Lesson 5 The Sacramental Life of Early Christian Communitie

San Beda College Alabang THEO3: The Church, Sacraments, Prof. Carlo Enrico C.
Tinio,
CAS—Religious Studies Dept. and its Mission S.T.B., M.A.PaM.,M.A.L.
Lesson 3
THE SACRAMENTAL LIFE OF EARLY CHRISTIAN COMMUNITIES
THEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL PREMISES
The Constitution Gaudium et spes of Vatican Il, art. 58, declares that “the Church has existed
through the centuries in varying circumstances and has utilized the resources of different cultures in
its preaching to spread and explain the message of Christ, to examine and understand it more
deeply, and to express it more perfectly in the liturgy and the various aspects of the life of the
faithful.” We acquire a deeper understanding of this conciliar passage when we read it in the light of
Christ’s own incarnation. The Decree Ad gentes, art. 10, teaches that the Church must implant itself
among all peoples in the same way that Christ by his incarnation bound himself to the particular
social and cultural circumstances of the people among whom he lived.
The history of the liturgy witnesses to the Church’s incarnation in the culture and traditions
of nations. The writings of scholars like A. Baumstark, E. Bishop, G. Dix, L. Duchesne, O. Casel, J.
Jungmann, and M. Righetti, among several others, have drawn attention to the cultural
underpinning of Christian worship.1 Liturgists have become increasingly conscious of the fact that
Christian worship is so inextricably bound up with culture, that it is not possible to study its history
nor celebrate it outside its cultural context. This is one of the consequences of the Church’s
incarnation, as it has been for Christ whose words and actions are understood in the context of the
time in which he lived. This type of cultural consciousness has engendered a new approach to the
study of Christian worship. There was a time when, under the influence of Amalar of Metz, who was
active in the ninth century, liturgists explained rites and symbols in an allegorical way. Today we no
longer make recourse to the passion narrative, as they did, in order to explain the meaning of such
elements of the Mass as the Gloria, first reading, washing of hands, Eucharistic Prayer, breaking of
bread, and commingling. These are now more adequately interpreted in the light of their historical
origin.
Following art. 21 of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, we may say that there are three
approaches to the study of liturgy, namely theological, historical, and pastoral. Though these three
approaches have their specific areas of interest, they overlap and are mutually inclusive. The
theology of the liturgy, for example, takes account of both historical developments and pastoral
situations. History, on the other hand, unfolds the factors which underlie the Church’s theological
1
A. Baumstark, Liturgie comparée: principes et méthodes pour l’étude historique des liturgies chrétiennes
(Chevetogne, 1953); E. Bishop, Liturgia Historica (Oxford, 1918), O. Casel, Das christliche Kultmystertum
(Regensburg, 1960); G. Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy (London, 1986); L. Duchesne, Les Origines du culte chrétien:
Etudes sur la liturgie avant Charlemagne (Paris, 1925); J. Jungmann, The Early Liturgy to the Time of Gregory the
Great (Notre Dame, 1980); M. Righetti, Manuale di storia liturgica (Milan-Genoa, 1950-56).
1
San Beda College Alabang THEO3: The Church, Sacraments, Prof. Carlo Enrico C. Tinio,
thinking and liturgical discipline. Lastly, pastoral liturgy builds solidly on theological and historical
grounds. The study of any area of the liturgy should include history. We know that the postconciliar
revision of liturgical books was strongly supported by historical data. The renewal of the liturgy was
launched by Vatican II with an historical orientation. It is useful to remember, however, that history is
grafted on people’s culture. For this reason the study of liturgical history will be more integral and
beneficial, if it is approached from the cultural epochs in which the Church lived.
Historical data need to be analyzed and interpreted.2 The liturgical historian should thus be
equipped with a critical mind vis-a-vis the development of rites. Every development has its historical
justification, though not necessarily its value. Not every formulary, not every rite and symbol from
the past, and not every feast that has been instituted has perennial significance for the Church. Thus
the reform of the Roman Missal willed by art. 50 of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium
eliminated many of the medieval accretions which blurred the meaning and purpose of the Mass.
Some formularies, though venerable in age, had to be modified in order to be more contemporary.
The Instruction Comme le prévoit admits that “sometimes the meaning of a text can no longer be
understood, either because it is contrary to modern Christian ideas (as in terrena despicere or ut
inimicos sanctae Ecclesiae humiliare digneris) or because it has less relevance today (as in some
phrases intended to combat Arianism) or because it no longer expresses the true original meaning as
in some obsolete forms of lenten penance.”3 In the same way some feasts were suppressed, like the
Finding of the Cross because of its legendary origin, or lowered in rank, like the feasts of the
Immaculate Heart and Joseph the Worker because of their decreased political relevance.
Likewise the liturgical historian should be able to critique historical data in light of the
principles of Vatican II. After the promulgation of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium historians
are called to examine their data in light of this document. Its basic principles include the following:
the central position of the paschal mystery, the role of the word of God in the liturgy, active
participation which involves the use of the vernacular, congregational singing and acclamations, and
lay ministries, as well as the communal aspect of the sacraments and sacramentals. These are the
conciliar principles with which historians are to judge whether the data they have at hand are still
liturgically acceptable or not in the postconciliar Church. For example, the performance of a baroque
Mass with choir and orchestra can reduce the assembly to a mute audience. This is obviously
contrary to the principle of active participation.
In the course of centuries the liturgy has integrated local elements that still adorn it.
Remarkable are the Greco-Roman influences on Christian worship during its formative stage. These
elements need to be closely examined in order to discover their theological premises. They also need
to be carefully reviewed in order to establish their relevance to today’s world. Christian liturgy
cannot consist merely of things from the past. In the process of examination and review it is useful
2
A.-G. Martimort, “L’Histoire et le probléme liturgique contemporains,” Mens concordet voci (Tournai, 1983)
177-92.
3
English text in Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979 (Collegeville, 1982) no. 24, 287.
2
to remember that sometimes the historical background of rites and symbols more than the liturgical
formularies accompanying them can be a more fruitful approach. For example, the rite of
commingling at Mass is interpreted adequately by a recourse to its history rather than to its
allegorical meaning.
The historical approach is also a valid way of evaluating and critiquing the implementation of
Vatican II’s liturgical reform. While its liturgical principles are unassailable, one can always raise
questions on how they have been realized in the postconciliar books.4 Not everything in the finished
product is beyond reproach and ulterior improvement. In this context one might call into question
some concrete instances of conciliar implementation by the Missal of Paul VI. Yet the historian may
not ignore the fact that art. 50 of the Constitution on the Liturgy has willed a radical reform of the
Missal of Pius V.
Lastly, the historical approach is useful for the correct interpretation of the conciliar agenda
regarding the retrieval of the classical form of the Roman liturgy. This is an option that is articulated
by the Constitution in arts. 21, 34, and 50 on the basis of historical studies done during this century on
the Roman rite. By identifying its classical features the conciliar reformers were able to isolate the
medieval accretions, particularly during the Franco-Germanic period. Critics have accused this option
for being archeological and romantic.
Objectively, however, the romana sobrietas and the practical sense of the postconciliar
liturgy are realistic measures for fostering active participation and for encouraging local Churches to
inculturate the new typical edition of liturgical books. Something similar happened from the eighth
century onward when the Franco-Germanic Churches inculturated the classical form of the Roman
liturgy.
THE JEWISH ROOTS
The beginnings of Christian worship are firmly grafted on the Jewish cult in the time of Jesus
5
Christ. That is why, the Jewish religion remains a constitutive element of our worship. Christian
liturgy is unthinkable without the Jewish rites it inherited, without the psalms which the Church
continues to pray, without the Jewish prayerful memorial of God’s deeds expressed in an attitude of
thanksgiving, praise, and supplications, and without the conviction that our worship represents the
last phase of God’s work in salvation history.
4
A. Nocent, Le renouveau liturgique. Une rélecture (Paris, 1993).
5
P. Grelot, La liturgie dans le Nouveau Testament (Paris, 1991); W. Oesterley, The Jewish Background of the
Christian Liturgy (Oxford, 1925); R. Beckwith, “The Jewish Background to Christian Worship,” The Study of
Liturgy, C. Jones, ed. (London 1979) 39-51; E. Fisher, ed, The Jewish Roots of Christian Liturgy (New York, 1990)
39-51.
3
This period can be characterized, in the words of S. Marsili, as “continuity with the Jewish
tradition, on the one hand, and Christian novelty, on the other.”6 This spirit of continuity and novelty
explains the attitude of Jesus toward the cult of his people, an attitude of fidelity to Jewish traditions
combined with the critical spirit of a reformer. We read in Matthew 5:17: “I did not come to abolish
the law and the prophets but to bring them to perfection.”
Jesus respected the sacrificial practices of his people. He did not reject temple sacrifices, but
he taught his followers that such sacrifices should include reconciliation and communion with one’s
brothers and sisters (Matt 5:23-24). It is not out of place to imagine that as a faithful Jew he offered
sacrifices and oblations, as on the feast of Passover. As long as the old dispensation lasted, he
regarded the temple of Jerusalem as the “house of God,” as the “house of prayer” (Matt 21:13; Mark
11:17). His violent reaction to those who defiled, the holiness of the temple is proof of this (Mark
11:15). Yet it would seem that Jesus associated himself with the synagogue more than with the
temple, perhaps because he did not belong to the priestly line of Aaron (Matt 4:23; Mark 1:38-39;
Luke 4:16; John 5:59). We know that the prayer he composed for his disciples reflects the synagogal
tradition of the Shemoneh Ezreh or Amida.
Like every faithful Jew, Jesus observed the sabbath. But in his arguments with the Pharisees
he made it clear that the sabbath was instituted for people and that people were not made for the
sabbath (Mark 2:27). Sabbath rest does not mean refraining from works of love toward those who
are in need. Thus he healed the sick and performed miracles on the sabbath. And he declared: “The
Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath” (Mark 2:28).
Lastly Jesus joined his people on their great festivals. He went up to Jerusalem to celebrate
the Passover (Matt 26:17-19). He observed the day of Pentecost (John 5:1), the feast of the
Tabernacles (John 7:10), and the Dedication of the Temple (John 10:22-23). Yet he announced that
the time would come when people would no longer worship in Jerusalem (John 4:20-21), that the
temple would be destroyed (Matt 21:1-3), and that true worshipers would worship the Father “in
spirit and truth” (John 4:23-24). By this Jesus signified that to encounter God there would no longer
be a need for the temple because God could be found in the heart of those upon whom the Holy
Spirit had been bestowed. Perhaps his most astounding declaration on this matter was that his risen
body would be the new temple (John 2:21), the “place” where all would encounter God in worship.
The reform of the Jewish cult did not consist only of critique and purification of some of its
components. It involved something more profound. Jesus reinterpreted elements of his people’s
religion in the context of his own doctrine and mission. Thus the paschal meal was to be a meal in his
memory, baptism was to be administered in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit, and the Scriptures were to be read in the light of his person. Jesus did not eliminate them nor
did he change their features, but he gave them a radically new meaning. In so doing he in fact
6
S. Marsili, “Continuità ebraica e novità cristiana,” Anamnesis 2 (Casale Monferrato, 1978) 13-39.
4
instituted a new religion and a new form of worship, though he solidly established them on Jewish
traditions. It is in this sense that we speak of continuity and novelty.
The disciples of Jesus followed the footsteps of their Master. We do not have any detailed
description of the shape of the liturgy during the apostolic period, but the basic plan can be gleaned
from several New Testament passages. Luke 24:13-35 reflects the Eucharist of the Apostolic Church
which included the awareness that it was the risen Lord himself who explained the Scriptures and
broke the bread. Baptism, which meant “washing of water by the word” (Eph 5:26) was
administered “in the name of Jesus Christ” for the remission of sin and the gift of the Holy Spirit
(Acts 2:38). The apostles laid hands on those who received a ministerial office in the community (Acts
6:6; 13:3; 1 Tim 5:22). The sick of the community were prayed over and anointed with oil by the
presbyters “in the name of the Lord” (Jas 5:14-15). Christians were exhorted to sing psalms (Col 3:16;
Jas 5:13). The first disciples continued to enter the synagogues on the sabbath (Acts 13:14) and to
pray in the temple (Acts 3:1). Though they observed the sabbath, they gathered on Sunday for the
preaching of the word and the breaking of bread (Acts 20:7). The apostle Paul, who was preaching in
Asia Minor, hurried back to Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost (Acts 20:16).
The actuations of the disciples, in imitation of Christ’s own attitude, were marked by a sense
of continuity with the Jewish tradition side by side the growing awareness of Christian novelty. Even
after the temple of Jerusalem was razed to the ground in the year 70, the communities of Syria and
Palestine continued to observe the Jewish cult together with Christian practices: sabbath and
Sunday, synagogue and Eucharist, circumcision and baptism. Perhaps this was the context of the
criticism by the author of Didaché, written in Syria around the year go, against those who still
observed the Jewish daily prayers and days of fasting.7
It is useful at this point to note that the temple, as long as it stood, was a point of reference
to the first disciples. However, the synagogue more than the temple imprinted its mark on their
worship which consisted largely of the preaching of the word. Indeed they considered the
synagogue the nucleus of the Christian community. Even after they were excommunicated from
synagogal fellowship, they spoke of their community, its leadership, and some of their rites in words
that evoked the synagogue (Jas 2:2; 5:13-15).8 But it was the domestic tradition in Jewish worship,
which consisted mainly of the sabbath ritual meal, passover meal, and blessings, that had a lasting
influence on Christian worship, particularly the preaching of the word (Acts 20:8) and the breaking of
bread (Acts 2:46). Baptism also, as the occasion demanded, was administered at home (Acts 9:18;
10:22, 48). Thus what was distinctive of the Christian liturgy, namely preaching, baptism, and
Eucharist, took place in a domestic environment.
7
J. Audet, ed, Didaché (Paris, 1958) 234.
8
S. Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday (Rome, 1977) 157-9.
5
The attitude of critical fidelity should accompany the study of Christian worship. Jesus did
not abolish the traditions of his people, though he critiqued them in order to bring them to
perfection. And the first disciples kept much of their religious traditions, though they saw in them
the foreshadowing of Christ’s mystery. The shape of Christian worship which we inherited from the
past is part of our tradition, but its human components need always to be critiqued and, if necessary,
purified. It can happen that liturgical norms and practices become another form of sabbath that
ignores the basic law of love and service and forgets that it has been instituted to respond to human
needs. It can also happen that in our liturgical celebrations we lose the sense of continuity with the
Church’s history and traditions or, on the other hand, become so complacent with their actual shape
that we reject anything that looks new. The novelty of Christian worship is the eternal person and
mystery of Christ, but these need to be reexpressed again and again in different languages, rites, and
symbols in order to make the image of Christ in the liturgy more clearly visible in our time. The
history of the liturgy attests to the fact that this was what the Church has done in the course of
centuries.
CHRISTIAN WORSHIP IN THE GRECO-ROMAN WORLD
Coming out of the Jewish environment, the Church in the West had to face the challenges of
evangelization presented by the culture and religions of Greeks and Romans.9 How did the
missionary Church cope with the new situation and what effect did such an encounter have on its
worship? In many ways this question continues to present itself in various missionary circumstances.
In recent history a foremost example was the tragic Chinese Rites controversy (1645-1939) revolving
around the relationship between Christian liturgy and ancestral veneration which the Chinese
consider the bedrock of their civilization.10
A certain tension could still be felt during the Greco-Roman period between fidelity to Jewish
traditions and the Christian sense of independence. Such tension was present in the quartodeciman
controversy. The Quartodecimans, who lived mostly in Asia Minor, kept the Easter feast on 14 Nisan,
the full moon of springtime, regardless of whether or not it was Sunday. They based their theology
on the typology of the paschal lamb which the Jews immolated on 14 Nisan. Easter for them meant
Christ's sacrifice. Polycarp of Smyrna defended its apostolicity against Pope Anicetus who wanted
them to observe Easter only on Sunday, the day of Christ's resurrection. Polycrates of Ephesus did
the same in his debate with Pope Victor I, who in 196 threatened to excommunicate the
Quartodecimans of Asia Minor. The controversy was resolved by the Council of Nicea in 325 which
9
A. Chupungco, “Greco-Roman culture and liturgical adaptation,” Not 153 (1979) 202-18.
10
F. Bontinck, La lutte autour de la liturgie chinoise aux XVIIe et XVIIEe siècles (Louvain, 1962); J. Dournes,
L’Offrande des peuples (Paris, 1967).
6
fixed Easter on Sunday in order that, as Constantine’s letter on the Council affirmed, “there will be
nothing in common between us and the hostile race of the Jews.”11
Another trait of this missionary period was the Church’s tenacious disdain of pagan religions.
This attitude obviously originated in Jewish monotheism which. regarded pagan religions as the
creation of the devil. Justin Martyr, for example, accused the Mithraic rites of counterfeiting the
Christian Eucharist with its initiatory meal of bread and water.12 Tertullian, on the other hand,
mocked the initiation baths of Isis and Mithras which, for their extravangance and expense,
accomplished nothing, unlike Christian baptism which purified and effected salvation with a few
words and at no expense.13
This negative attitude seems to be at work in those situations where the Church lives in a
pagan environment. It is a measure of self-defense and an affirmation of its identity. Even today
Christians in countries where they are a minority tend to avoid contacts with the rites of other
religions, even if they are pertinent and can be suitably integrated into Christian worship. But soon
after such a situation is overcome, as we observe in the fourth century when paganism began to
weaken, the Church puts on a more open and discerning attitude toward pagan rites. This is the case
with the mystery rites which exerted much influence on the development of Christian initiation,
especially by the fourth century.14 The Eleusinian rites, the Egyptian rites of Osiris and Isis, the
Phrygian rites of Attis, and the Persian rites of Mithras all began to wane during the fourth century.
This was the time when Christians began to borrow some of their linguistic and ritual elements.
The mystery rites influenced the Christian thinking on the sacrament of baptism which in the
time of Justin Martyr received the name Фοτισμός (potisomos) or enlightenment. The mystery rites
were in fact essentially a process of enlightenment. There existed a lexicon for initiation common to
Christians and pagans. Both groups were familiar with words like λουτρόυ or washing, μύομεος or
initiate, μυστήριον or the rite, and μύστης or the person in charge of initiation. There were also
resemblances in the components of initiation rites, like the scrutinies, the learning of sacred
formulas, fasting, stripping, immersion, the putting on of white garment, and the meal of initiation.
Other similarities are the disciplina arcani or the discipline of secrecy regarding the elements of
initiation rites and the consequent practice of mystagogy after initiation in order to explain to the
initiate what had taken place during the rite. There is no need to point out that while Christians and
pagans shared in some instances the same vocabulary and rites, they meant radically different
things.
11
M. Richard, “La question pascale au IIe siècle,” L’Orient Syrien 6 (1961) 177-212; W. Huber, Passa und Ostern.
Untersuchungenzur Osterfeier der alten Kirche (Berlin, 1969); A. Chupungco, Shaping the Easter Feast
(Washington, D.C., 1992) 43 – 59.
12
Justin Martyr, 1 Apology, c. 66, L. Pautigny, ed. (Paris, 1904) 140-2.
13
Tertullian, De Baptismo, c. 2, R. Refoulé, ed., SCh 35 (1952) 65-6.
14
Cf. E. Yarnold, “Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries in the Fourth Century,” HJ XIII (1972) 247-67.
7
This period is marked also by efforts to integrate into Christian worship those cultural
elements that were not strict components of the pagan cult. Tertullian, for example, used the legal
term eieratio, or cessation of contractual obligation, and such military terms as sacramenti testatio
and signaculum fidei or promise of loyalty to the emperor, when he spoke about baptismal
renunciation and profession of faith respectively. On the ritual side we have examples like the
baptismal anointings, footwashing of neophytes, and the cup of milk mixed with honey. These rites,
though employed also in mystery rites, were explained by Tertullian, Hippolytus of Rome, and
Ambrose more from their cultural than their cultic context.15 It is useful to note here that in most
instances the cultural elements, whether religious or not, were vested with a new meaning through
the method of biblical typology. We may consider this as the Church’s way of inserting culture into
the framework of salvation history. God continues to accomplish his saving plan in every age by
making use of people’s cultural heritage.
During this period we also observe the development of liturgical languages.16 Outside
Palestine and Syria xo.vi, the popular type of Greek different from the literary or classical, was the
language spoken by a good number of people both in the eastern and western parts of the Roman
Empire. By the year 64, when the Church of Rome was established, κοινή was prevalent in the
imperial city, not only among the eastern immigrants but also among the Romans themselves.
Consequently the Church of Rome adopted it as its official and liturgical language. It will be recalled
that during the first two centuries ten out of fourteen bishops of Rome were Greek-speaking.
The Latinization of the liturgy began in Northern Africa from the third century, thanks to the
efforts of such writers as Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, Lactantius, and Augustine. From them we
inherited liturgical words like plebs, sacramentum, ordo, and institutio. It was also in Northern Africa
around the year 250 that the first authorized Latin version of Scripture, often quoted by Cyprian,
appeared for liturgical use. Pope Victor I (+203), an African by birth, made the first attempt to
introduce Latin into the liturgy of the Roman Church. The result was a bilingual liturgy, Greek for the
prayer formularies and Latin for the readings. This situation lasted until the fourth century during the
papacy of Damasus I (+384), when Rome spoke Latin once again. However, sometime in the seventh
century because of a new wave of migration from the East, the Roman liturgy became bilingual once
more at least for the readings and some rites of catechumenate.
The shift from Greek κοινή to Latin and the transitional periods of bilingualism speak highly
of the Roman Church’s pastoral sensitivity. Though the shift to Latin in the fourth century came a
hundred years later and the use of contemporary vernacular languages several hundred years after,
15
These patristic examples are treated at greater length in section 3 of volume 2 under the heading:
Inculturation of the Liturgy.
16
C. Vogel, Medieval Liturgy: Introduction to the Sources (Washington, D.C., 1986) 294-7; Th. Klauser, A Short
History of the Western Liturgy (Oxford, 1979) 18-24, 37-47.
8
one must admire the enterprising courage of the Roman Church whose veneration of its traditions is
proverbial. Most probably it had not been easy for the Roman Church to abandon the language it
had used in apostolic times and the age of martyrs. But its pastoral sense spurred it to decide in favor
of a language the people understood. Nor was it without hesitation on the part of Vatican II to
permit the use of the modern languages in the liturgy. This part of history teaches us that fidelity to
tradition means adapting to the needs of people in every age and of every cultural tradition.
Another feature of this period was the domestic celebration of the breaking of bread, as Acts
2:46 and 20:7-12 narrate. Domestic liturgy was the tradition the disciples brought with them to the
Greco-Roman world. The lector Emeritus admitted to the proconsul of Carthage during the
persecution of 304 that “it is in my house that we hold the dominicum,” that is, the Lord’s meal.17
Converts offered the use of their homes for the Eucharist. Among the Romans the traditional house
was a four-sided structure built around an open courtyard with a well of water at the center. In large
houses the triclinium or dining room could be easily rearranged for the Eucharist. Rome claims
several such houses which can still be visited under the churches of John and Paul, Cecilia, Clement,
and Pudentiana. When there were no persecutions, for these were sporadic, Christians bought
houses and adapted them permanently for liturgical use. A famous example of such churches is the
third-century house at Dura-Europos on the Euphrates. It had a function room which could contain a
large eucharistic assembly and a smaller room for baptism.18 The houses owned or acquired by
Christians for liturgical use came to be known as domus ecclesiae, the house of the Church.
Whether it be for theological reasons or practical considerations, Christians did not celebrate
in temples, whose cella would have been too narrow and dark and whose open colonnades would
have been unsuitable for the meal. Nor did they celebrate in the dark underground rooms of the
catacombs with the prospect of eating the Lord’s supper amidst entombed bodies. They chose to
continue the apostolic tradition of home Eucharists. Modern attempts to pattern the architectural
design of new churches after temples of other religions seem to miss the point about the Lord’s
supper as a meal. The domus ecclesiae rather than the temple symbolizes the Christian concept of
hospitality toward the strangers and the poor of the community with whom the Lord’s meal is
shared.
Thus the Eucharist, the distinctive celebration of Christians, was held at home because it is
the meal of the household of God. This is a tradition that the liturgy has lost in the course of time. Its
message, however, should continue to live on in our thinking about the eucharistic assembly as
God’s family, in our hospitality toward those who are strangers to the community, in our search for
convivial fellowship with all regardless of their socio-economic status, and in our effort to provide
people with a liturgical space where they can return to, as to their home, in order to refresh their
tired spirits.
17
Acta Saturnini, Datii, etc. PL 710-11.
18
J. Boguniowski, Domus Ecclesiae. Der Ort der Eucharistiefeier in der ersten Jahrhunderten (Rome, 1986); N.
Duval, “L’espace liturgiques dans les églises paléochrétiennes,” MD 193 (1993) 7-29.
9
THE CONSTANTINIAN ERA
The general conditions that prevailed in the Church during the era of Constantine are well known.
Free at last and a grateful recipient of imperial favors, the Church advanced with giant strides in
every aspect of its life and mission. This period saw the flowering of patristic theology and the
insertion of the Church into the cultural and socio-political stream of the Greco-Roman civilization.
These factors exerted a profound influence on the shape of the liturgy. From an intimate household
celebration the liturgy evolved into something both solemn and regal. Not only the Roman rite but
also most of the Oriental rites at this time flourished within the framework of the imperial culture.19
The effects of the Constantinian benevolence toward the Church are immediately visible in
the liturgy. After Constantine’s conversion there came a dramatic shift from the simplicity of homes
to the splendor of imperial basilicas.20 These roofed structures were rectangular in shape and divided
inside into three or five naves marked by rows of columns. At the far end was the apse where the
emperor had his throne. Taken over by Christians, the domestic dining room gave way to the large
public halls where there was ample room at the nave for the assembly and enough space in the
sanctuary for the table, the ambo, the bishop’s chair, and the seats for presbyters and ministers.
The first Christian basilica was the Lateran palace, which Constantine gave as a gift to Pope Sylvester.
The emperor ordered the construction of new basilicas on the Vatican hill where the apostle Peter
was buried, at Ostian Way where the apostle Paul had been martyred, at the Campo Verano where
the deacon Lawrence was buried, and in several other places outside the City such as Ostia, Albano,
Capua, and Naples. On her part his mother Helena had the basilicas in Bethlehem, Nazareth, and
Jerusalem constructed to commemorate aspects of Christ's life.
When Constantine decreed in 321 the observance of Sunday rest for the empire, the
celebration of the Eucharist acquired a more solemn form.21 The atmosphere and architectural
ambience of basilicas demanded, at any rate, a more splendid form of celebration. The prayer
formularies were rhetorically enriched in consonance with the ambient of the imperial hall. Oriental
euchologies, like the Euchologion of Serapion, assimilated the literary traits of Hellenism: solemn and
rhetorical, and a tendency to use abstract terms, like ineffable and infinite, for God. The Roman
canon, which dates around this period, presupposes an ambient like the basilica. It has all the flourish
of a grand Roman oration: solemn, hieratic, and literary, and the tendency to use juridical terms. As
regards liturgical gestures, some of these were copied from the ones used in the imperial court,
19
For further characterization, see J. Jungmann, “The Age of Constantine,” in The Early Liturgy to the Time
of Gregory the Great, 12-198.
20
R. Cabié, The Eucharist, vol. 2, The Church at Prayer (Collegeville, 1986) 7-123; E. Foley, From Age to Age:
How Christians Celebrated the Eucharist (Chicago, 1991).
21
W. Rordorf, Der Sonntag. Geschichte des Ruhe- und Gottesdiensttages im ältesten Christentum (Ziirich,
1962).
10
especially in Byzantium. Lastly, the space and environment of the basilica strongly influenced the
development of liturgical music. While music in the house church had been rendered practically by
anyone who could sing, it now required a trained choir. In the West, especially Rome, the choir was
composed of clerics who were trained from youth to a very high technical standard of chant-
singing.22
In 318 Constantine conferred on bishops civil jurisdiction over court litigations which involved
Christians. Decisions handed by bishops were considered final. This implied that they, and to some
extent the presbyters, had to be assigned a corresponding place in the civil hierarchy. Thus the clergy
acquired the titles and insignia that state dignitaries enjoyed.23 Examples of such insignia for bishops,
particularly the bishop of Rome, are the imperial cappa magna, throne, lorum or the pallium,
ceremonial maniple, camelaucum which developed into crown or miter, and gold ring. Bishops
acquired the privilege to be greeted by a choir as they entered the basilica, to have their portraits
hung in ecclesiastical offices, to be served at the throne with veiled hands, and to be honored with
prostration and kissing of feet.24
The Constantinian period witnessed other liturgical developments. Worthy of note are the
rites of Christian initiation which received their most developed ritual shape at this time. Both in the
East and the West these rites were celebrated with great solemnity, especially during the Easter Vigil.
Eusebius of Caesarea reports that Emperor Constantine, though still a catechumen, ordered huge
torches to be lighted throughout the city on Easter night to honor the neophytes.25 The description
of the rites of initiation made by Cyril of Jerusalem and by Ambrose of Milan in their respective Sees
shows such a solemnity and an organization as would not have been possible a century earlier.26
The integration of the Church in the socio-political structure of the Constantinian Empire had
its effect also on the liturgical language. A remarkable case is the type of language used in the
ordination prayers for bishops, presbyters, and deacons. Though these formularies appeared in the
Veronese libelli around the year 558, they probably antedate the libelli themselves. The three
formularies constantly use words borrowed from the socio-political system of the empire. These
words are ordo, gradus, dignitas, and honor which are part of the ranking system among government
officials. Parallel to this Roman system the clerical hierarchy was defined according to rank and the
corresponding dignity of office and honor. Thus at this early period the ecclesiastical offices were
regarded, in some way, as equivalents of the Roman institution. The Roman senatus populusque
22
J. Quasten, Music and Worship in Pagan and Christian Antiquity (Washington, D.C., 1983).
23
Th. Klauser, “Bischöfe auf dem Richterstuhl,” Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 5 (Münster, 1962) 129-
74; Idem, A Short History of the Western Liturgy, 32 – 7.
24
R. Berger, “Liturgische Gewander und Insignien,” Gottesdienst der Kirche 3 (Regensburg, 1987) 309-46.
25
De Vita Constantini IV, 22, PL XX 1169.
26
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catéchéses mystagogiques, A. Piédagnel, ed., SCh 126 (1966); Ambrose of Milan, De
Sacramentis, De Mysteriis, B. Botte, ed., SCh 25 (1961).
11
found its counterpart in the Church’s ordo populusque, that is, the hierarchy and the faithful.27 There
is, of course, no question that even then the office of pastoral ministry or shepherding continued to
be the basic role of persons in holy orders, but it was expressed in the socio-political language,
insignia, and ceremonials of the Constantinian era.
Another trait of this period was the trend toward a relative uniformity among Eastern and
Western Churches regarding the observance of some liturgical practices.28 There were two chief
reasons for this. The first was the exchange of liturgical resources among several Churches,
especially in the East. Antioch, for example, played an important role in the development of the
liturgy of Alexandria. Even after the separation of the Nestorians of the Syro-oriental rite from
the Monophysites of the Syro-western rite, exchanges between the two groups continued in the
area of liturgical rites and texts. Furthermore, several Syriac and Coptic euchologies were
translations of the Greek formularies. And the Byzantine anaphora of St. Basil is actually an
elaborated form of a shorter anaphora which was used in Alexandria.
The exchange of resources did not only enrich the liturgical tradition of the receiving Church;
it also brought about a certain sense of universal communion among the Churches and respect for
each other’s traditions. Relative uniformity in the liturgy attests to the attitude of veneration with
which the smaller local churches held the prayer formularies and other liturgical practices of such
major sees as Jerusalem, Rome, Alexandria, and Byzantium.
For the Churches in the West the trend toward relative uniformity is explained by the
tendency on the part of bishops to exercise control over liturgical texts, especially for the Eucharist.
The underlying reason for this was the danger of heresy. We know that until then there had been
greater freedom in composing formularies for use in the liturgy. The author of Didaché, Justin
Martyr, and Hippolytus of Rome stated this as a fact. Hippolytus himself composed a eucharistic
prayer, but he merely offered it as a model that the bishop did not have to recite from memory. All
that Hippolytus required was sound doctrine.29 But by the time of Augustine of Hippo prayer
formularies were being composed for circulation not only by those who had no expertise in the
matter but also by heretics. He noted that unsuspecting people used them, when in fact they
contained doctrinal errors.30 The Council of Carthage decreed in 407 that the prayers to be used
for worship should be those that had been approved by the council.
27
D. Power, Ministers of Christ and His Church (London, 1969).
28
B. Botte, “Le problème de l’adaptation en liturgie,” Revue du clergé africain 18 (1963) 311-6; S. Marsili,
“Unità e diversità nella Liturgia delle origini,” Anamnesis 2, 41-5.
29
Hippolytus, Traditio Apostolica 9, B. Botte, ed. (Miinster, 1989) 28.
30
Augustine, De Baptismo contra Donatistas 6, 47, CSEL 51, 323; A. Nocent, “Dall’improvvisazione alla
fissazione delle formule e dei riti,” Anamnesis 2, 131-5; A. Bouley, From Freedom to Formula (Washington, D.C.,
1981).
12
Fear of heresy was one of the chief factors for the ecclesiastical control of liturgical texts.
Indeed, if these texts proclaim publicly what the Church believes, there is every reason to ensure
their orthodoxy. The liturgy, after all, cannot be a theological forum where each presider is free to air
his or her personal opinions. This seems to be a valid reason for the intervention by ecclesiastical
authority on matters concerning the content of certain liturgical formularies.
A final point to consider in connection with the Constantinian era is the development of the
liturgical calendar on the basis of the festivals observed in the empire.31 Much earlier, around the
year 120, the gnostic sect of Basilides already celebrated the Epiphany as the Christian counterpart of
the Alexandrian festival in honor of Aion. This method of “Christianization” continued to be used in
the succeeding centuries. Around the year 336 the Christians in Rome began to celebrate on
December 25 the birth of Christ. In the Julian calendar the winter solstice fell on this day and was
marked by the Saturnalia and since 274, also by the Mithraic Natale solis invicti. It is certain that
the introduction of Christmas was part of the Roman Church’s agenda of counteracting festivals of
pagan origin. From the second half of the fourth century western Churches also kept the birth of
John the Baptist on June 24, the day of the summer solstice. It is likely that the date was chosen to
balance the two solstices. Another feast coming from this period which was directly influenced by a
pagan festival is St. Peter’s Chair in Rome. The Roman Chronograph of 354 assigns to February 22 the
Natale Petri de cathedra. In February the Romans celebrated for eight days the festival of Parentalia
in honor of their ancestors. Part of the celebration was a funeral meal called charistia or cara cognatio
during which the ancestors were represented by an empty chair. This Christian counterpart was a
way of honoring the apostle Peter, the ancestor in faith of the Church of Rome.
In conclusion, it can be said that the religious and socio-political culture of the era of
Constantine has left an indelible mark on the Church and its liturgy. At this time the Christian liturgy
became the liturgy of the Greco-Roman empire, celebrated in the splendor of the basilicas. This new
form of liturgy was vested with the beauty and nobility of the imperial culture, with what was
considered worthy of divine cult. Such types of celebration, with all the insignia, though modified, of
the imperial past, can sometimes appear to people of today as something theatrical. But the basic
question is whether we are able to separate the “imperial” shape from our liturgy without opening
the door to banality, without disregarding the principle that divine worship deserves all that is
beautiful and noble in human culture.
CONCLUSION
The early centuries in the history of the Christian liturgy can be considered formative under
different aspects. Continuity with those Jewish traditions which Christ and the first disciples handed
over to the Church will always be a characteristic trait of Christian liturgy.
31
E. O. James, Seasonal Feasts and Festivals (New York, 1961); A. Adam, The Liturgical Year (New York, 1981);
P. Jounel, Le renouveau du culte des saints (Rome, 1986).
13
Underlying this assertion is a theological premise, namely that in the liturgy Christ, who
associates the Church to himself, continues to exercise his priestly office whereby he fulfilled God’s
plan of salvation. In this sense the liturgy should be regarded as the last phase of God’s interventions
in salvation history. The liturgy cannot be understood outside the context of its Jewish origin.
The Greco-Roman period offers historical models to the Church as a missionary community.
In imitation of this period the dialogue between the Church and the various cultures in the world
must go on in a spirit of openness and, at the same time, critical evaluation.
Furthermore, it should be remembered that our liturgy has inherited much of the cultural
wealth of Greeks and Romans, and that much of it has passed the test of time. History teaches us to
respect and even venerate sound traditions. At the same time this period tells us that it is part of our
tradition as Church to inculturate the liturgy in our own times and, when called for, also to create
new forms that are able to comunicate faithfully and effectively to the people of today the message
of Christian worship.
The Constantinian era had a dramatic effect on the shape of the Christian liturgy both in the
East and the West, as it had on the entire life and activities of the Church. The effect can be felt even
today, despite centuries of changes in the shape of the liturgy. Again this era has become a solid
pillar in our liturgical tradition. For most liturgical families it had a formative role and hence cannot be
easily dismissed. This does not mean, however, that some of the cultural elements coming from that
period, like the socio-political language, have not in fact outgrown their relevance. They may need to
be reviewed in the spirit of Vatican II’s liturgical renewal.
Source:
Chupungco, A.J., “History of the Liturgy Until the Fourth Century,” in Handbook for Liturgical Studies,
Vol 1: Introduction to the Liturgy, ed. A.J. Chupungco (Collegeville Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1997)
95-113.
Select Bibliography
Adam, A. Foundations of Liturgy: An Introduction to Its History and Practice. Trans. M. J. O'Connell.
Collegeville, Minn., 1992.
Bradshaw, P. The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship. London, 1992.
Jungmann, J. The Early Liturgy to the Time of Gregory the Great. Liturgical Studies 6. Notre Dame, Ind.,
1959.
14
Righetti, M. Manuale di storia liturgica. Vol. 1, Introduzione generale. 3rd ed. Milan, 1964.
Srawley, J. The Early History of the Liturgy. 2nd rev. ed. Cambridge, 1949.
Wegman, H. Christian Worship in East and West: A Study Guide to Liturgical History. Trans. G. W.
Lathrop. New York, 1985.
15

Lesson 5 The Sacramental Life of Early Christian Communitie

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lesson 5 The Sacramental Life of Early Christian Communitie

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lesson 5 The Sacramental Life of Early Christian Communitie

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

San Beda College Alabang THEO3: The Church, Sacraments, Prof. Carlo Enrico C.

THEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL PREMISES

THE JEWISH ROOTS

CHRISTIAN WORSHIP IN THE GRECO-ROMAN WORLD

THE CONSTANTINIAN ERA

You might also like