(The information contained in this document is taken from Liturgica.com. The members of Liturgica’s advisory board primarily represent men from the Eastern Orthodox tradition and the Roman Catholic tradition. While this does not come from a Lutheran source – and does not always reflect the views and practices of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, the information brings a greater appreciation of the rich heritage and value of the ancient liturgical practices of the Church and of our Lutheran way of worship. Rev. Richard A. Bolland, Pastor, Our Savior Lutheran Church, Pagosa Springs, Colorado, February, 2003.)
History and Development
Jewish Liturgics
The Liturgical Components of Jewish Synagogue
Worship
Early Christian Liturgics
Development of Christian Liturgics
Worship in the Early Church
Development of Protestant
Liturgics
Medieval and Reformation Liturgics
Liturgics refers to those things having to do with a liturgy, and the obvious point of departure in gaining an understanding of liturgics is to understand the word itself. This is particularly relevant in terms of liturgical music, because the terms religious music or sacred music, while describing the type of music, do not do much to explain the origins or practice. The word liturgy is from the Greek word leitourgia, and the most common translation is "the work of the people." It is that common act of God's people together offering praise to Him in the manner which He revealed that they should. This is the type of worship which took place in the Jewish temple and synagogue, and which came into the early Christian Church.
Note that the emphasis is on "work," "praise" and "revealed." The original Greek term includes the term work, and conveys something much more vigorous than a congregation being entertained by a performer — rather, the people working together. Praise is that which is offered to God in thanksgiving for what He has done for us. Revealed makes clear that it is not a collection of actions of our own choice or convenience, but based on direction given to us by God. It is the collective work that assembled believers do together in offering praise and worship to God. Liturgical music is the music developed and either chanted, sung and/or played during this time, while liturgical ritual describes the action that takes place.
For most modern Christians, and, indeed for many contemporary Jews, liturgical worship may be a foreign concept. The question asked is often "why does liturgical worship follow such a set structure or order?" The question reflects an underlying assumption for many Christians that in the New Testament period worship was spontaneous, or reflects lack of knowledge about the origins of liturgical worship within the Judeo-Christian traditions. The fact is, this "order" has its very roots in the Bible, and much of Judaism and Christianity have been worshipping this way — more or less unchanged — for almost over 2000 years.
The core of liturgics is not just beautiful music or awe-inspiring ritual, rather it is a commitment to origins. Two concepts need to be kept in mind as one considers the "why" of liturgical worship and practice: origin and changelessness. Remember, first and foremost, that the Apostles and the first Christian disciples were Jews. That is, they were Jews who recognized and accepted Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah. From their heritage with its history of liturgical interaction with God, came the Jewish form of biblical worship, the basic structure, the "origin" of Christian worship. For this reason, we see in Church history a highly developed Christian liturgical order in use even by the end of the first century — that is, within sixty years of Christ¹s resurrection.
The second concept is "changelessness." Perhaps one of the most striking and unique things about much Christian liturgical worship, especially that of the Eastern Orthodox Church in this age of rapid change, and even change for its own sake, is its permanence and changelessness. For example, it has been said that one of the most distinctive characteristics of the Eastern Orthodox Church is "its determination to remain loyal to the past, its sense of living continuity with the church of ancient times." [1] This commitment to protecting the Gospel and keeping its message and praise to God the same stems from the conviction that the faith which we have is that which our Lord Jesus Christ delivered to us, and to which we will add nothing nor take anything away. This is a very similar commitment to that of Orthodox Judaism to hold fast to its liturgical traditions and rites. If Christians desire to be "apostolic," then they have to agree to belong to the same Church that Christ founded. That church began in the first century, and "there is a sense in which all Christians must become Christ¹s contemporaries..." as a recent Orthodox Christian scholar points out. He goes on to remind us that "the twentieth century is not an absolute norm, the apostolic age is." [2]
C.S. Lewis, the British author, recognized the changelessness of the liturgy as an extremely important and very valuable characteristic for practical reasons. He went so far as to say it should be like an old shoe: something that fits, something that doesn't have to be broken in all the time, something you don't even notice is there. He concluded these observations by saying "The perfect church service would be one we were almost unaware of; our attention would have been on God." [3]
Over the course of the last millennia there has been change in liturgical worship. However, it is change that has taken place carefully, within this context of "changelessness." Within the traditional liturgical churches, the change has not been a change in the real nature or substance of the faith and practice. Never change for change's sake, only change in order to remain the same. The underlying commitment has been the exhortation of St. Paul to Timothy to "guard the deposit of the faith" (I Timothy 6:20). But, at the same time, there has been a willingness to enhance the practice of worship in order to make it more heavenly, more spiritual, and more edifying.
[1]
Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, New
York, Penguin Books, p. 203
[2] John Meyendorf, Women and the Priesthood, New York, St. Vladimir¹s Press, p. 14.
[3] C.S. Lewis, Letters to Malcolm, Glasgow, Collins & Sons, p. 6.
The origin of liturgical worship in Judaism is clearly grounded, according to the Bible and Tradition, in the revelation of God. Beginning with Abraham there is ritual revealed by God. During the sojourn in Egypt it appears much of what had been revealed was forgotten, but during the Exodus from Egypt, God began an on-going process of revelation, which included the foundations of Jewish liturgical worship. This period of 3,000 years extends through the settlement of Israel and Judah, the time of the Judges, to the Kingship of Solomon and David, and the prophetic period — all of which represents a developmental stream within the context of a people chosen and called by God and brought into "the promised land."
While there were undoubtedly foreign influences and continual pressure from local paganism, the liturgical tradition developed in a relatively local context. It becomes clear very early in the Biblical revelation that much of what was unique about Judaism, as compared with local pagan beliefs and practices, was revealed by the God "of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob". This includes the specific details about the Ark and the Tabernacle; it also includes specific elements of worship, and beliefs and practices that ranged from "You shall no other Gods before Me" (heresy in a pagan world) to the prohibition of human sacrifice.
A clear form of worship and the atmosphere within which it was to take place was part of the revelation of God to the Children of Israel. The tribe of Levi was set aside to serve as priests for God and His people. In Exodus chapters 25 to 27, detailed information is provided about the physical structure of the Temple, including its dimensions. Instructions for the Ark are also given. Internal decor of the Tabernacle, up to and including detail about the priest's vestments, the use of incense, the presence of an altar, the daily offerings, and the use of images are all part of the revelation in The Torah. Among the commands of God (Exodus 25:17ff) are the making of the Ark, two cherubim of gold between which God would "meet with thee and I will commune with thee from above the mercy-seat, from between the two cherubim." The original Ark held the Tablets of the Law, and was understood as the mercy seat, the empty throne from which God spoke from between the cherubim to His chosen people.
When Solomon followed his father's wishes and constructed the first Temple in Jerusalem, it likewise followed and continued the revelation of God concerning worship. The First Temple, while small in size, was glorious in construction, and became the center of Jewish worship until its destruction by the Babylonians. It was the place of sacrifice.
The cadence of the spiritual lives of most Jews of the time was the celebration of Holy Feast days with their corresponding offerings. The determination of what constituted the offerings had also been given by God in the instruction in Exodus and Leviticus. These two books provide instructions about the manner in which worship and sacrifice was to occur, and even what was to be sacrificed on specific occasions. In the Temple sacrifice, the offering of an animal to make amends or reparation for the sin of God's people was the center of worship practice. With the construction of the First Temple, liturgical music is described for the first time as an integral part of worship (II Samuel 6, I Chronicles 6:16-17). In addition, the Psalms of David not only became the core material of liturgical worship, but a "psalmody" developed as a way to chant or sing these Psalms.
Equally important to understand is that the worship form revealed by God to the Children of Israel was not "just" ceremonial and centered around sacrifice. According to the very same revelation, it was to reflect worship in heaven. The Torah has many instances (Isaiah chapter 6 and Daniel chapter 7) which describe worship in heaven.
The destroyed Temple was rebuilt in a modest fashion after the Babylonian captivity, and Temple worship resumed within it. During the exile, however, a new form of worship had developed in the absence of the Temple: the synagogue. Originally conceived as a meeting of the faithful to pray, to hear the Torah read, and to receive instruction, over time synagogue worship flourished. Not only did it develop into a more formal worship form during the exile, it continued upon the return of the Children of Israel to the promised land for the simple reason that not everyone could attend the Temple regularly. The synagogue became the local house of worship.
Over time, then, the synagogue and its worship structure developed into a formal ritual. Much was modeled on the Temple; for instance, the building faced east toward Jerusalem. Each synagogue held an "ark" in which was stored the scrolls of the Torah. Each synagogue was built with a bema, a raised dais or platform from which the service was conducted and on which the elders would sit and teach. Synagogue worship, in contrast to the sacrificial forms of the Temple, was characterized by recitation of prayer, chant of the Psalms, reading from The Torah and instruction.
When Herod rebuilt the Temple (begun about 20 AD, completed about 64 AD), he constructed a much larger and grander edifice than that of Solomon. However, the worship role remained essentially the same. The revelation had not changed. The service and celebration may have become more ornate, but the offering of sacrifice to make amends for one's sins did not.
Another consequence of the Babylonian captivity (and later of the Roman destruction of the Second Temple) was the Diaspora — those Jews dispersed from Israel and scattered around the Mediterranean, which gave rise ultimately to the Sephardic and Ashkenazie forms of Judaism. The rise of the synagogue tradition during the exile was principally didactic (focused on teaching) rather than the sacrificial worship of the Temple, and it developed its own chant traditions. Many of these traditions were brought back to Israel after the exile and found their way into Temple worship. After the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans in 70 A.D., synagogue worship and its liturgical form became the central aspect of Jewish worship.
THE LITURGICAL COMPONENTS OF SYNAGOGUE WORSHIP
Most scholars agree that the structure of Christian worship came almost directly from the Synagogue form of Jewish worship. [1] The importance of the synagogue to the Jews was due to a historical experience, the Babylonian exile. With no Temple in which to worship and sacrifice, faithful Jews were forced to gather around their elders to listen to the Word of God, for teaching, and to worship. This form was retained and matured after the return from the exile, and became a normal part of Jewish religious life. It was patterned on Temple worship, and was held at the same times as services in the Temple.
A brief description of the architecture of the average synagogue in the time of Christ can help explain these factors. There were several very distinct features. The first was the seat of Moses, which was represented by seats in the synagogue occupied by the rabbis. These seats were located on a raised platform called a bema, which had a central location in the synagogue building. Each synagogue had an Ark, which was protected by a veil and before which burned a seven-branched candlestick — the Menorah. "The Ark in the synagogue contained the Scriptures and spiritually pointed to the Ark of the Temple, as the physical alignment of the synagogue pointed toward Jerusalem. The ultimate focus of synagogue worship was the Holy of Holies in Jerusalem, just as the focus of worship in the Temple was likewise the Holy of Holies." [2] Note that the synagogue was oriented toward Jerusalem, as can be seen in the diagram below.
Luke tells us Jesus went to the synagogue as was His custom and was asked to read the prophet Isaiah (Luke 4:16-30). Alfred Edersheim in his book about the life of Jesus cites the typical order which Jesus Himself experienced the day he began his ministry in Nazareth. "On his entrance into the Synagogue, or perhaps before that, the chief ruler would request Jesus to act for that Sabbath as the Sheliach Tsibbur (the representative of the people). For, according to the Mishnah, the person who read in the synagogue the portion from the Prophets, was also expected to conduct the devotions... Then Jesus would ascend the Bema and, standing at the lectern, begin the service by two prayers:
"Blessed be Thou, O Lord, King of the world, Who formest the light and createst the darkness, Who makest peace, and createst everything; Who, in mercy, givest light to the earth, and to those who dwell upon it, and in Thy goodness, day by day, and every day, renewest the works of creation. Blessed be the Lord our God for the glory of His handiworks, and for the light-giving lights which He has made for His praise. Blessed be the Lord our God, Who has formed the lights.
"With great love has Thou loved us, O Lord our God, and with much overflowing pity has Thou pitied us, our Father and our King. For the sake of our fathers who trusted in Thee, and Thou taughtest them the statutes of life, have mercy upon us, and teach us. Enlighten our eyes in Thy Law; cause our hearts to cleave to Thy commandments; unite our hearts to love and fear Thy Name, and we shall not be put to shame, world without end. For Thou art a God Who preparest salvation, and hast in truth brought us hear to Thy great Name that we may lovingly praise Thee and Thy Unity. Blessed be the Lord, Who in love chose His people Israel.
"After this followed what may be designated as the Jewish Creed, called the Shema, consisting of three passages from the Pentateuch. This prayer finished, he who officiated took his place before the Ark, and there repeated what formed the… eulogies or Benedictions. After this, such prayers were inserted as were suited to the day. The liturgical part being thus completed... the (chief ruler) approached the Ark and brought out a roll of the Law. On the Sabbath, at least seven persons were called upon successively to read portions from the Law, none of them consisting of less than three verses. Upon the Law followed a section from the Prophets… the reading of which was in olden times immediately followed by an address, discourse or sermon."
From Edersheim's description we can see the six basic components in synagogue worship, and with minor differences most scholars agree with his observation.
1. The Litany. The first and opening part of the synagogue service was a series of prayers, a litany, blessing God for His love toward mankind. In its present form, the Orthodox liturgy begins with the Great Litany. The celebrant says, "In peace let us pray to the Lord," and the people respond, as they do to each of the following petitions, "Lord, have mercy."
2. The Confession. The Litany was immediately followed by a confession of God's faithfulness and of mankind's sin. In the Orthodox Liturgy, these may be found in the prayer between the Great Litany and the Scripture reading.
3. Intercessory Prayer. The third part was the Eulogy, the prayers of intercession. Likewise these intercessory prayers complement the confessions in preparation for the Scripture readings.
4. Scripture Readings. This was followed by the Reading from the Law and the Prophets. In today's Orthodox Church, as with any church using lexionary readings, these include Old Testament readings as well as Epistle and Gospel readings.
5. Preaching. The reading was followed by a discourse or sermon which expanded upon the reading and clarified its application to daily life. This is the homily or sermon in modern services.
6. Benediction. The service concluded with a Benediction, which means "good word."
On the Sabbath, the assembly gathered around the Ark with the rabbi to hear his teaching and to meditate on the Law and the Prophets, at a time in conjunction with worship in the Temple. Although the synagogue service centered on the reading of the work of God, it was not exclusively so; it was also communion with God in prayer and praise. It was also one of the forms of worship which Jesus practiced. Upon entering the synagogue in Nazareth, Jesus was asked by the ruler of the synagogue to be the liturgist; He participated in the antiphonal litanies which blessed God and began that synagogue service. He joined His neighbors in confessing the faithfulness of God. The intercessory prayers were His prayers also. Then after the reading of the Law, He was asked to read the Prophets. This He did, and then to the amazement of those gathered, He did more — He interpreted them! It is unlikely that He heard the benediction, however, given the reaction He received that day.
The most common translation of leitourgos is "the work of the people". It is that common act of God's people together offering praise to Him in the manner which He revealed that they should. This was the type of worship which took place in the synagogue, and which came into the early Church. Edersheim goes so far as to say that "the synagogue became the cradle of the Church." [3] And as if that weren't enough, the components of Jewish worship which came into Christianity did so in the same order. This is evident in that the basic six-point structure of synagogue worship previously described still constitutes the core of Christian worship, and more or less has for two thousand years. This "dependency of order" verifies the historical and theological truth of the worship practices of the Christian Church as the fulfillment of that which God began in Israel.
As previously described, early Christian Churches used a design very similar to Jewish synagogues. A natural development occurred as the new Christian Church formulated its own theology and understanding, but the core connection to Judaic form was never lost. This can be seen in the oldest Syrian churches that have been excavated: "...the chair of Moses has become the Episcopal seat, and the semi-circular bench that surrounds it the seat of the Christian 'presbyters.' But as in the synagogue they remain in the midst of the congregation. The bema is also there, not far from the Ark of the Scriptures which is still in its ancient place, not at the far end, but some distance from the apse. It is still veiled with its curtain and the candlestick is still beside it. The apse, however, is no longer turned toward Jerusalem but to the East, a symbol of the expectation of Christ's coming in His parousia…in the Syrian church this eastward apse now contains the altar before which hangs a second curtain, as if to signify that form now it is the only 'holy of holies' in the expectation of the parousia." [4]
Passover is perhaps the ultimate example of how Jesus Christ transformed a Jewish worship practice into something new and different. One of the three major holy days of Israel, Passover celebrated their deliverance by God from the bondage of slavery in Egypt. It included the sacrifice of a lamb in the forecourt of the Temple, and the partaking of the seder or Passover supper including part of the sacrificed lamb. This lamb called to mind the lambs slain in Egypt; their blood brushed on the doorposts and lintels to stay the destroying angel. More than just symbolic, this sacrificed lamb accomplished the deliverance of the people of God for yet another year, while the seder, the Passover supper, established the reality of communion between God and mankind. That is why every Jew made it a point to be in Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover at least once in their life; only in Jerusalem was it possible to celebrate the Passover completely.
Jesus had entered the city of Jerusalem prior to Passover, desirous of sharing this final supper with His disciples. They asked Him what they must do to prepare for the Passover (Jn. 13:1 and Mt. 26:17), and He instructed them about preparing the upper room. The disciples undoubtedly expected to celebrate the actual Passover meal with their Lord, for they were in Jerusalem. What they were not expecting was that which took place: Jesus Christ in the context of a supper, offering Himself as the Lamb of the world. Jesus undoubtedly gathered them for a supper, for all the Gospels record it.
But the supper which Jesus and His disciples celebrated together was not the seder supper of Passover. It certainly was a supper in the context of Passover, and the types of the Passover festival were present, including the breaking of bread and the drinking of the cup, but it was not the actual Passover seder because it took place on Thursday evening. The Passover seder would have had to be celebrated on Friday evening, at the beginning of the Jewish Sabbath, and in this case the beginning of the Days of Unleavened Bread.
Because the supper took place on Thursday night, the day before Passover, there was no slaughtered lamb from the Temple to partake of; and without the sacrificed lamb from the Temple, the meal would not be a seder. According to St. John, the death of Christ took place the next day, Friday, while the lambs were being sacrificed in the Temple (18:28). Thus, the Last Supper is an anticipation of the sacrifice of Golgotha, rather than an actual Passover meal. Jesus was crucified on Golgotha the following day, on Friday, in order that the Jewish authorities could complete His death before the Sabbath and the beginning of Passover on Friday evening.
Luke tells us that Jesus told the disciples at the table that he "desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; but I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God" (Luke 22:15-16). Jesus himself said that He would not eat another Passover until it had been fulfilled in the Kingdom; therefore, what was eaten by Him and the disciples must not have been a Passover meal. Our Lord gathered His disciples for a ritual meal, which was the same as the prayer of sacrificial representation…in the Temple. Jesus did not intend to eat Passover with His disciples in Jerusalem, for He knew that He was the lamb to be sacrificed on Friday!
The lambs being slaughtered in the Temple are of the Old Covenant; the Lamb being sacrificed on the cross is the New Covenant in Jesus Christ, the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets. Jesus Christ, in the offering of His Body and His Blood, is the sacrificial Lamb. Rather than sharing lamb from the Temple to accomplish their deliverance for yet another year, Jesus was offering Himself in whom they and all the world would be delivered from sin and death. Our Lord himself took a specific Jewish worship practice, one that had been revealed by God, filled it with the new meaning of the New Covenant, and transformed it into Christian communion. He had become The Passover Lamb, ready to be sacrificed for the deliverance of God's creation. And while the Eucharist was instituted for the Twelve within the context of the Passover Feast, it was not instituted at a Passover meal. In this Jesus actualized the Church and brought it into being. It is no wonder that the early Christians thought of the Eucharist as delivering them from death (bestowing life) and establishing communion with God (unity in Christ). Deliverance and communion were the focus of the Passover, which had now been refocused in Christ Himself.
The problem with understanding the Last Supper as the Passover seder and by extension of understanding the Eucharist as a re-presentation of the Last Supper is that it results in the observance becoming a dramatic memorial. The Last Supper was a historical event that occurred once. In contrast, the Eucharist is the actual experience of the Lamb who was eternally offered on the cross. True, the crucifixion occurred once in time and need not occur again, as the New Testament clearly states. But, the crucifixion of Christ is an event with eternal consequences. Through this event all humankind before and after the cross, in fact all creation, may be saved; and in this sense it is an eternal sacrifice. Not that Christ is eternally re-sacrificed, but that the scope of the crucifixion is eternal — reaching out to each communicant in the Eucharist.
That is why in the Orthodox prayer before Communion, the priest says: "remembering... the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the sitting at the right hand and the second and glorious coming..." What do Christians remember? Those actions of Jesus Christ which are eternal (past, present and future), which transcend time and space and in which Christians are saved to eternal life. The Eucharist is the actualization of the Cross, the Tomb, the Resurrection and the Second Coming.
If the Last Supper wasn't a Seder and if it wasn't a Passover meal, then what was it? Many scholars, led by Roman Catholic scholar Louis Bouyer, make a direct connection to the Jewish tradition of berakoth prayers. This Jewish word has been translated into Greek and English as thanksgiving, but is best translated in its Jewish usage as "blessings." Unlike the contemporary English usage of thanksgiving as meaning gratitude, berakoth, like the Greek word eucharistia is primarily a proclamation of the miraculous work of God, and is not limited to the gift received or the human response that it may prompt.
There are two principal types of berakoth in the Jewish traditon: "One type is a brief formula that became very soon stereotyped and is composed merely of a praise-thanksgiving, a 'blessing' in the narrowest sense. The other is a more developed formula in which the prayer of supplication has its place, although always in a 'blessing' context. The first is destined to accompany every action of the pious Jew from his awakening in the morning to the moment that sleep overtakes him in the evening. The second has its place either in the Synagogue service (in the morning, at noon and at night) or in the meal prayers, particularily those accompanying the final cup shared by all the participants." [5]
Of specific interest for understanding the development of the Eucharistic component of early Christian worship is the meal berakoth. In principle it was required for every Jewish meal, and included the expectation of the messianic banquet by the remnant of Israel, and so became a unique sacrifice of its own. The meal was preceded by an obligatory hand-washing, followed by the drinking of a first cup of wine by each person who repeated the following blessing:
"Blessed be thou, Yahweh, our God, King of the universe, who givest us this fruit of the vine."
The meal then began, with the father of the family or presiding member of the community breaking the bread which was to be given to all present, with the following blessing:
"Blessed be thou, Yahweh, our God, King of the universe, who bringest forth bread from the earth."
Following the meal, the father or presiding member, with a cup of wine mixed with water, invited those present to join with his act of thanksgiving, saying:
"Let us give thanks to the Lord our God."
And those present responded:
"Blessed be he whose generosity has given us food and whose kindness has given us life."
Then the father or presiding member chanted a series of berakoth (typically three), the first of which went back to Moses and was a blessing for nourishment. The second went back to Joshua and was a blessing for the promised land. The third went back to David and Solomon and was a supplication that the creative and redemptive action of God in olden times be continued and renewed today, and find its ultimate fulfillment in the coming of the Messiah and the establishment of the Kingdom of God.
Fr. Bouyer points out that the Passover meal followed this pattern, but was "distinguished by special foods, bitter herbs, and the lamb, which were used together with the special corresponding prayers and the dialogued recitation of the haggadah (a kind of traditional homily on the origin and the ever fresh sense of the feast). But the Last Supper was not a Passover meal, because it preceded Passover, and Jesus did not connect the Eucharist ic institution to any of the details that are proper to the Passover meal alone. In every case, however, the essential ritual act came at the end of the meal." [6] A lamp was brought in and blessed by the father or presiding member of the community, with a blessing that recalled the creation of the luminaries to light up the night. After this, incense was burned with a proper blessing, and then a second general hand-washing took place; the one who presided received the water from a servant or the youngest person at the table.
If we consider the elements of the berakoth and compare them to the New Testament accounts of the Last Supper, we see a very high degree of similarity. The first cup that followed the first hand-washing is mentioned by St. Luke as the fruit of the vine which he would no longer drink with his disciples before they met again in the Kingdom. The breaking of the bread correlates directly with the bread which Jesus Christ blessed and broke. The second ritual hand-washing was changed by Jesus, in that rather than washing hands, He took the water brought by St. John, the youngest disciple, and washed the feet of his disciples, beginning with Peter.
The origins of the form of Christian worship come from and combine the praise and teaching elements of the Synagogue service with the sacrificial elements of Temple worship. At the very core of Christian worship is the Eucharist. Its form and structure is also Jewish, given new content and meaning by Jesus Christ. Fr. Bouyer provides this summary:
"From this point on we can understand that we must place what we call today the 'words of institution' of the eucharist back into their own context which is that of the ritual berakoth of the Jewish meal, so that we may perceive the sense and the whole import of their expression. The words announcing everything that was to follow in the Last Supper, as preserved for us by St. Luke, are connected with the preparatory berakoth over the first cup. The blessing over the body (or the flesh) of Christ is connected with the initial berakoth of the breaking of bread, and that over the blood of the new covenant with the second and the third final berakoth. Finally, the sentence about the 'memorial' corresponds to the feastday interpolations in the third berakoth.
"We must go further. These words of Christ which were to give rise to the Christian eucharist arise from a whole structure underlying the Gospels, the Jewish liturgy in which they were inserted. If we separate them from it, we misunderstand the whole movement which inspired them. Reciprocally, their exact meaning risks being lost once we no longer perceive all that they accomplish and complete. Early Christianity was preserved from ever committing such an error by the fact that Christian prayer continued to develop within the forms of the Jewish berakoth and the tefillah, i.e. the prayer of petition which evolves without ever becoming actually detached from it. The first formulas of the Christian eucharist, in imitation of what Christ himself had done, are but Jewish formulas applied by means of a few added words to a new context, which, however, was already prepared for them." [7]
Parts of this page are excerpted from: Williams, B. and Anstall, H.; Orthodox Worship: A Living Continuity with the Synagogue, the Temple and the Early Church; Light and Life Publishing, Minneapolis, 1990. This book is available from our liturgical web store.
[1] Alexander Schmemann, Introduction to Liturgical Theology; St. Vladimir's Press, New York, 1973
[2] Louis Bouyer, Liturgy and Architecture; Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, p. 13
[3] Edersheim, op cit, p. 55
[4] Louis Bouyer, Eucharist; Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, 1968, p. 26
[5] Bouyer, op cit, p. 50
[6] Bouyer, op cit, p. 80
[7] Bouyer, op cit, p. 106
The early Christian Church came into being as a liturgical church because Jews worshipped liturgically. The New Testament records numerous instances of liturgical worship, which range from pure Jewish practices (such as Peter and John going to the Temple because it was the hour of prayer) to Christian liturgical worship (which confirms that the early Christians met and worshipped following Jewish liturgical practices, and added to them the rite of the Eucharist).
Many present-day Christians do not understand why the worship services of the "liturgical churches" are so different and so structured. A common assumption is that in the New Testament, worship was spontaneous. However, worship in the early Christian Church, like Judaism, followed a specific order or form. This "order" has its very roots in the Scriptures. In fact, all of Christianity worshipped this way for 1500 years; the Eastern Orthodox Church and Western Roman Church have been worshiping this way — more or less unchanged — for nearly 2000 years.
Two words need to be kept in mind when one first experiences liturgical worship: origin and changelessness.
Early Christian worship had an origin: Jewish worship form and practice. The early disciples did not create new worship practices any more than did Jesus Christ. They all prayed as Jews and worshipped as Jews. The earliest Christians were Jews who recognized and accepted Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah, and the worship that they practiced was liturgical because Jewish worship was liturgical. For this reason we see in the New Testament that the early Christians continued their Jewish worship practices, even while they added some uniquely Christian components. The most central new content was the sacrament of the Eucharist (or Communion) as instituted by Christ at the Last Supper. However, in the early Church this was celebrated as a separate service for many years.
This living continuity of worship from Temple to Synagogue and into the early Christian Church is why there is a highly developed Christian liturgical order in use by the end of the first century, within sixty years of Christ's resurrection.
Perhaps one of the most striking and unique things about liturgical Christianity, and especially in this age of rapid change and even change for its own sake, is its permanence and changelessness. This is especially true for the Eastern Orthodox Church to this day. This was also true of the Western Roman Church until the past century when the reforms of Vatican II significantly altered the liturgical form of the Roman mass. It has been said that one of the most distinctive characteristics of the Orthodox Church is "its determination to remain loyal to the past, its sense of living continuity with the church of ancient times "[1]. This commitment to protecting the Gospel and keeping its message and praise to God the same stems from the conviction that the faith was delivered to Christians by Jesus Christ. If Christians are going to be "apostolic," then they must belong to the same Church that Christ founded. That Church began in the first century. As one Orthodox scholar points out, "there is a sense in which all Christians must become Christ's contemporaries..." He goes on to assert, "the twentieth century is not an absolute norm, the apostolic age is."[2]
Present-day Christians, then, have to acknowledge the origins of Christian worship, and bear the responsibility of changelessness. C.S. Lewis recognized the changelessness of the liturgy as an extremely important and very valuable characteristic for practical reasons. He went so far as to say it should be like an old shoe; something that fits, something that doesn't have to be broken in all the time, something you don't even notice is there. He concludes these observations by saying "The perfect church service would be one we were almost unaware of; our attention would have been on God."[3]
The musical forms of early Christian worship were initially Jewish, such as the chanting of Psalms. As the Gentile missions began, Christians began incorporating Greek music forms. The language of worship became almost universally Greek, which was the common language of the Roman Empire, and more and more Greek music forms and theory came into use in the Church. Within twenty to forty years, the Christian worship service was a composite of Jewish and Greek liturgical music forms, following the basic shape of Jewish Synagogue and Temple worship. Within a hundred years, as the Church spread across the Roman Empire and most of its members were Gentiles who spoke Greek and lived in a Greek culture, most of the musical style and theory had become Greek. It still retained some Jewish form and content such as chanting. After the legalization of Christianity in the early 4th century, this music form and style developed into Byzantine music, the Church's first formal music form. Byzantine music was very broadly and consistently used throughout the Church through the seventh and eighth centuries.
Although Greek music was predominant, it was not the only form in use. In Egypt, there was a decidedly different form, as was the case in other parts of the Empire. However, most of the Empire used Greek as its common language, and the Byzantine music became almost universal throughout the Church. The two earliest Christian hymns, "O Gladsome Light" (referred to by St. Justin in about 150 A.D.)
The term "early Christianity" generally refers to the time prior to the legalization of the faith by the Emperor Constantine. Theological development occurred during this time, as well. As the Christian Church worked through the implications of what had occurred in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, and as they grew in their knowledge and understanding under the leadership of the Apostles such as James, John and Paul, their worship began to incorporate these new understandings. For instance, the earliest church had two Sabbath services: a "Synagogue-type" service and a separate communion service. Over time these were combined. Another page in this section describes Worship in the Early Church, documenting the processes and influences by which Christian worship became formalized, and how the various rites in use locally became standardized throughout the Roman and Byzantine Empire. A further page details later developments in Christian worship as theology and doctrine became defined, and external cultural influences were exerted on the Christian Church.
Parts of this page are excerpted from: Williams, B. and Anstall, H.; Orthodox Worship: A Living Continuity with the Synagogue, the Temple and the Early Church; Light and Life Publishing, Minneapolis, 1990. This book is available from our liturgical web store.
[1]
Timothy Ware.; The Orthodox Church,
New York, Penguin Books, p. 203.
[2] John Meyendorf.; Woman and the Priesthood, New York, St. Vladimir's Press, p. 14.
[3] C.S. Lewis.; Letters to Malcolm, Glascow, Collins & Sons, p. 6.
DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN LITURGICS
Where did liturgical worship and especially the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Church or the Mass of the Roman Church come from? What were its origins? How much change has there been over time from the beginnings of Christian worship in the first century Jerusalem Church? One should begin by answering the most basic question: what is liturgy? The best translation is "the work of the people." That is the collective work which assembled believers do together in offering praise and worship to God.
Jews at the time of Jesus Christ had already had a history of worship almost 1500 years long. Their history was full of interaction with God Who called them to be His people, and Who had revealed to them specific instructions as to the offerings and sacrifices which were part of the way in which He was to be worshiped. The Bible is clear that God revealed to Israel how to worship, and it was patterned after things in heaven. [1] These specific forms or liturgies of worship were first seen in the Tabernacle of the early Israelites, and were consummated in the Temple worship which took place later in Jerusalem. The worship of God in the Temple in Jerusalem was the first and most prominent focus of Jewish worship, which included the form and frequency of prayer and sacrifice.
For Judaism there had always been a constant cycle of prayers, blessings and meals: daily, weekly, monthly and annually. These constituted the second focus of worship for the Jews. In its most regular form it included practices in the daily hours of prayers and the annual High Feast Days. The High Feast Days included the sacrificial offerings of the Temple and contained Jewish messianic expectation. These meals included the "breaking of bread" and the "blessing of the cup", and contained parallels with both the temple sacrifice and the messianic feast.
As Fr. Louis Bouyer points out, "The synagogal worship, already before Christ, had its necessary complement in the ritual of the meals: the family meal, and better still at least at the time of Christ, the meals of those communities of the faithful brought together by a common messianic expectation..." [2]
There was a "meal liturgy" for the prayers of the meals, and in principle they were required for every meal. However, it took on the greatest importance in family meals and especially the meals of the Holy Days. The entire structure of the Last Supper as recorded by St. Luke mirrors the meal liturgy as practiced within Judaism at the time. [3] These meal prayers and their structure contributed directly in the formation of the early Christian celebration of the Lord's Supper.
The third and later focus of worship was that of the synagogue. For the average Israelite, the Temple was a place of worship only on certain days of the year, and it was most specifically a place of sacrifice. During the Babylonian captivity, worship in the Temple was impossible. A new form of worship came into being, a form focused patterned on temple worship, but without the sacrificial element which took place only in the Temple, and with a strong didactic element of teaching and remembering. These two elements of Jewish worship — synagogue and temple — together formed the very basic components of the form or order of the liturgy for the early Christian Church.
Besides the structure or order of worship that came from Judaism into Christianity, one can also find the cycles of liturgy — the daily, weekly and yearly cycles of worship-coming from the Old Testament as well. Acts 2:46 says that "day by day, continuing steadfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart". On a daily basis the Apostles continued their Jewish worship practices in the temple, and on a daily basis broke the bread of communion. This regularity of time is further confirmed in Acts 3:1 where Peter and John were going to the temple because it was the hour of prayer. Not only did they continue in Jewish worship practice, but they kept the liturgical cycle of daily prayers at set hours of the day as well as the major feast days.
Christian worship, then, was a Christ-centered pattern that continued and preserved the traditional structure of synagogue worship and the meaning of temple worship that the Lord had established in Israel. This basic structure included the Old and New Testament practices of liturgy, baptism, and Paschal feast that became the Eucharist, and certain of the feast days.
The continuity of temple and synagogue worship practices characterized the Church in its earliest days, and the synagogue form became the basic order or worship for the Christian Church. This structure was set very early during the New Testament era while the Church was still seen as essentially a Jewish sect, a messianic sect believing in Jesus Christ. The setting of this order or form of worship took place even prior to the admission of Gentiles into the Church, and before the spread of the Gospel outside of Judea. Therefore, by the time the Gentile missions began in about 38 A.D. (and later enhanced by Paul's missionary activity), this order was established and accepted as the form of Christian worship. Into the basic synagogue form were blended other elements from the temple as well as some uniquely Christian elements.
Regarding the Temple, it is important to realize two things about its worship. First, the primary type of activity was sacrifice. The cadence in the spiritual lives of most Old Testament Jews was the celebration of the Holy Feast days — and their corresponding offerings. And what determined the manner in which these sacrifices would take place? God had given the instructions in Exodus and Leviticus which describe in detail the manner in which worship is to be offered to God. Secondly, worship in the temple — and in fact all Christian worship — was and is to reflect worship in Heaven.
The Scriptures provide glimpses of heavenly worship. There are reports of it in Isaiah 6, Daniel 7, and Revelations 4 and 5. It was upon this heavenly worship that the worship of God on earth was patterned. Exodus 25 through 27 provides detailed information about the nature of temple worship, including the physical structure of the temple and its dimensions, instructions for the Ark to be built, the internal décor of the Tabernacle, details of the priests' vestments, the use of incense, the presence of an altar, the daily offerings, the use of anointing oil, and the use of images.
Exodus 25:17 begins the command of God regarding the making of the Ark of the Covenant. It includes the command to make two cherubim of gold, between which God said that He would "meet with thee and I will commune with thee from above the mercy-seat, from between the two cherubim". The mercy seat, or Ark of the Covenant, was understood as "the empty throne where nothing was to be seen; on this throne God was present — the sole object of worship in Israel... God spoke from between the cherubim — invisibly present on His throne — to Moses, Aaron, Samuel ... to His people. Here the blood of atonement had been sprinkled each year." [4]
The original Ark, which disappeared in the exile, had held the Tablets of the Law. It was understood both as the place of sacrifice and the place from which God spoke — the place of communion. This is one reason that in Eastern Orthodox Churches there are representations of two cherubim behind the altar on which the bread and wine are consecrated to become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ who was sacrificed for mankind. And between and before them is the altar at which the communion takes place in the Eucharist. Further, on the altar stands a candleholder with seven candles, in the manner of the Jewish Menorah, the light of which is the sign of the presence of God. Some of these elements remain in Western Roman Catholic Churches, although a great deal of it has changed since Vatican II.
These elements constituted the revealed manner in which the worship and sacrifice of Israel were to be made to God. Again, the primary function here was that of sacrifice: the offering of an animal to propitiate and atone (make amends or reparation) for the sin of God's people. The belief of the early Church was that the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ and His subsequent resurrection supplanted all temple sacrifice as a means of propitiation and atonement. In the sacrifice of Himself, Jesus Christ becomes the propitiation for all of mankind's sins; He is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29). Thereafter, for Christians, there was no need for an additional sacrifice. The Good News of Jesus Christ is that sins are forgiven in Him, and in Him Christians are reconciled to the Father.
So why continue any of the temple practices? Because they included communion as well as sacrifice, and because they constituted revealed worship — they were part of God's intent from the beginning. And because temple worship was fulfilled in Jesus Christ, the worship which Christians offer to God goes on forever. It continues both here on earth and in Heaven before the Throne of God. To be specific, heavenly worship is the worship, the liturgy. That is, Heaven is a dynamic condition of praise and worship — of liturgy — to the Father. And earthly worship partakes now of the eternal, heavenly worship.
For example, Hebrews Chapter 8 describes the role of Jesus Christ as the heavenly High Priest in contrast with the Old Testament priesthood. And what is the word used to describe what the High Priest is doing? It is liturgy. The passage properly reads from the first verse of the chapter as follows: "We have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a liturgist (leitourgos) in the sanctuary and true tabernacle which is set up not by man but by the Lord." (8:1,2). The worship of heaven, the liturgy, has been established forever by God Himself. Hebrews then goes on to demonstrate that what is done on earth should be patterned after that in Heaven — both in the Old and New Covenants. Literally, "now Jesus has been given a liturgical work (liturgist) which is superior to theirs, just as the covenant which He arranged between God and His people is a better one..." (8:6).
According to the Bible there is worship in Heaven, and it is to be our pattern. The original Greek word in every major early test is leitourgos. It means liturgy, or liturgical worship. It is easy to understand why the early Christians continued in their synagogue and temple practices. Worship had been revealed to them by God. Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of all that God had promised in the Old Testament; in Him all the hopes of Israel were fulfilled. It was only natural that in worshiping God through Jesus Christ, believers would continue to do so as they had been told, in the manner God revealed to them.
This was natural, almost automatic for the Jews who accepted Jesus Christ as Messiah. There was, however, one major change for these Jews which had been completed in Jesus Christ. The animal sacrifices of Old Testament practice had been fulfilled in the person of Christ. All that had been anticipated was now completed. All that had been prophesied was now reality. The Messiah had come. So for these early Christians, the Jewish worship practices were continued with a brand new understanding of the centrality of the victorious Christ, and new-found joy. Christians did not view their Jewish liturgical practices as passé. Nor did they simply continue in some kind of mindless habit of outmoded ritual. They maintained this liturgy as their own, as described in the inspired Scriptures of the Old Covenant carried over into the New. In fact, that Jewish liturgy made the work of God in Jesus Christ comprehensible. The Old Testament worship practices, now fulfilled and given new meaning in Christ, became the core of Christian worship within this New Covenant.
If one realizes that Jewish worship was liturgical and provided the worship structure for the early Church, and then one reads the New Testament seriously, a whole new side to the question becomes clear. The earliest and clearest reference to liturgy comes in Acts, the book which chronicles the inception and growth of the early Church. The church at Antioch was the first Gentile church outside of Jerusalem, established approximately A.D. 38 when Barnabas was sent to teach there (Acts 11:25 ff.). Acts 13 describes the selection of Barnabas and St. Paul for the first missionary journey. This would have taken place approximately A.D. 46, in what by then was a well-established and structured community of believers.
Luke records that the calling of Paul and Barnabas was the work of the Holy Spirit, and that it took place during the "liturgy". The text reads, "as they were 'liturgizing' (leitourgounton) before the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said 'Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul to the work to which I have called them'"(Acts 13:2). Luke was a physician and well educated. He must have understood what he meant to say about worship: namely, that the community was together in formal and ritual worship, accompanied by fasting, when the Holy Spirit spoke. So in A.D. 46, this early church was worshiping in a liturgical manner using a Christian form carried over from the synagogue. And this was within sixteen years of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The continuity of worship between the Old and New Covenants is very evident.
Parts of this page are excerpted from: Williams, B. and Anstall, H.; Orthodox Worship: A Living Continuity with the Synagogue, the Temple and the Early Church; Light and Life Publishing, Minneapolis, 1990. This book is available from our liturgical web store.
[1] Consider Exodus Chapters 12 & 13, 25-31; Isaiah 6; Daniel 7; Revelation 4 & 5, among others.
[2] Louis Bouyer; Liturgy and Architecture, Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, p. 23
[3] Louis Bouyer; Eucharist; Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, p. 78
[4] Bouyer, Liturgy and Architecture, p. 13
The early believers in Christ continued in the traditions of their Jewish forefathers, worshiping as they had in both the Temple and the Synagogue . To this worship practice they added the distinctly Christian components which were, in fact, transformed Jewish worship practices. These included Baptism, the Eucharist, the Agape meal, and others. Baptism was also present in Jewish religious practice as a personal repentance for sin. Baptism, like the Lord's Supper, was transformed in both meaning and content by our Lord Jesus Christ. Baptism became not only a repentance for one's sins, but being baptized in the name of the Trinity now also assured forgiveness and incorporation into the Body of Christ, the Church. Baptism was the once and for all initiatory rite whereby one received the Holy Spirit and came into the Church.
The early Christians with their transformed understanding of the central elements of Judaism had a practical problem: how to conduct worship? They wanted to carry on their old Jewish worship practices while at the same time incorporating this new meaning and content. They accepted the necessity for continuity with the old, and for the celebration of the new, but could not do both together. The result was doing both in parallel. The Temple hours of prayer and the Synagogue worship were kept, but were not centered in Christ. Each day of the week, those Christian believers in Jerusalem would attend the Temple for prayers during the daily cycle, and on Saturday — the Jewish Sabbath — they would attend either Temple or Synagogue.
But what to do about the Eucharist? It could not be added to a Synagogue service, yet it was to be celebrated as the Lord had commanded. The answer was tied to the Resurrection. Jesus had been crucified on Friday, the day before the Jewish Sabbath, and had risen on Sunday, the third day. Thus the day after the Sabbath was seen as the day of the Lord's Resurrection, the Lord's Day. At the Lord's Supper, the parousia or presence of Jesus Christ was experienced in the consecrated gifts; here people encountered Christ's new life in His resurrection. It was only natural that the Eucharist or Lord's Supper should be celebrated each Resurrection Day. Thus, the typical pattern for early believers became Synagogue worship on the Sabbath, followed by gathering for the Lord's Supper on the "next day". For the Jews, the day ended at sundown and the next day began. Sunday began at nightfall on Saturday. As Luke records in Acts 10:7, "On Saturday evening we gathered together for the fellowship (communion) meal" (NEV). The pattern typically became one of worshiping in Synagogue on the Sabbath morning, and then gathering together again in the evening (the next day — Sunday) for the celebration of the Lord's Supper.
In the early Church , the Lord's Supper was celebrated at the end of the Agape (love) or fellowship meal. This was an extension of the Passover supper tradition, and was a means for believers to show each other the love and unity they shared together in Christ. All gathered, each bringing what they were able. At the conclusion of the meal was the Eucharist, the "thanks-giving" for the grace of Jesus Christ. The sacrament conveyed the understanding and symbolism of the Passover Supper, now consummated in the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God. It is highly probable that it was the absence of this Jewish understanding that accounted for the disintegration and abuse of the Agape meal in the Gentile churches. Paul berates the Corinthians for being selfish, causing some to go hungry, and for drunkenness at the meal which became so pervasive that it even prevented the Eucharist from being celebrated (I Cor. 11:20-21).
What can be seen, however, especially during the early years prior to the Gentile missions, was a link between these old and new worship practices. A Jewish male who became a follower of The Way would have been circumcised as a child, and with his wife and family would continue in the normal Jewish worship pattern with a new Christian understanding. The early Church proceeded in this manner until two things occurred: the Gentile missions brought into the Church people without a Jewish tradition, raising the sort of problems just noted. However, in the earliest days of the Church, converts were expected to become Jews as well as Christians; in other words to be circumcised if male. This in itself speaks strongly of continuity with Jewish worship practice.
The persecutions shook this co-existence and steered the Jewish Christian worship transition into a more distinctly Christian form of worship. The first persecution was recorded in Acts 6 and 7, and involved the martyrdom of St. Stephen. The early persecutions were by the Jews, and aimed at this new sect that was winning converts from Judaism and was seen as heretical. With the persecutions, the life of the Church was changed because the result was exclusion from Judaism. And that meant exclusion from Jewish worship. Christians were no longer able to gather in the Synagogue , and were unwelcome in the Temple as well as described in Acts 21 when St. Paul is mobbed within the Temple grounds. The active Jewish persecutions excluded Christians from the Temple, and forced them toward new worship practices.
What was this resulting Christian order? The Synagogue worship structure, consisting of a litany of prayers, a confession, eulogies, readings from the Scriptures, an address or homily, and a benediction. This form constituted the core of what was to become specifically Christian worship.
Evidence for this can be found in archaeological evidence from the earliest Syrian churches, as well as in the Apostolic Constitutions and the Didache, and in the continuous practices of the Nestorian Churches. "The old Syrian church appears as a Christianized version of a Jewish Synagogue." [1] There is a bema in the center, an Ark with veil and candle to hold the Word of God, and a seat for the bishop (that is) representative of the seat of Moses. To these Synagogue elements was added an altar, and now the Church had an orientation. The architectural arrangement can be seen in the following illustration.
Christian churches were oriented facing the East for a very specific reason. Christians look to the heavenly Jerusalem from which the Messiah will come, and know themselves to be the "temple of the Holy Spirit." However, the East is the place of the rising sun, and for early Christians this was "the only fitting symbol of the last appearance of Christ in His parousia, as Sun of Justice in Zecharia." [2] Tertullian speaks of public and private prayer to the East as being an Apostolic tradition, and it expressed the eschatological expectation that Christ will appear as the Rising Sun that will never set.
To the core Synagogue structure (commonly referred to as the Synaxis or the Liturgy of the Word) was added the fulfilled Temple worship, the Eucharist, which was inserted prior to the benediction. This included the use of sung or chanted Psalms which were part of Jewish worship, and to which St. Paul refers in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 when he encourages the use of "psalms, hymns and spiritual songs". Again, St. Paul's Missionary approach demonstrates this connection, for his approach in any new city was to worship first in the Synagogue using that base for proclaiming the Gospel. The Jerusalem Church was the "Mother Church" for early Christianity, to which the Church at large looked for guidance in all things theological and liturgical. The missionary churches naturally followed the form of the Jerusalem Church. Thus, the Gentile churches which came into being as a result of St. Paul's preaching and teaching had this same Jewish rule of prayer, or order of worship. The similarity to the Synagogue ritual within the first century Church demonstrates an early universal acceptance of Jewish worship origins. [3]
In his book, The History of The Church (18.1), Eusebius, a fourth century historian and bishop, quotes Philo, a Jewish historian writing in the first century. Philo describes the Christian "all-night vigils of the great festival, the spiritual discipline in which they are spent, the hymns that we always recite, and how while one man sings in regular rhythm the others listen silently and join in the refrains of the hymn." [4] This is antiphonal singing of litanies, and certainly reflects Jewish worship practice, which Philo recognizes. By the end of the first century, the Christian Church was present throughout much of the Empire. There were established churches in most of the major cities and many smaller ones. These churches continued following the order of Jewish worship, essentially the Synagogue form with the inclusion of the Eucharist. But, the typical worship of the first and second centuries was by necessity simple. The Church was generally under persecution, so it tended to hold its worship services in secret, and usually in the homes of members. As Fr. Alexander Schmemann states, the liturgical form was commonly "the bishop, surrounded by presbyters (elders) facing the assembly, the Supper Table, on which the deacons placed the gifts (bread and wine) which were being offered, preaching, prayer, the anaphora (prayer before Communion) and the distribution of the Holy Gifts." [5]
The freedom of the first years of the church's life in which she could be liturgically Jewish in Synagogue and Temple and also celebrate the Eucharist were over. What is evident is a liturgical contraction under the duress of persecution. By now the "unnecessary" material of the Synagogue service had been compressed or even eliminated. What was left was a simpler service focused on the Eucharist, but one that still reflects the Synagogue form and contains its major elements. But this liturgical contraction does not imply that the Early Church was primitive, had no ceremony, and subscribed to simple beliefs. In his introduction to The History of The Church. G .A. Williamson says of Eusebius that in his own statements and those of the earliest authorities on which he draws, we see a church which we would recognize as our own. "We shall find the same line drawn between clergy and laity, the same division of the clergy into the three orders of bishops, presbyters, and the deacons, the same practice of Episcopal ordination and consecration, the same insistence on Apostolic Succession and on the establishment by Christ of One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We shall find Christendom partitioned up into dioceses and archdioceses, presided over and ruled by bishops who are held in the highest esteem." [6]
By the second century, the Lord's Supper (or Eucharist) began to be separated from the Agape meal. Differing opinions exist as to whether this was due to problems such as those in Corinth, or the growing Gentile expansion in the Church with a lack of Jewish perspective. The result was the celebration of the Eucharist without the Agape meal.
The word Eucharist means thanksgiving or the giving of thanks (see Luke 22:16). At the Last Supper, the institution of the Eucharist, Christ's intent was not on the perpetuation of a mere meal or Passover supper. Instead, that meal was fulfilled in the partaking of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. And it is after the Resurrection, Ascension and Pentecost that the incredible significance of the Eucharist comes to light. For the Lord Who gave the Church this sacrament became alive again and ascended! He is the living Lord Jesus Christ, Who reigns at the right hand of God the Father. He said not only "this is my Body and Blood," but He also told His followers "unless you eat of my Body and of my Blood you have no life within you" (John 6:53). One cannot get around this point in Scripture.
The early Christians took their Lord at His word, believing that in a mystery, bread and wine became the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and that it was life-giving. That is, through the work of the Holy Spirit, each believer was nurtured by grace (sacramentally) and received spiritual sustenance. Behind this understanding of the nature of the Eucharist was the understanding of worship held by the entire early Church. As Fr. Schmemann tells us, "the worship of the church has at its real center the constant renewal and repetition in time of the one unchanging Sacrament: unchanging that is in its meaning, content and purpose. But the whole significance of this repetition is in the fact that something unrepeatable is being recalled and actualized. The Eucharist is the actualization of one, single, unrepeatable event. [7] This is readily apparent in the portion of the Liturgy or Mass before communion; the memorial which remembers, which "re-presents every Sunday the saving death of Christ in the expectation of the resurrection... the Eucharistic meal has taken the place of the former sacrifices. No other sacrifice can have any meaning but the cross of Christ, celebrated in the Christian meal. Through it, while taking part in His passion, we are being given a foretaste of His resurrection." [8]
These liturgical actions plus the faith of the early Christians were on the Body and Blood of Christ. More specifically, it was the Biblical promise of the reality of His sacrifice made available in these gifts, and the reality of spiritual nurture they bring. Ultimately, it is a question of Life. Jesus said He came that believers could have life and have it more abundantly. He also said He would send His Spirit, the Spirit of Life, to transform believers and all creation, to set believers apart.
The belief of the early Church was that the Eucharist was this transforming life — spiritual life. It was not a memorial experience of the Lord. It was a miraculous experience of the Grace of God in the Holy Spirit. For St. Ignatius this transformation centered around the altar, the place of sacrifice, from which the believer receives the bread of life. On this altar was consecrated the elements which became the life-giving mysteries. [9]
This was certainly the belief of Justin Martyr, circa A.D. 150, who said: "For we do not receive these things as though they were ordinary food and drink... the food over which the thanksgiving has been spoken becomes the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus in order to nourish and transform our flesh and blood." St. Justin called this food Eucharist, thanksgiving or blessing, just as he called baptismal washing "enlightenment". For him this was a real and powerful act of God. [10]
Thus, for Christians now as for the Apostles then, the Biblical promise is that by believing on Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and being baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, believers receive new life in that sacrament through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. And as believers partake of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, they continue to receive new life in Christ through the grace of the Holy Spirit. This indeed is something to give thanks for! Hence the name Eucharist: the Thanksgiving. This was the uniform view of the early Church. For St. Ignatius, who died in 107 A.D., "thought of the Church as a Eucharistic society which only realized its true nature when it celebrated the Supper of the Lord, receiving His Body and Blood in the Sacrament." [11]
Gregory Dix, in his classic treatise on the development of liturgical worship, states that in the earliest accounts of the Eucharist, the Church places the words of institution central in the Eucharistic Prayer. He goes on to point out that it used formulas which were in keeping with those of John's Gospel, "that Bread which cometh down from Heaven and giveth life unto the world, he that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever." [12] He then quotes St. Ignatius who had described the Eucharistic Bread as "a remedy bestowing immortality, an antidote preventing death and giving life in Jesus Christ."
This belief of the early Church can also be seen in how they worshiped. The early Christian Church was a "Christological Synagogue ". For the majority of the service the Bishop would be seated on the bema or stand thereon. The Ark had become in the Syrian Church the place where the Gospel Book was "enthroned"; and this was probably so throughout the early Church. The Word was taken from the Ark and proclaimed from the bema. By it the believer was led to the altar and beyond it to the Kingdom. This happened literally as well as spiritually! There were no pews in the early Church. This was true almost universally up until the seventeenth century in the West, and is still true in most Orthodox Churches today. Upon the completion of the prayers and Scripture readings, the clergy would take the bread and wine and proceed to the East — to the altar for the Eucharistic meal. The vital nature of the early Christian worship is expressed in this procession toward the East (that is, the Kingdom). "Therefore the whole assembly, far from being a static mass of spectators, remains an organic gathering of worshipers, first centered on the Ark, for hearing and meditating upon the Scriptures, and finally going toward the East all together for the Eucharistic prayer and the final communion." [13]
This movement toward the altar with the gifts is the origin of what is now called the Great Entrance in the Orthodox Liturgy when the clergy bring the bread and wine from the Preparation Table to the Altar before the Eucharist. The only major change over time in the structure of this portion of the Liturgy was the movement of the Gospel into the sanctuary before the Altar, in advance of its reading to the assembled congregation. In part, once again, this was due to the circumstances the Church experienced. For the early Church, the Gospel Book was of inexpressible value, for it was the Word of Life. One of the common goals of the persecuting Romans was to confiscate and destroy the Gospel Book. Thus, along with the sacred vessels, it was kept in a safe place during the week, and only brought out for the service of the Divine Liturgy. This circumstance would have existed through the early part of the fourth century changing only with the end of the persecution of Diocletian.
What transpired then, was the assembling of believers before the Liturgy began, typically singing Psalms of praise in anticipation of the impending communion with God. The clergy would arrive bearing the Gospel Book and the sacred vessels and enter the Church, carrying the Gospel Book to the center of the building (onto the bema in the very earliest churches). Then, after the reading of the Gospel lesson to the assembly, the Gospel Book would be carried to the Altar. From this real experience has come two portions of the Orthodox Divine Liturgy; the Antiphons and the Little Entrance.
The Antiphons (two or three are commonly sung) are composed of Psalms that are antiphonally sung by cantor and choir or congregation. These go back to the Psalms sung by the assembled congregation while awaiting the arrival of the clergy. The Little Entrance is the bearing of the Gospel into the sanctuary, and it likewise can be traced to the carrying of the Gospel Book into the church. With the end of persecution it could be kept in the church. Until recent times, the practice was for the Gospel to be in the middle of the church at the beginning of the Divine Liturgy, and from there to be carried into the sanctuary during the Little Entrance to be read before the altar. Having been brought into the midst of the assembly, the Book of Life is then carried into the sanctuary, where, through the Gospel of Jesus Christ, all of the assembly enter into the Kingdom to partake of the Eucharist.
St. Ignatius of Antioch referred to the Church as a "Eucharistic community" who realizes her true nature when she celebrates the Eucharist. His view of the Church was the local community gathered around its Bishop, celebrating the Eucharist. It is important to note that St. Ignatius became Bishop of Antioch in A.D. 67 — in the midst of the New Testament era while most of the Apostles were still alive and active. St. Ignatius was the second Bishop of Antioch succeeding St. Peter. Thus we can safely trust that this understanding of the nature of the Church and the Eucharist was representative of that held by the Apostles and the Church at large.
By the end of the first century the basic form or order of the Liturgy was established and universally celebrated throughout the Christian Church, though with regional and cultural differences in expression. The Liturgy had as its center the worship of Jesus Christ and the partaking of His Holy Gifts. In the process she remained true to her origin in Jewish worship which the Lord Himself had practiced and which had been revealed by God. The shed blood of bulls or goats was no longer at the core. This sacrifice was fulfilled for all time in the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, which is central still to the life of the Church in the Holy Eucharist. Thus, as the lives of the Apostles ended, as the responsibility for the Church was being handed on to the next generation, her worship of God was established. The basic form of the Liturgy was settled, to be refined and enhanced over the coming years, but never altered in its basic form and meaning.
The major structural change in the development of the Christian rite took place by the latter part of the third century. Until this time it was not uncommon for Christian worship to still have two separate components, the Synaxis (directly derived from the Synagogue ) and the Eucharist. The Eucharist was for believers only, and while all were expected to attend, this portion of the service was closed to non-believers. With the removal of persecution and the development of public worship, the need for separate services disappeared. By the end of the sixth century, holding one rite without the other had become very uncommon. The two rites had some similar and overlapping components, which were easily incorporated into each other. Prior to this synthesis, the Synaxis and the Eucharist services had the following components:" [14]
|
Synaxis or "Meeting" |
Eucharist |
|
Greeting and Response |
Greeting and Response |
|
Lections interspersed with Psalmody |
Kiss of Peace |
|
Psalmody |
Offertory |
|
Sermon |
Eucharistic Prayer |
|
Dismissal of Catechumens |
Fraction |
|
Intercessory Prayers |
Communion |
|
Benediction |
Benediction |
It is very easy to see how these two services could be fused together to form two parts of one celebration. In the Eastern and Western Church this synthesis occurred and included liturgical enrichments, including the addition of hymns, expanded use of litanies, and the inclusion of the Nicene Creed. As shown, this synthesis was true to the original worship of the Early Church. The Synaxis is very similar to the Synagogue service. And the Eucharist is almost identical to the Eucharist which Justin Martyr describes in his First Apology as taking place at Rome in 150 A.D.
Parts of this page are excerpted from: Williams, B. and Anstall, H.; Orthodox Worship: A Living Continuity with the Synagogue, the Temple and the Early Church; Light and Life Publishing, Minneapolis, 1990. This book is available from our liturgical web store (learn more here).
[1] Louis Bouyer, Eucharist, Notre Dame University Press, Notre Dame, 1968, p. 25.
[2] ibid, p. 28.
[3] Alexander Schmemann, Introduction To Liturgical Theology, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, Crestwood, 1986, p. 154.
[4] Eusebius, The History of The Church, Dorset Press, New York, 1965.
[5] A. Schmemann, op. cit., p. 119.
[6] Eusebius, op. cit, p. 9.
[7] A. Schmemann, op. cit, p. 43.
[8] L. Bouyer, op. cit., p. 32.
[9] Willy Rordorf, editor, The Eucharist of the Early Christians, Pueblo Publishing Co., New York, 1976, p. 61.
[10] ibid, p. 75.
[11] in Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, New York, Penguin Books, 1978. p. 21.
[12] Gregory Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy, The Seabury Press, New York, 1982, p. 137.
[13] L. Bouyer, op. cit., p. 35.
[14] G. Dix, ibid, p. 434.
DEVELOPMENT OF PROTESTANT LITURGICS
Protestantism in its myriad contemporary forms is mostly known for not being liturgical. Of all the major Protestant bodies, only the high Anglican in England is liturgical in the historic sense of the term, although the Lutherans and Episcopalians (in America) consider themselves liturgical in a broader sense of the term. The question arises: if Christianity came into being with a clearly defined form of liturgical worship with origins in Judaism, and if all forms of Christianity were liturgical up until the Protestant Reformation, why is there so little liturgical worship and music in Protestantism? The fact is that the Reformers made a clearly conscious decision in the area of liturgics and liturgical music, as they did in theology and doctrine.
Liturgical music did not come into being as a musical form for aesthetic purposes. It developed within the Judeo-Christian tradition as both a core part of the worship experience, and as a means of enhancing or beautifying that experience. The experience uniformly centered around a universal event: the Eucharist. That is to say, while the Orthodox liturgy or Roman mass contains other elements (such as corporate prayer, scripture reading, and homily or sermon, most of which can be traced back to the structure of the Jewish synagogue service), the focus and movement of the service is toward the consecration of the elements to become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. This sacramental orientation is fundamental to the liturgical nature of traditional Christian worship.
One of the principal notions of the Protestant Reformation was the attempt to refute sacramentality. With that came a necessary reduction or loss of the liturgical sensibility. Within a short time after the beginning of the Reformation, many Protestant denominations rejected liturgical worship along with sacramentality and adopted a different ethos and approach to worship. Most Protestants know little about the dynamics of the Reformation, especially regarding liturgical worship and the connection of doctrine and practice. They may acknowledge a feeling of awe and mystery when they enter a great cathedral, and may be greatly moved by glorious liturgical music. But they recognize that these are foreign to their Protestant practices.
In his book, The Shape of the Liturgy, Gregory Dix, himself a Protestant, makes a very clear contrast between Protestantism and Puritanism which can help clarify this. He points out that the Lord never condemned the elaborate ceremonial worship of the Jerusalem Temple, and that not only did the Apostolic Christians worship there, but second century Christians still found it natural to think of Eucharistic worship in terms of the ceremonious worship of the Temple. In Western society and culture we are generally unaware of these historical realities, and so Dix's description may help:
"The truth is that the English puritan's crusade against all forms of sensuous beauty in worship has had more effect than we realize upon our notion of the worship of the primitive church. It disconcerts us to find that that church did not share the puritan theory of worship so far as corporate worship was concerned. No small part of our liturgical difficulties in the Church of England come from confusing two things: Protestantism a purely doctrinal movement of the sixteenth century, confined to Western Christianity and closely related to certain doctrinal aspects of fifteenth century Western Catholicism, from which it derived directly by way both of development and reaction; and Puritanism which is a general theory about worship, not specifically protestant nor indeed confined to Christians of any kind. It is the working theory upon which all Mohammedan worship is based. It was put as well as by anybody by the Roman poet Persius or the pagan philosopher Seneca in the first century, and they are only elaborating a theses from Greek philosophical authors going back to the seventh century B.C. Briefly, the puritan theory is that worship is a purely mental activity, to be exercised by a strictly psychological 'attention' to a subjective emotional or spiritual experience. For the puritan this is the essence of worship, and all external things which might impair this strictly mental attention have no rightful place in it. At the most they are to be admitted grudgingly and with suspicion, and only in so far as practice shows that they stimulate the 'felt' religious experience or emotion. Its principal defect is its tendency to 'verbalism', to suppose that words alone can express or stimulate the act of worship. Over against this puritan theory of worship stands another the 'ceremonious' conception of worship, whose foundation principle is that worship as such is not a purely intellectual and affective exercise, but one in which the whole man body as well as soul, his aesthetic and volitional as well as his intellectual powers must take full part. It regards worship as an 'act' just as much as an 'experience'. The accidental alliance of protestant doctrine with the puritan theory of worship in the sixteenth century may have been natural, and was as close in England as anywhere. But it was not inevitable. The early Cistercians were profoundly puritan, but they were never protestant. The thorough Protestantism of the Swedish Lutherans, with their vestments and lights and crucifixes, has never been puritan.
"The puritan conception of worship may be right or wrong in itself But from the point of view of history we have to grasp the fact that there was little in antiquity to suggest to the church that it was even desirable for Christians." [1]
Protestantism has very limited liturgical traditions and a small body of liturgical music for a reason. The early Protestant reformers, having rejected historic Christian sacramentality, struggled mightily with the liturgical rite, and changed it substantially to match their new "reformed" doctrine and theology. Within forty years of the Reformation, many Protestant sects had created entirely new and different liturgies which were in harmony with the newly defined theology and doctrine.
The real focal point of the sixteenth century Reformation controversies was not early Christian liturgical worship or even the New Testament it was the medieval Western rite of 1500, which was the only liturgical rite that the Reformers had ever used. The liturgical, theological and doctrinal debates of the Reformation took place within this limited context. The result on the part of the Protestants was to re-create worship by significantly modifying, or even re-creating, the liturgy. This effort was very challenging, and the new liturgies were very different than what had gone before. Most of the "old liturgical music," therefore, was replaced by new compositions that met the current need. Luther, for example, composed hundreds of new hymns. Naturally, if there is no litany in the service, the Kyrie is replaced by something else, etc. Dix points out that it was in fact the very struggle to change the liturgics of Protestantism that caused many of the new sects to move toward Puritanism by moving worship to the level of an intellectual experience with little or no ceremonial form.
The Protestant churches, which initially kept liturgical forms and music that were consistent with Roman liturgics, gradually saw many of the forms change over time as theology and doctrine itself changed in Western Europe. Many of the motivations of the Reformers were well intended. The medieval Roman rite had reached a point where the role of the people had been reduced or lost. The celebration of the Eucharist had been reduced to something to watch rather something in which to participate.
Decisions made at the time of the Reformation about sacramentality and worship substantially changed the Protestant approach and practice of liturgics.
MEDIEVAL AND REFORMATION LITURGICS
It is impossible to adequately understand the changes that occurred in the liturgical practices of the Reformation and the Protestant churches that developed from it, without having some understanding of the medieval conception and practice of liturgics in the Western Roman Rite out of which they sprang. This process took place over many centuries, culminating in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.
There were many components, but among the most important were a) the development of a personal piety on the part of the average lay person in place of corporate participation in the liturgical and eucharistic action; b) the distancing of the laity from the clergy physically (by the introduction of the high screen separating clergy and laity, among other things), and sacramentally, and c) the development of various services that undercut the corporate nature of the Eucharistic and liturgical action.
Gregory Dix, upon whom as an Anglican we will be dependent, summarizes it this way: "If we put all these things — the isolation of the priesthood of the priest from the corporate offering; the false theory of a separate value of the sacrifice of the mass from the sacrifice of Calvary; the elimination of the layman's 'liturgy' of offering and communion, which makes the holy communion (in practice) a part of the celebrant's 'liturgy' and nobody else's; the reduction of the laity's part in the rite to 'seeing' and 'hearing' (the latter being reduced very much in importance through the use of Latin, which placed an over-emphasis on 'seeing' the consecrated sacrament); — and in consequence of all these, the placing of the whole devotional emphasis in the rite on the consecration and conversion of the elements — if we put all these things together, we can see what the medieval liturgical development is doing. It is steadily building up the material for all the doctrinal controversies about the Eucharist in the sixteenth century." [1]
The development of personal piety on the part of the laity grew out of the scholasticism of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries that centered on the debates about the relation between the elements (bread and wine) and the Body and Blood of Christ, and how the mystery was effected. This pietistic development in reaction to the changing theological understanding of the Eucharist moved the laity further away from the Eucharistic action and to infrequent communion (a practice absolutely foreign to the early Church which had been developing since at least the eighth century).
An added consequence was the separation of the role and action of clergy from that of the laity, so that the liturgy, and specifically the Eucharistic action, was no longer celebrated together (i.e. co-celebrated) but celebrated by the clergy on behalf of the laity. The Western Roman Rite developed into three forms: the pontifical Mass, "a form recognizably derived from the way of doing the Eucharist practiced in the pre-Nicene church" [2]; a high Mass which was an eighth century simplification, but one that tended to emphasize the place of clergy rather than of laity; and finally the low Mass. The low Mass was performed publicly with laity in attendance, but said in a low voice, quite short in length, and mainly a convenience for the clergy to celebrate the liturgy frequently, and within which the laity seldom received communion.
The result of all these changes in theological understanding of the Eucharist and the corresponding liturgical modifications replaced the ancient corporate worship of the Eucharist with a personal subjective devotion on the part of each worshipper. In the place of the reception of the Eucharist, what grew up was a set of Eucharistic devotions, frequently developed and taught to the laity by the clergy. These devotions set forth meditations to be followed by the laity in place of entering into the Eucharistic action, and in place of participating in the Eucharistic prayers (which were in Latin and generally not understood).
The practical consequence was that "all this devotional exercise is suggested by and accompanies the eucharistic action, but is no part of it. It goes on entirely within the individual worshipper's own mind. Meanwhile the liturgical action, performed exclusively by the priest and server, proceeds in front of the layman in complete detachment from him." [3] Not only were the laity being excluded from the action, they were given a different role to play, almost the opposite of the role of the laity in the early Church.
In terms of faith and practice, as well as theology and doctrine, the most significant result of all this change in Eucharistic theology and rite was the loss of the eschatological conception of the Eucharistic rite for the Western church. Instead of a focus on the Resurrection and Ascension (transcendent, timeless and eternal aspects of the faith), the emphasis shifted to the Passion of Calvary (an event within history). While the clergy still said the Eucharistic prayers that contained the timeless and eternal, the laity did not hear or understand them, and their focus was on a suffering body nailed to a cross, and in meditations on the suffering of Jesus.
The Passion is totally in the past because it is in history. There are only two ways for the Church to participate in an historic Passion in the past: either mentally by remembering and imagining it, or by some sort of repetition of it. In other words, if the Eucharist was to have any reality outside of the mental remembering, then there was a need for a fresh sacrifice. This forced the medieval understanding of the reality of the Eucharistic sacrifice, that the priest sacrifices Christ anew at each Mass.
This was the theological and liturgical understanding that the Reformers were taught and possessed prior to the Reformation, and having rejected the notion of the reality of the Eucharistic sacrifice, they had no recourse but to enter into the historical passion by remembering and imagining it.
"There was no other way by which the reality of the eucharistic sacrifice could be preserved on the medieval understanding of it; yet the unbroken tradition of liturgy itself continued to state a different view…there was no escaping the idea that the priest sacrifices Christ afresh at every mass. However hard they tried to conciliate this view of the matter with the doctrine of the Epistle to the Hebrews of the one oblation for sins, perfect and complete (so far as history is concerned), on Calvary. The medieval theologians, and the party of the English Reformation, never quite got away from the necessity of defending the reality of the eucharistic sacrifice.
"The Reformers…took the other alternative. Since the passion is wholly in the past, the church now can only enter into it purely mentally, by remembering and imagining it. There is for them, therefore, no real sacrifice whatever in the Eucharist. The external rite is at the most an acted memorial, reminding us of something no longer present. There is nothing but a 'figurative' meaning in such phrases as 'to eat the Body and drink the Blood' of Christ, which are, as Cranmer so often insisted, no longer here but in heaven. At the most we are then especially moved by the tokens or pledges of a redemption achieved centuries ago to rejoice and believe that we have been redeemed long ago on Calvary, and to renew our allegiance and gratitude to our Redeemer. We have 'communion' with Him when we take the bread and wine as He bade us to do 'in remembrance' of Him, because the mere obedience stimulates devout emotions and aspirations, and thus deepens our purely mental union with Him which we have by conscious faith.
"All that constitutes the eucharistic action on this view is the individual reception of the bread and wine. But this in only a 'token'. The real eucharistic action (if 'action' is not a misleading term) takes place mentally in the isolated secrecy of the individual's mind. The eucharistic action is thereby altogether deprived of its old corporate significance; it is practically abolished even as a corporate act. The external action must be done by each man for himself; the real eucharistic action goes on separately, even if simultaneously, within each man's mind.
"The old conception had been of the church in its hierarchic unity entering into Christ's action, by the cooperation of all its various 'orders' (each having its own 'office', as St. Paul conceived it), and so in His action 'becoming what is eternally — His body'. The new conception is of a strictly personal mental reflection upon His action in the past. We cannot enter into it, since as a matter of history the passion is unique and finished." [4]
The dilemma for the Reformers, and in fact for the Western Roman Church in the Counter-Reformation following the Reformation, is found in the impasse which had been created in the Western liturgy caused by having created a strong devotional emphasis on the Passion, and yet having to deal with the idea of attempting to repeat it by the action of the priest in the Mass. The dilemma was heightened by the fact that the text was still essentially true to the work of St. Gregory and Alcuin (see the article on Western Latin Liturgics), and still continued the "old and simple ideas" about the Eucharist they had faithfully maintained and passed on in their liturgical works. Again, according to Dix, to find a solution:
"...What was required was a careful reconsideration by the Church of the questions of what the Eucharistic action is and how it is performed; and that all that was needed to find a way out of the impasse was a return to the liturgy itself and to its teaching. This would have offered an appeal behind both the medieval absorption of eucharistic devotion in the passion and the medieval teaching about the 'sacrifices of masses'. Most unfortunately neither side took this line at all. Instead, each of them clung to one horn of the medieval dilemma. The Reformers retained and even emphasized the medieval restriction of the significance of the Eucharist to the passion without its eternal consequences. The Counter-Reformation restated the medieval teaching about the sacrifice in a more defensible form, and fortunately with such vagueness as to permit of the reopening in quite modern times of aspects of the matter which the medieval teaching obscured or ignored."
"The advantage of the Counter-Reformation was that it conserved the text of the liturgy which dated in substance from long before the medieval development. With this it preserved those primitive statements which indicated the true solution of the medieval difficulty, even though it was a long while before the post-Tridentine church made much use of them for the purpose. The Protestants on the contrary discarded the whole text of the liturgy, and especially those elements in it which were a genuine monument of that primitive Church they professed to restore. They introduced in its place forms which derived from and expressed the medieval tradition from which their own movement sprang." [5]
Benjamin D. Williams
[1] Dix, Gregory, The Shape of the Liturgy, Seabury Press, New York, 1982, p. 598.
[2] Ibid, p. 599.
[3] ibid, p. 607.
[4] ibid, p. 623.
[5] ibid, p. 625.
