13; Colossians 1, 20; Hebrews 9, 12-14. 24-28; 1 Peter 1, 18-19; 1 John 4, 10; Revelation 1, 5; also Romans 14, 15; 2 Corinthians 5, 15. 21). In all these texts, the death of Jesus on the cross is understood not only as a sacrifice of expiation for sin but also as a pre-eminent oblation of himself, for the purpose of doing away with all animal sacrifices (Hebrews 7,27; 9, 28). Moreover it was offered once for all.

The Eucharistic Texts clearly allude to the death of Jesus on the cross. “..for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many….(Mt. 26,28; Mk. 14, 24). “This is my body (which will be given) for you…”(Lk. 22, 19; 1 Cor. 11, 24). The expiatory nature of the death of Jesus is intended in these texts. In this manner, the New Testament understands the death of Jesus, in terms of the categories of the Old Testament. It is Mathew who highlights this aspect.” This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many, for the forgiveness of sins.” The difference between the sacrifices of expiation in the Old Testament and that of Jesus is that the latter concerns very life of the Son of God who has given an example for us to follow. Hence we who take part in the Eucharist ought to be prepared to sacrifice ourselves for the well-being and the needs of others. Then only the Eucharist will become meaningful to us.

The concept of covenant, which comes from a socio-political background of the Ancient Middle East, has in it, aspects of obligation and close relationship. For Israel, covenant became mainly a religious institution, i.e. a relationship between Yahweh and His people. In addition to the obligations of the Israelites towards God, there were also the obligations towards their fellowmen. This fact is strongly reflected in the law code of the covenant at Sinai (Exodus 21, 1 - 23, 33). The prophet Jeremiah spoke of New Covenant which the Lord would establish with His people in the days to come (Jeremiah 31, 31-34). According to the prophet, this New Covenant will replace the covenant at Sinai. Unlike in the covenant at Sinai wherein the law was written on two tablets of stone (Exodus 24, 12), in the New Covenant, the law would be written “on the hearts” of the people. In other words, the law would be interiorized.

The author of the Letter to the Hebrews tells us, in strong terms that the covenant at Sinai has been superceded by the New Covenant (Hebrews 8, 7-13).Here he quotes the whole text of Jeremiah, and comes to the above-mentioned conclusion. “When he speaks of a new covenant, he declares the first one obsolete. And what has become obsolete and has grown old is close to disappearing” (Hebrews 9, 13). The same author tells us that Christ is the mediator of the New Covenant which is with better promises than the covenant at Sinai (Hebrews 6, 6). The better promises he speaks of are the law of the Lord written on the heart rather than on tablets of stone, and the constant forgiveness of sins assured in the New Covenant proclaimed by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31, 33-34). St. Paul affirms the superiority of the New Covenant by comparing the two covenants with the two wives of Abraham. He says Sarah, as against Hagar, represents the New Covenant (Galatians 4, 21-31). Finally he describes his ministry as that of the New Covenant i.e. a ministry guided by internal law of Love rather than the externally codified law as that of the old covenant.( 2 Corinthians 3, 4-6).

The Eucharistic words of Jesus over the cup refer to “my blood of the Covenant” or the “New Covenant in my blood” (Mt. 26,28; Mk.14, 24; Lk. 22, 20; 1 Cor. 11, 25). The New Covenant, in Jeremiah 31, 31-34, does not mention blood. Hence the expression, “my blood of the covenant”, has to be explained in relation to the sealing of the covenant at Sinai where Moses is said to sprinkle the blood of the animals sacrificed, both on the altar and the people (Exodus 24, 6-8). This means the New Covenant is sealed, not with blood of the animals, as in the covenant at Sinai, but with blood of Jesus. This is a clear reference to Jesus’ death which inaugurated the New Covenant. Hence the Eucharist becomes the permanent means of actualizing the New Covenant which contains better promises. These comprise Law of Love written in the heart i.e. Jesus’ self-oblation for all, to be practiced by us, along with the constant forgiveness of sins granted to us to continue our relationship with God (Mt. 26,28).

In the second part of the Book of Isaiah (Chapters 40-55) there are four prophecies concerning the Servant of the Lord (Is.42, 1-9; 49, 1-7; 50, 4-11; 52, 13 - 53, 12). These prophecies present the Servant under the following aspects, namely, (1) The Servant conducts himself sometimes as representative of a community (Is.49, 3), and sometimes as an individual, (2) He carries out a mission of a prophet (Is. 49, 1-2; 50, 4). (3) He acts as liberator of his people (Is. 42, 6-7; 49, 5-6). (4) The servant suffers in carrying out his mission entrusted to him (Is. 50, 6-8; 52, 13 – 53, 12). The above-mentioned facets in the description of the Servant tell us that he had a mission to proclaim God’s message to his people in order to gather together those who have been scattered. This is to restore them socially and spiritually. Because of God’s word he proclaims to the people he suffers at their hand, and is put to death. It is only after his death and glorification that the people realize that he had suffered and died for the sake of their sins.

The New Testament understands the prophecies of Isaiah concerning the Servant of the Lord as being fulfilled in Jesus, in terms of his Mission, Death and Resurrection. The first of all, the Passion Narrative in all the four gospels has Is. 52, 13 – 53, 12 as the theological basis. At baptism, Jesus is given the mission of the servant (Mt. 3, 17; Mk. 1, 11; Lk. 3, 22 // Is. 42, 1). Here Jesus is declared both Son and Servant. The gospel according to Mathew highlights the ministry of Jesus as that of the Servant (Mt. 12, 17-21). The gospel of Mark while affirming the role of Jesus as that of the Servant, interprets His Death as liberating mankind from the bondage of sin. “The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mk.10, 45). The Acts of the Apostles too interpret the death of Jesus as that of the Suffering servant (Acts 8, 32 -33 // Is. 53,7-8).

The Eucharistic words of Jesus over the cup remind us of His dying for sins of mankind. “This is my blood of the covenant which is shed for many…”Mt. 26, 28; Mk. 14, 24. This is reminiscent not only of the sacrifice of expiation if sins (in the Old Testament) but also of the death of the Servant of the Lord. “But the Lord laid upon him the guilt of us all…..When he was cut off from the land of the living, and smitten for the sins of his people….If he gives his life as an offering for sin, he shall see his descendents in a long life, and the will of the Lord will be accomplished through him….Through his sufferings my servant will justify many, and their guilt he shall bear…And he shall take away the sins of many, and will win pardon for their offences.” (Is. 53, 6-12). The gospel of Mathew makes the above-mentioned fact more evident. “This is my blood of the covenant, which is shed for many, for the remission of sins.” Now it becomes clear to us that the Old Testament, with its basic themes, such as Passover, Sacrifice of expiation for sin, Covenant and the Suffering Servant of the Lord, provides us with a deeper insight into the Eucharist.

In the New Testament, there are four accounts on the Institution of the Eucharist, namely: Mathew 26, 26-28; Mark 14, 22-24; Luke 22, 19-20; 1 Corinthians 11, 23-26. Anyone going through these will immediately notice many differences between them. Our aim here is to explain the reasons for some of these principal differences. In the first place, the various Liturgical Traditions lying behind the above-mentioned texts can explain these differences, to a great extent.

On account of the similarities present, the above-mentioned texts can be divided into two main groups. The texts of Mathew and Mark are very similar. This can also be said of Luke and 1 Corinthians (Paul). Mathew and Mark refer to Jesus pronouncing a blessing (praise) over bread, and a prayer of thanksgiving over the cup. Luke and Paul, on the other hand, mention that Jesus said a prayer of thanksgiving, over both bread and the cup. The words,” Do this in memory of me”, found in the Eucharistic Texts of Luke and Paul are completely absent in Mathew and Mark.

How are we to explain these differences? Mathew and Mark following the Palestinian Liturgical Tradition, mention a blessing over bread and a thanksgiving over the cup, in line with the Jewish custom of their day. It is the Antiochian-Alexandrian Liturgical Tradition that both Luke and Paul seem to follow. No clear distinction appears to have been made there, between Praise (blessing) and thanksgiving. This was the liturgical tradition regarding the Eucharist, among the Gentiles (non-Jewish Christians). One can understand why Mathew and Mark who follow the Palestinian Liturgical Tradition omit the words of Memorial. Since the Eucharist was instituted in a Passover setting, and Jesus understood as the New Passover Lamb (1 Corinthians 5, 7), the aspect of Memorial was something taken for granted. For the gentile Christians, the memorial aspect of the Eucharist had to be stressed.

The Eucharistic words of Jesus over the cup, as reported by Mathew contains the phrase, “..for the forgiveness of sins.” It is absent in Mark, and has to be explained in relation to the Jews for whom the evangelist wrote the gospel. It has a triple significance, namely: (1) Jesus is identified as the Suffering Servant of the Lord. (2) He is the Pre-eminent Sacrifice for the expiation of sins. (3) It prevented the possible Jewish interpretation of the death of Jesus, as that that of a criminal executed by the Romans. Jesus, the Suffering Servant of the Lord, laid down his life for the sins of the people (Isaiah 53, 6-12). This is in line with the Jesus’ understanding of himself (Mark 10, 45).

The Gospel according to John does not mention the institution of the Eucharist, at the Last Supper. What is narrated there is washing of the feet of the disciples and a long discourse by Jesus (John 13, 1-17, 26). In the Discourse on the Bread of Life (John 6, 22-59), there is, however, a comprehensive teaching on the Eucharist. This discourse is connected with the Multiplication of the Loaves by Jesus (John 6, 1-15). This miracle has some significance in relation to the Eucharist. The action of Jesus at the Multiplication of the Loaves is similar to that of his, at the institution of the Eucharist i.e. He took bread, gave thanks and gave it to his disciples. This shows the miracle of the Multiplication of the Loaves had Eucharistic significance in the Early Church. This is why the teaching on the Eucharist is connected with the Multiplication of the Loaves.

The discourse on the Bread of Life can be divided into three parts, namely: 6, 22-34 (Introduction); 35-50 (Bread of Life as a figure of Revelation of God in Jesus); 51-58 (Bread of Life as the Eucharist). In the verses 26-34, Jesus is seen reproving the crowds that came looking for him, after of the multiplication of the Loaves. He exhorts them to seek bread that gives eternal life. The Bread of life is contrasted with Manna which was mere earthly or material food (6, 48-50). With these words, the stage is set for the discourse on the Bread of Life. The Bread of Life referred to, in the verses 35-50, is God’s Revelation in Jesus. Faith in Jesus is presented as the necessary response on the part of his hearers. Therefore the word, “believe” appears throughout this section. This provides the background for the Eucharistic teaching in verses 51-58. At the end of his discourse, many, in their disbelief, seem to abandon Jesus (6, 66).

In verses 51-58, Jesus identifies the Bread of Life with his Flesh, for the life of the world(6, 51).He further affirms the necessity of eating his flesh and drinking his blood to have eternal life(6, 53-54). These words become sore in the eyes of the hearers (6, 52) because, according to the law of Moses, partaking of human flesh and blood was an abomination, when even the animals had been categorized as clean and unclean as regards eating their meat (Leviticus 11, 1-47). Partaking of blood was a capital offence (Leviticus 17, 10.12-14). In the first and the second centuries A.D. the Christians were accused of cannibalism with regard to the celebration of the Eucharist. The words of Jesus could still be understood, against a Jewish background. Body was the only means by which human existence could be assessed. Blood was considered the carrier of life (Leviticus 17, 11). Hence the body and blood indicated the realty of the living person. This means, in the Eucharist, there is the transformation of bread and wine into the living person of Christ. This topic will be discussed in detail at a later date. There are other important theological aspects in the discourse on the Bread of Life.

A comprehensive Pauline teaching on the Eucharist appears in the first letter to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 11, 17-34). It is presented in the contexts of abuses connected with the celebration of the Eucharist at Corinth, a Greek port-city. Corinth had a multi-faced population. First of all, there were Jews as well as Jewish Christians who stuck to the Law of Moses and the traditions of the Elders. Although the Jewish Christians were small in number, at times, they became a cause of dissension in the Christian community, because of their persistence in observing the Law of Moses. As a result of this, Paul’s authority as regards his mission to the gentiles seems to have been questioned. Hence he had to affirm that his ministry was that of the New Covenant (2 Corinthians 2, 14-3, 18). Sharp distinctions between various social classes did disturb the unity in the Christian community (1 Corinthians 11, 21-22). In addition to all these, there was factionalism based on loyalties to different religious personalities (1 Corinthians 1, 10-17; 3, 5-9).

It is in this context that one has to understand the background of the Pauline Eucharistic teaching. The early Christians celebrated the Eucharist on Saturday evening after sunset, i.e. Sunday (Acts 20, 7). The Eucharist was preceded by a Meal of Brotherhood (Haburah or Agape). It was supposed to be the sign of sharing and fellowship in the community. These were necessary conditions for celebrating the Eucharist, in a meaningful way. The opposite seemed to happen. “When you eat in one place, then, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, for in eating, each one goes ahead with his own supper, and one goes hungry while another gets drunk.” Here Paul complains of divisions and lack of sharing in the Eucharistic Assembly (1 Corinthians 11, 17-22). He affirms that, in such a state of affairs, there is absolutely no question of celebrating the Eucharist. The point Paul makes clear is that the Eucharist is meaningful only in an environment of Brotherhood and Sharing.

Pauline Teaching on the Eucharist (Continued)

The Corinthian community, as we mentioned in the previous study, was divided along three directions, namely: (1) Jewish Christians vs. the gentile Christians (2) the rich vs. the poor (3) factions loyal to Paul vs. those loyal to Barnabas and Apollos. The Jewish Christians observing the Law of Moses and the Traditions of the Elders, looked down on the gentile Christians, and claimed Orthodoxy and righteousness. Those of the higher classes had no concern for the majority of the poor, even during the celebration of the Eucharist. Factions loyal to different religious personalities claimed eminence among others (1 Corinthians 1, 12). Paul makes it clear, in no uncertain terms, that such divisions contribute to the profanation of the Eucharist. Hence he appeals to them to examine themselves before taking part in the Eucharist (1 Corinthians 11, 28).

The Eucharist - the Lord's Supper

The Eucharist as the Meal of the New Covenant binds us both with Christ and with our fellowmen. Hence it is inconceivable to consider the Eucharist as a mere personal relationship with Lord. It has necessarily to promote the right relationship with others. That is why it is rightly called Holy Communion. Paul asserts this necessary aspect of the Eucharist in the following manner. “The cup of blessing that we bless, it is not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because the loaf of bread is one, we, that many, are one body, for we all partake of one loaf.” ( 1 Corinthians 10, 16-17). Hence the Eucharistic community, divided against itself and wanting in Love for one another, cannot meaningfully take part in the Eucharist. This situation can only be remedied through reconciliation with one another.

Eucharistic Themes in the Last Supper Narrative of John's Gospel

The Allegory of the Vine points to the intimate relationship that exists between Jesus and his disciples, if the disciples remain in his love and keep his commandments (15, 9-10). Here we are reminded of Jesus’ words, in his Eucharistic discourse, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I remain in him.” (John 6, 56). Through the Eucharist, we have communion with Christ, and this relationship with him is actualized and promoted by our selfless love towards others.

The Eucharist as the Pledge of our Resurrection

Jesus, in his Eucharistic discourse, says, ”Whoever eats my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life , and I will raise him up on the last day (John 6, 54). The connection between the resurrection of the faithful and the Eucharist is given in the words,” Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him” (John 6, 56). This means through the participation in the Eucharist we share in the life of the resurrected Christ. That is we have already a foretaste of our resurrection while being on earth. At the same time, this fact should not lead us to the misguided conception that mere participation in the Eucharist, without the obligation to love our fellowmen and be in communion with them, is an assurance of a resurrection in Christ. In other words, communion with our fellowmen is a sure sign of our communion with God and Christ (1 John 3, 11-18; 4, 7-21).

The Eucharist as Sacrament of Christ’s Living presence among Us

For a deeper understanding of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, it would be helpful for us to study the various forms of God’s presence among His people, as mentioned in the Old Testament. First of all, the Old Testament refers to God’s presence with certain individuals such as Moses, Joshua and the prophets who had a special mission from Him (Exodus 3, 12; Joshua 1, 5; Jeremiah 1, 8). Here the presence of God is to be understood as co-ordination of the special mission of certain individuals with God’s plan of salvation. Hence it can be termed as an active and enabling presence of God, in relation to the mission of the above-mentioned individuals. God’s presence among the people of Israel, during their journey in the desert, is said to have been through the Pillar of Cloud, during the day, and the Pillar of Fire during the night (Exodus 13, 21-22). These symbolized God’s hidden (mysterious) as well as revealing presence through signs and wonders on their behalf. God was also said to be present in the inner sanctuary (Holy of Holies) of the temple (1 Kings 8, 10-13). Finally God’s presence, during his special interventions, is often expressed in term of the Angel of the Lord (Exodus 3, 2; 14, 19; Judges 13, 6-23). The angel of the lord, in all these instances, is God Himself whose transcendence is safeguarded through an intermediary.

From the study done above, it is clear that the concept of presence, in relation to God and Christ, is an active involvement with mankind. Therefore it is not a passive presence or a “just being there”. Paul too understands the Eucharist as participation in the life of the resurrected Christ and communion with Him (1 Corinthians 10, 16-18). “ Take and eat; this is my body…..Drink of it all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant…”, in the Eucharistic words of Jesus has to be explained in a Jewish setting. Body and blood of Jesus, as we have seen before, indicate the living person of Christ who, through his resurrection, is active among us when we have communion with him through the participation in the Eucharist. The transformation of bread and wine into the living person of Christ is explained through the teaching of Trans-substantiation, a term inspired by the philosophy of Aristotle’s understanding of Reality.

Living the Eucharist

Living the Eucharist is essential if its celebration is to have any meaning in our Christian life. Unfortunately this necessary perspective of the Eucharist has been neglected in the life of many Christians owing to the ritual and devotional aspects taking precedence over it. Hence it is important to understand what “Living the Eucharist” means. Celebration of the Eucharist in the early Church will help us to situate this aspect in the life of that community which devoted itself to the teaching of the apostles, communal life, prayer and Breaking of Bread or Eucharist (Acts of the Apostles 2,42). This not only shows the most important characteristics of the early Church but also the necessary connection of the Eucharist with the above-mentioned aspects of the Christian community.

The Liturgy of the Eucharist

The liturgy of the Eucharist comes from Jesus’ words and deeds at the Last Supper. They were within the framework of the celebration of the Jewish Passover and possibly Jewish ritual meals. The central element in the liturgy of the Eucharist is the Eucharistic Prayer which, in an early Greek ecclesiastical context, was called “Anaphora”. The first Eucharistic Prayer, because of its exclusive use for a long period of time, in the Western Church (Latin Church), was called Canon (norm or measure)of the Mass, until the liturgical reforms were effected by the Second Vatican Council which was represented by all the bishops conferences of the whole world. There were indeed very ancient Eucharistic Prayers such as Eucharistic Prayer II attributed to St. Hyppolitus. Thus the Second Vatican Council brought richness and meaning to the catholic liturgy.