|
|
|
After a very long and very hot summer break I’d like
to welcome you all back to our weekly Thursday evening talks. The summer
break is four months and after taking it easy for so long it needs a bit
of a push to get oneself back into the regular routine. One of the
problems faced by priests giving regular talks is finding new subjects to
talk about. After almost four years we have covered a wide range of topics
and as people come and go many of you were not part of the group when we
covered the early subjects so I think it’s time to come full circle and
see again some of those earlier subjects. One of the earlier subjects we
saw was the interpretation of the Divine Liturgy. These were a series of
talks which lasted for six weeks and could have gone for two more if we
didn’t have to close for the summer break. I think it is time to look at
this again but hopefully not as a carbon copy repeat of what was said then
which truthfully cannot be avoided, but hopefully also with some
supplementary commentary of which we didn’t take into account of the last
time. Today’s talk will be an introduction to what will be said in the
following weeks and should help you to understand how the various actions,
symbols and interpretations of the Liturgy developed.
The Divine Liturgy
has many symbolic meanings and can be interpreted in different ways
depending on how the fathers themselves who gave us the interpretations
understood these symbols. In general the interpretation of the Liturgy and
theology as a whole is based on the school of thought a certain father was
most influenced by. Thus to understand theology in the Orthodox Church we
need to understand the early schools of thought that were influential in
the development of Orthodox theology and subsequently the Liturgical
interpretations. In the early Church there were two schools of thought
that developed around the same time: the Schools of Alexandria and
Antioch. Although both Christian they developed different interpretations
of scripture and most of the early heresies derived from taking one or the
other of these teachings to extremes. The theology that prevailed and what
we call Orthodox was a good balance of both schools. So let’s have a look
at these two schools which played such an important role in the
Christological controversies of the third, fourth and fifth centuries.
Alexandria is
the oldest. The city was founded by Alexander the Great in 332BC,
Alexandria became the second most important city of the ancient world. It
was a point where east and west met and took pride in its famous library
and its reputation as the centre for Greek philosophy and learning. It was
here that the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek (285BC) making
them widely accessible to the Greek speaking Jews of the dispersion. The
translation is known as the Septuagint version and is the version used by
Christ and the Apostles when quoting from the Old Testament and thus has
remained in use by the Orthodox Church as the most authoritative and
authentic. It was also in Alexandria where the philosopher Philo, a
Hellenic Jew (c. 25 BC-AD 40) strove to integrate Greek philosophy with
Judaism. Philo was convinced that Moses was the greatest of philosophers
and the originator of much of the Greek philosophy. He took the Old
Testament and gave it an allegorical interpretation, in other words, for
him the written word should not be taken literally but has concealed
within it a higher spiritual meaning.
Two centuries after
Philo in 185AD the renowned catechetical school in Alexandria under the
leadership of the converted Stoic philosopher, Pantaenus, employed the
same allegorical interpretational approach to the New Testament as Philo
had given to the Old Testament. The philosophical approach, influenced by
Platonism and Stoicism, to allegorically interpret the New Testament is
seen more clearly in the teachings of Pantaenus’ pupil and successor,
Clement of Alexandria (c.155-220). He taught that just as God gave the Law
to the Jews, so he gave philosophy to the Greeks - as an instrument to
lead them to Christ. God’s eternal Word (Logos) was the source of both.
Clement believed the truth was to be found in Scripture, but sometimes it
was hidden, and could only be discovered through allegorical
interpretation. He was greatly influenced by Philo and quoted him
extensively.
Clement was
succeeded by his young pupil Origen (185-254), who presided over the
Alexandrian school for the next thirty years. He lived an ascetic life and
took his asceticism to the extremes by taking the Lord’s counsel in the
literal sense and having himself castrated to avoid any possible scandal
while giving private instruction to women catechumens.
“For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from
their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs
of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the
kingdom of heaven's sake.” (Matth. 19:12))
Origen’s
writings were some of the most influential in the early church. His
philosophy was Platonic and Stoic and he developed more fully Philo’s and
Clement’s ideas of allegorical interpretation by bringing them into
harmony with the Scriptures which he claimed had a threefold meaning or
three levels of interpretation - Literal, moral, and spiritual meanings
which corresponded to the body, soul, and spirit. The “simple man” he
said, may be edified by the “flesh” of Scripture, in other words the
literal meaning of the historical events, which for him was the least
important for the Christian, just as the body was less important than the
soul or spirit. The man who has ascended a certain way may be edified by
the “soul” and the perfect man may be edified by “spiritual law”.
One of the
primary distinguishing characteristics of Alexandrian thought is the
allegorical interpretation of Scripture. Origen was not the first to
employ this method, but he was the most influential. His teachings were
quoted many times in the later Christological controversies and even today
he is regarded as one of the most important early church fathers. Despite
his brilliant mind he received mixed reviews in Christian history and his
controversial views on the pre-existence of souls, the ultimate salvation
of all beings and other topics eventually caused him to be labelled a
heretic by several regional synods among them Alexandria in 399 and the
Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 553.
The
Alexandrian philosophical approach to scripture led to teachings that gave
precedence to Christ’s divinity at the expense of his humanity. When taken
to extremes it led to heresies that portrayed a Christ whose humanity was
for all practical purposes absorbed by His divinity.
Let’s now look
at the Antiochian school. After Alexander's death in 323BC, his generals
divided up the territory he had conquered. Seleucus I Nicator won the
territory of Syria, and he proceeded to found four “sister cities” in
north-western Syria, one of which was Antioch, named after his father
Antiochus. Because of its position in the Eastern Mediterranean it became
an important centre for trade and commerce and for education and culture.
In the Acts of the Apostles we are told by Luke, who was himself a son of
Antioch, that “the disciples were called Christians
first in Antioch.” (Acts 11:26)
The founder of
the Antiocian School is said to be Lucian of Antioch (AD240-312). He was a
presbyter in Antioch and after the deposition of Antioch’s bishop Paul of
Samosata, he fell under suspicion for heresy, and was excommunicated, but
was later reconciled to the Church and died a martyr’s death on 7th
January 312. In its later stage, the founder of the School was Diodorus
(?-394) who at first was a presbyter of Antioch and then bishop of Tarsus.
The Antiochian school seemed to have been more influenced by the
philosophy of Aristotle. It developed a literal approach in the exegesis
of Scripture and theology rather than the allegorical approach of
Alexandria and emphasised the human nature of Christ rather than the
divine and put great weight on the human experiences of Christ’s
temptations and sufferings.
But as
Alexandria’s overemphasis of the divine led to heresies which denied
Christ a human rational soul, the Antiochians overemphasis of the human
led to heresies which denied him his divinity.
The
Christological approaches of the two rival theological schools of
Alexandria and Antioch in the early centuries of the Church were
influential in how writers understood the symbolic and mystical
interpretations of the Divine Liturgy. Authors stressed the school of
thought of their own time and place and thus we see that writers of the
Alexandrian school of thought, which stressed the divinity of Christ to
the almost exclusion of his humanity, gave emphasis to the heavenly level
and the eschatological aspect of the Liturgy, while writers from the
literally minded Antiochian School, which stressed the humanity of Christ,
gave emphasis to the historical aspect of the Liturgy; seeing in every
action of the Liturgy a dramatic re-enactment of the Passion of Christ.
I think the
best way to understand what I am saying is to look at the different
interpretations of the Great Entrance. From the Alexandrian school we have
a commentary by someone called Pseudo – Dionysius. His commentary on the
Liturgy is found in his treatise “The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy”, written
around the end of the fifth century. Dionysius remains true to the
Alexandrian tradition and his heavenly and spiritual interpretation hardly
mentions Christ’s earthly ministry or his death and resurrection”. He
perceives the entire Liturgy as an ascent from the material to the
spiritual; from the lower existence to the unity of the divine. His
approach is exclusively eschatological and because he doesn’t give
emphasis to the historical events of Christ’s life he doesn’t spend too
much time on describing the Great Entrance. The result is an
interpretation that doesn’t give attention to the Liturgical text itself,
thus giving only a partial view of the Liturgy and this based on
philosophical presuppositions.
Next we have
Maximus the Confessor (C580 – 662). Maximus wrote his Mystagogia ca. 630
basically for monks who at the time were steeped in Origenistic thought
and sought to introduce them to a more historical approach to salvation
history in order to correct their strongly Gnostic approach. It was the
first of what we call the Byzantine Liturgical commentaries that we know
of and therefore a valuable source of information on reconstructing
historical Liturgical development. Maximus gives a twofold interpretation
to every part of the liturgy calling the one the “general” (γενικῶς) and
the other “particular” (ἰδικῶς). His “general” interpretation is
typological and concentrates on the mystery of the cosmological salvation
in other words man’s salvation. His “particular” explanation of the
Liturgy centres around the individual and his interpretational approach
for this is anagogical which basically means being raised to a higher
heavenly and spiritual level.
Maximus was
strongly influenced by Pseudo-Dionysius, and constantly refers to the
“Ecclesiastical Hierarchy” Like him he does not stress any of the earthly
events of the salvation history of Christ as reflected in the Great
Entrance. His approach to the Great Entrance, the Anaphora and Communion
is on the whole Alexandrian in concept with emphasis on the eschatological
– after the Second Coming of Christ in the Kingdom.
I think by
these two examples you can understand what the Alexandrian approach was
all about. It gave emphasis on the divine and didn’t give much attention
to Christ’s earthly and human life. The Liturgy wasn’t a re-enacting of
the historical events of his life but the mystical celebration of the
Eucharist after the Second Coming of Christ in the Kingdom of heaven.
In contrast to
the Alexandrian concept we have the commentaries from the Antiochian
school. The first is by Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350-428). Theodore of
Mopsuestia was born in Antioch c. AD 350. He was ordained a priest of the
Church of Antioch, and elevated to the position of bishop of Mopsuestia,
which he held until his death in 428. In contrast to Pseudo-Dionysius’
Alexandrian approach, Theodore’s commentary on the Liturgy is
distinguished by its Antiochian influence with a literal, typological
interpretation. The focus now is on Christ’s earthly ministry and all the
historical events of his life which are re-enacted and actually taking
place during the various rites performed in the Liturgy. Thus he sees the
Great Entrance as “Christ now being led away to His passion and again
later when he is stretched out on the altar to be sacrificed for us”. The
deacons carrying the offering are “representations of the “invisible
ministering powers, in other words the angels”. As they place the various
articles on the altar, Christ has already been Crucified and taken down
from the Cross and is placed on the altar as if in the tomb. The Great
Entrance becomes therefore a representation of both the passion and the
funeral cortege of Christ. Theodore carries this theme through to the time
of Communion when as each of us partakes, Christ announces to us his
resurrection. But to be fair to Theodore’s Liturgy he doesn’t only stay
within the boundaries of the historical events but gives it a dual
symbolism by telling us that we should imagine ourselves in heaven and
that the bishop represents Christ the High Priest who now serves the
Liturgy before the throne of God.
The next
commentary we have by St. Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople. (6??-733)
makes a marriage of the two schools of thought. With the exception of
Theodore of Mopsuestia’s Antichian approach, the Byzantine approach to the
liturgy before Germanus was basically Alexandrian in thought. Germanus,
Patriarch of Constantinople from 715 to 730 was the author of the
Liturgical commentary titled “Ecclesiastical History and Mystical
Contemplation”. This work was for many centuries regarded as the official
commentary for the explanation of the Liturgical rite. Germanus kept much
of the earlier Byzantine Liturgical tradition as influenced by the
Alexandrian School, but Supplemented and complimented the apparent
deficiencies of the Alexandrian eschatological approach with a more
balanced historical approach that highlighted the humanity of Jesus and
His earthly ministry. Thus the apse of the Prothesis corresponds to the
cave of Bethlehem where Christ was born as well as the cave in which he
was buried. The altar corresponds to the spot in the tomb where Christ was
placed and also the throne of God and the actual table where Christ sat
with his disciples at his Mystical Supper.
At the Great Entrance
Germanus followed, like Theodore of Mopsuestia, the historical events of
Christ’s death and the concept of the funeral cortege, but he went a
little further in his symbolism to the Taking down from the Cross and what
followed. Thus the Great Entrance is a commemoration of when Joseph of
Arimathaea took down the Body from the Cross, wrapped it in clean linen,
anointed it with spices and ointment, carried it with Nicodemus and buried
it in a new tomb hewn out of a rock. The discus represents the hands of
Joseph and Nicodemus who buried Christ, the chalice the vessel which
received the mixture of Blood and water which poured from his side, the
cover of the discus becomes the “soudarion” the napkin that covered his
face and the aer (veil) becomes the stone which Joseph placed against the
tomb and which the Roman guards sealed. The remainder of his commentary
then shifts from the earthly reality to the heavenly mystery with the
priest in the company of the angels now standing at the heavenly altar of
the throne of God. Overall Germanus’ commentary preserves a proper balance
between the Alexandrian and Antiochian interpretations reminding the
participant that the Liturgy is the church’s memorial of Christ’s
sacrifice and at the same time her ascension to the celestial Liturgy.
You should now
understand the differences between the two schools of thought and mention
of later commentaries would be pointless in helping us to understand these
differences which is the basis of our talk today. What we can learn from
the later commentaries is how the Liturgy developed into the Liturgy we
have today. One such commentary is called the Diataxis written by
Philotheos, Patriarch of Constantinople (1353-1354 and 1364-1376) Before
his election to Patriarch of Constantinople, Philotheos Kokkinos was
formerly the abbot of the Great Lavra on Mt. Athos. He published an order
for the Divine Liturgy known as the Diataxis which was essentially an
outline of the Divine Liturgy for the priest and deacon giving detailed
directions for the celebration of the liturgy. It established the text of
the rites as well as the ceremonial to be observed. Philotheos’ Diataxis
represents the tradition of Athonite Diataxis (Ordering) for the Divine
Liturgy which was introduced by Philotheos into the Patriarchal cathedral
rite of Constantinople, thus assuring the victory of the monastic rite
over the cathedral rite. The widespread influence of the Philotheos’
Diataxis helped to establish a basic uniformity in the celebration of the
liturgy in all the churches of the Byzantine commonwealth, which up to
that time had seen many local variations. This is especially true of the
prothesis rite which had the greatest number of variations. Philotheos’
Diataxis influenced Slav as well as the Greek Churches and the Rubrics
were incorporated into the first printed service books in the sixteenth
century.
From
Philotheos’ Diataxis we learn that the Liturgy of the fourteenth century
had, except for a few details, already developed into the format that we
use today. The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom had become the normal Rite,
with St. Basil’s being used only ten times a year.
We also learn
that in the Great Entrance, priests had already started taking part in the
procession. Up until maybe a hundreds years before, the Great Entrance was
performed only by the Deacons. The Prothesis was not in the Sanctuary as
it is today, but in a room at the back of the Church and all the
preparation with the bread and wine was done by the deacons and the
procession was done just for the practical reason of bringing the gifts to
the Holy Altar for the Eucharistic Liturgy. With the priests now taking
part in this procession the deacons were in part, slowly being deprived of
their traditional functions which passed from a lower to a higher order in
the hierarchy. The splendour and solemnity of the procession of the Great
Entrance began to dominate the Liturgy and popular devotion verged on the
excessive with people prostrating themselves in reverence in front of the
procession asking the prayers of the clergy and seeking to be touched by
the sacred vessels. The clergy in fact had to step over them. From before
Philotheos’s time it had become customary to silently make commemorations
during the Great Entrance. Philotheos prescribes a general commemoration:
“May the Lord God remember all of us in his Kingdom” of which we use
today. This was at first said silently without interrupting the Cherubic
Hymn but by the fifteenth century it was being said out loud.
Apart from the
commentaries mentioned there are many more of great importance like the
“Commentary on the Divine Liturgy” a 14th century work by Nicholas
Cabasilas, the 15th century works “Interpretation of the Church and the
Liturgy” and “On the Holy Liturgy” by Symeon of Thessalonica and other
contemporary works which have developed the symbolic meanings of the Great
Entrance even further. For example, from a Modern Greek commentary we see
that during the Great Entrance the Priest representing Christ holds in his
hands man and the whole body of the Church. The procession is the journey
to heaven, the ascension of the Church to heaven, the return of man to
God. Christ himself takes all of us and our whole life back to God. From
the same commentary the author expands on the historical event of Christ’s
entry into Jerusalem and says: “the Minister becomes the ass that no man
has sat on and therefore worthy to carry the King of Glory.”
The liturgical
commentaries resulting from the two opposing schools of thought – the
Alexandrian and the Antiochion - have not been destructive to the
development of the Liturgy. They are only negative when the one approach
is preferred to the exclusion of the other. A proper understanding of the
Liturgy results when the two are used to compliment each other. This is
the understanding we receive from the texts of the Liturgy which depict
both the historic and eschatological elements. This is evident in the
prayer before the Priests says: “Thine own of Thine own” – “Remembering
therefore this commandment of salvation, and all those things which came
to pass for our sakes: the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third
day, the ascension into heaven, the sitting on the right hand, the coming
again a second time in glory”.
Notice
that the prayer makes mention of both the historical elements in Christ’s
mission and also the heavenly and eschatological elements which are the
proper way of understanding the Liturgy. From next week when we begin
looking at the interpretation of the Liturgy properly you should always
keep this in mind that the Liturgy is not just a celebration of a
historical event that took place in that upper room in Jerusalem 2000
years ago. It is far more than this, it is a commemoration of Christ’s
salvation which began with Christ’s earthly mission and will come to a
close with the Second Coming. Thus it is the celebration of our return to
Paradise and our return to God in the future age after the Second Coming.
In short it is the celebration of man’s eternal salvation. Next week we
will look at the first part of the Liturgy which is called the Proskomide
or as it is better known in English “the office of oblation”. It is the
part of the service that you don’t see and hopefully if I have a
prosphoron I can show you visually exactly what we do to prepare the holy
gifts that are later consecrated and transformed into the Body and Blood
of Christ.
Basically it
is the preparation of the bread and wine which is made before the onset of
the Liturgy and is said silently by the Priest. The people never get to
see or hear what is said and done but as it is an important part of the
Liturgy and a visual demonstration of what takes place will help you
understand the Liturgy as a whole.
I should first
explain that although the Preparation rite is usually performed before the
start of the Divine Liturgy, it is not an isolated service: it belongs to
the Divine Liturgy or more precisely it belongs to the Liturgy of the
Faithful. When a Bishop presides over the Liturgy, the Priest prepares and
performs the service up to a certain point, but he doesn’t finish the
service; this is the duty of the Bishop who is the officiating Minister.
The Bishop during the Archieratical (Pontifical) Liturgy does not enter
the Sanctuary until the Little Entrance of the Liturgy, in other words,
the entrance with the Holy Gospel, so he will perform this duty during a
prolonged singing of the Cherubic Hymn which is in fact the rightful place
for the Proskomede.
The Proskomede
or the preparation rite is performed at the Holy Prothesis. This is a
small apse in the wall found to the left of the Holy Altar. I have already
mentioned that in older times it was not found in the Sanctuary as it is
today, but rather in a room at the back of the Church. In those days it
was the duty of the Deacons to do the preparation and the Paten and the
Chalice entered the Sanctuary with the procession of the Great Entrance.
When, around the fourteenth century, it was deemed unnecessary for every
church to have a Deacon and the preparation service became the duty of the
Priest, it was more convenient to bring the Prothesis into the Sanctuary
and place it to the left of the Holy Altar. We see that from that time
symbolic meanings were given to the Prothesis just like everything else in
the Church: thus the small apse of the Prothesis was a symbolic
representation of the cave in Bethlehem where Christ was born and laid in
a manger. St. Symeon of Thessalonica writes that as Bethlehem is not far
from Jerusalem where the Lord’s tomb is, here also, the Prothesis is near
to the Holy Altar which represents the Lord’s tomb. Throughout our
interpretation of the Liturgy we will hear of certain acts and ceremonies
corresponding to symbolic representations of events in Christ’s life. What
we must be careful of is not to make our faith and worship just an act of
symbols that we forget the reality of what is taking place. A symbol can
manifest the spiritual reality, but not everything that pertains to the
spiritual reality appears embodied in the symbol because the symbol is
always partial and therefore imperfect.
For the
preparation rite, the Priests needs the two basic vessels the Paten or
Discus and the Chalice, also the spear, the asterisk, the two small veils
which cover the Paten and the Chalice and the larger veil called the aer
which covers both. As we see how these are used I will also give you their
symbolic interpretation. Three other elements are needed for the
preparation: bread, sweet wine and water. Before he begins the priest will
select from the offerings that people have made the best breads and wine
which he will use for the preparation. These offerings are in a sense a
sacrifice to God. From the beginning of human history we see that man has
made sacrifices to God mainly as a atonement for sins. The first sacrifice
we know of was from Adam and Eve’s sons – Cain and Abel. Cain was a tiller
of the ground and brought to the Lord an offering of the fruits that he
grew. Abel was a keeper of sheep and brought to the Lord an offering of
the firstlings of his flock. The Law of the Old Testament is full of
ordinances of various blood sacrifices which were to be observed by the
Jewish people for different occasions.
In Christian times
our offerings of bread and wine can be likened to the old Jewish
sacrifices except for one great difference: we do not offer them in
atonement for our sins. Our atonement has already been made by Christ
himself when he offered himself as the perfect sacrifice on the Cross. God
so loved the world that he gave his only Son. It was a sacrifice of love.
Christ united in himself the whole world and as the life of all life he
offered it to God the Father. In his sacrifice is forgiveness of all sins
and the fullness of salvation and sanctification. Any other new sacrifices
are therefore unnecessary and in fact impossible. Thus if our offering is
not for our sins then it must have some other meaning. Our offering is a
thanksgiving to God for having saved us. It is a thanksgiving for sending
his only-begotten Son to be sacrificed that we might become co-heirs with
him in the kingdom of Heaven. But our offering is even more than
thanksgiving because it represents our whole life and thus is it an
offering of ourselves, of each other and the whole world to God. This will
become clearer if we analyse the elements of our offering.
It was not by chance
that Christ used bread for his Body and wine for His Blood. He could have
used anything and as himself the sacrificial Lamb of God he could have
used a lamb. Can you imagine if he did! The churches would be full of
people lining up to have communion of souvla lamb every Sunday. But the
lamb would not really be ours because everything on earth belongs to God:
He is the creator of all things and we would only be offering God what is
already his. The truth of the matter is that the only thing we can offer
God that we can truly call ours is our love and our life. This is where
the bread and wine come into the picture so to speak. They are offerings
that represent our whole life because they are two basic foods that are
peculiar only to man. The Jewish offerings were offerings of the earth and
of livestock, but they were only offering to God what was already his and
apart from this they were not foods that belonged exclusively to man
because they were foods eaten also by animals.
Bread and wine are
exclusively foods for man. Granted that God gives as the wheat and the
water, but we take the wheat, clean it and grind it into flour, then with
the water we knead it into dough and then bake it to become bread. The
prosphoron we use in the Divine Liturgy is even more peculiar and special
because it is prepared separately from common bread. When making a
prosphoron, we have in mind that it will to be used for the offering, so
we prepare ourselves for this sacred work and make it with prayer and
love. The wine again is mans peculiar offering because God gives us the
vine and the grapes but it is man who looks after the vineyard making sure
to prune it and dust it to protect it from the scorching sun, it is man
who will harvest the fruit and crush the grapes to produce the wine. We
have put labour, prayer, love and our life into our offering.
Today these
offerings are made by a few devout women, but in older times it was
offered by all the congregation. Each person who came to the gathering of
the Church brought with him everything he could spare for the needs of the
Church and these were then separated by the Deacons who selected the best
of the breads and wine to be used for the Liturgy and the rest was
distributed for the sustenance of the clergy, widows and orphans and in
general for helping the poor. In this way the Church was indeed a
gathering of love which gave assistance to those in need. Everyone
participated in this sacrifice of love and even the orphans who lived at
the expense of the Church and had nothing to bring participated by
bringing water.
Here then we will stop for today and next week continue with the visual
demonstration and interpretation of the Proskomede.
|
|
|
