Library › Nikolaos Voulgaris › Holy Catechism
Holy Catechism
Nikolaos Voulgaris, tr. Daniel, 1893
Of the Oblation
33. Ex. How many parts has the Divine and Holy Liturgy?
C. The Holy Liturgy consists of three parts. The first is the Oblation, as it is called;1 the second, what is called the Liturgy of the Catechumens, since for this portion the Catechumens also assist at the Liturgy; the third part is called the Liturgy of the Faithful, since herein only the faithful assist at the Liturgy, and the rest are one and all ejected from the church, as we shall see in the proper place.
34. Ex. Explain to us, one by one, these three parts you speak of in the Divine and Holy Liturgy. And first declare the names borne by the Liturgy.
C. The Holy Liturgy has many names; and though the names which have been given it appear to be general, nevertheless by way of eminence and the use of appellatives, as they say, they belong to this Mystery. They are these: Liturgy, Mystagogy or Initiation, Rite, Holy Assembly, Celebration, Offering of Return (ἀναφορὰ), Dispensation, Offering of Tribute (προσφορὰ), Worship, Supper, Sacrifice, Gift, Blessing, Communion, and Thanksgiving (εὐχαριστία).
Dionysius the Great wishing to show the incomparable nature of the Mystery, and the supernatural gifts of the Holy Liturgy, has left us many epithets, all of them unusual, in his Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, calling it, Fit View of the Illuminating Jesus, Most Divine and holy Rite, True Approach to the Divine, View of the Holiest Rite, Blessedness of the Most High, Godlike Truth of the Realities, Divine and Hierarchic Science, Transaction of holy accomplishment, Complete Purification of corruptive evil, Catholic Hymnology, God-delivered Gift, Communion and Union with the One, Peaceful and most divine Sharegiving, Holy Prayer, God-imitating Celebration, Godly Experience, Liturgical Array, Hierarchic Imagery, Doctrine of Virtuous Life, Divine Rite of the Assembly, Communion in the Most Highest with God, Sum of Theology, Unique Science of the Hierarchy, Rite fit for Saints, Comprehensive Hymnology of the Saints, Symbol of Worship, Singular and only Union of breath, as moved by the One Supreme Spirit, Harmonious participation of the Divine, Communion with the Illuminative and End-accomplishing, Concord with the Divine and with ourselves and each other, Transaction of all Divine works full of holy Righteousness, Participation in the Holiest Thank-offering, Sacred Record of Divine Songs, Supremely adorned celebration of Divine things, Godly Enwrapment, Hierarchic Eucharist, Most Holy Eucharist, Blessed Beauty of the Realities, Most Divine Porch to the Shrine, Holy and Godlike Memorial of that High Figurative Supper, and many other names.2
35. Ex. Quote as many synonyms and as many epithets as you choose, still you cannot worthily magnify the depth of the gifts and the boundless power of the boons, which this great and Godlike Mystery abundantly comprises. Now let us come to the Holy Oblation.
C. The Holy Oblation is so called from προσκομίζω, I bring, since therein is brought or offered the Lord God’s Bread and Wine in remembrance of Christ, Who “brought Himself a Sacrifice to God and the Father through the offering of His Body, like a Lamb sacrificed, and like a High Priest and Son of Man, offering and offered, and at the same time worshipped:” just as Jeremiah of Constantinople says. According as the Incarnate Jesus was laid up from the beginning for God, “and was a gift precious to Him,” at once on His conception in the most pure womb of the Ever Virgin and Mother of God, so also now with the very beginning of the Order of the Mystery, offering is made through the Precious Gifts of a spotless Sacrifice to God Most High.
36. Ex. And why are bread and wine offered in the sacrifice, and nothing else?
C. So the Master Christ Himself enjoined, and as He did in His Mystic Supper, so He told us too to do in remembrance of Himself. And there is among theologians a general idea that the infinite Wisdom so ordained, since as bread and wine nourish man, in like manner also the Bread of the Eucharist, and the Cup of Blessing nourish mystically the Christian’s soul, giving it eternal life.
And as from many grains of wheat comes one loaf, and from many bunches of grapes the wine, so from many believers is welded together and composed one body of the Holy Catholic Church, united with the Master Christ Himself, Who is her head. “One bread and one body are we all in Christ,” S. Augustine teaches, following blessed Paul, 1 Cor. x. 17, “We who are many are one bread and one body; for we all partake of the one bread.” For this reason the great Dionysius in his treatise on the Rites at the Communion called the Holy Liturgy, “Words of union in the Rites.”3
Of this supernatural Mystery, Melchisedek’s sacrifice likewise was a type, who was a Priest of the Most High God, and offered in his sacrifices nothing else than bread and wine. Gen. xiv. 18. And I observe that the Holy Eastern Church always employed Leavened Bread in the Divine and Holy Liturgy. Let Macedus say what he will who wrote so much lately against the most wise Cardinal John Bona, because he affirmed in his 1st book, ch. 23, of Res Liturgicæ that the whole of Christ’s Holy Church in East and West, universally offered with one consent for a thousand or more years Leavened Bread in the Sacrifice. This most eminent Cardinal is much bewildered and astonished at all who have interpreted as Unleavened that far-famed Fermentum, which the celebrated supreme High Priests of Old Rome, Syricius, Melchiades and Innocent4 were customarily wont to send in those days not for mere Eulogiæ [pain beni—Ed.] but for communion in the Body of Christ for the churches of that day. And what is reported about Alexander I. being the earliest introducer of Unleavened Bread into the West, he regards as undoubted fable.
The saying of S. Epiphanius, “imitating the Saints” (Basil, Chrysostom, Gregory, Cyril, Athanasius and the rest) in which Macedus evidently finds great conclusions, the most eminent Bona for his part notably puts aside, since the Ebionites, he says, used to offer not wine, but only water, and Unleavened Bread in the Church (not to the Church;) and so the phrase “imitating the saints” employed by Epiphanius does not characterize what befell in the matter of the Mystery, but in the place, viz. in the Church itself; since they did not have the Liturgy in their houses, and after supper, as other heretics used to do. The Saint’s words are these (Against Heresies, i. 30, 16,) “They celebrate mysteries forsooth imitating the saints in the Church year by year with Unleavened cakes, and the other part of the Mystery they celebrate with water only;”5 all the more strange is it, since also agreeably with Aquinas the Schoolmen (iv. Sent. Div. 11, n. 2, qu. 3,) think universally that at the death of the heresiarch Ebion himself, the Church for many years forsook the Unleavened Cakes, and that Pope Leo resumed them. Yet which Leo this was, as the wise Suarius shows in his 3rd Vol., 3rd part, Dial. 44. Section 3, neither does Aquinas describe, nor could he himself ever find out.6
37. Ex. Describe to us now the whole service of the Divine Oblation.
C. The Priest, having pronounced the Blessing,7 first adores with the Deacon the Holy Images of our Lord and our Lady, showing himself thereby in all things orthodox, and a follower of the Synodical ordinances. He enters the Sanctuary, and making three adorations eastward in worship of the God of the universe, Who is celebrated in the Trinity, he puts on the Priestly garments, as we said, and going in front of the Prothesis, he begins by washing his hands; “showing his purity for the Celebration, and his innocence,” is the interpretation of Symeon the Thessalonian, “and that one must approach what is pure, so far as man can, apart from all filth.” And the blessed Germanus says, “With us, the priests, the washing of the hands shows that we must approach the Holy Table in the fear of God, purifying the conscience, mind, and thought; which are the hands of our souls.”8
Next he takes what is called the Offering, and blessing the seal, or little offering so called, with the sign of the Cross, he pronounces thrice In memory of the Lord and God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; since thus our Master and God Himself ordered that the Divine Initiation should be in remembrance of Himself. And forasmuch as “through the Bread and Cup of Thanksgiving we show the death of the Son of Man until He come,” according to the Apostle, 1 Cor. xi. 26, therefore the priest striking the four portions of the Seal with the Holy Spear, utters at the same time those prophetic sayings of Isaiah, liii. 7, “As a sheep was led to slaughter, and as a harmless lamb before its shearer is dumb, so He openeth not His mouth,” &c.
And straightway the Deacon, typifying, as S. Germanus in his Ecclesiastical History says, the Archangel Gabriel who announced the “Hail” to the holy Virgin, severs the Seal from the midst of the Offering, and signifies thereby Christ’s birth in Bethlehem from her most pure womb. “The offering, says the Saint, or Bread, from which the Lord’s Body is cut, is taken for a type of the ever virgin Mother of God; and the Lord’s Body as from a sort of womb and flesh of the Virgin’s Body, I mean the entire loaf of Blessing and the offering, is by the Deacon severed, according as the great Church has received, by a steel instrument which they call a Spear.”
Here you observe that in the opinion of the great Initiator himself, the whole Offering represents the Virgin’s womb; the seal represents the very Body of Christ; the Priest, the Holy Spirit that overshadowed the ever Virgin;9 and the Deacon represents the Friend of the Bridegroom in the Mystery, the Archangel Gabriel. And marvel not, if at one and the same time both the Passion and the Conception of Christ are symbolized; since, as we said, one of the things now used symbolically is enacted and referred to two or three things then done. Besides, as soon as ever Christ was conceived, He had with Him the symbols of the Passion and the marks of the Cross. “And from the beginning Jesus the Incarnate was dedicate to God, we have heard from Jeremiah of Constantinople, and the gift was precious to Him;” as also upon the Cross through the eternal Spirit He offered Himself spotless to God.
38. Ex. Following this, what else is done in the Holy Oblation?
C. The Lamb of God Which taketh away the sin of the world is sacrificed, and with the Holy Spear the Priest cuts the Little Offering in the form of a cross from the projection; first in remembrance of the sacrifice on the Cross of the Son of God; secondly, for hallowing and blessing of the Precious Bread; thirdly, because thus at the time of the Holy Communion the Pearl is easily divided into four parts. Next, stabbing the Little Offering with the proper spear on the right side of the projection, in the spot namely where the word Christ is written underneath,10 he says, “And one of the soldiers with his spear pierced His side,” then placing the Lamb face downward, or with the letters upwards, in the midst of the paten, he pours wine and water into the cup, saying at the same time, “And forthwith came thereout Blood and Water,” since according to the divine Chrysostom “what is in the cup is what flowed from the side,” and according to the Lord’s Brother in that mystical supper Christ made His Blood by a mingling of wine and water.
And since the all-pure Virgin we know was standing during the Passion on the right side of the life-giving cross, a portion is cut off in honour and memory of her, and is laid at the right of the Precious Bread, as it is written, “At thy right hand stood the queen in golden vesture,” &c.
39. Ex. And why is the Lamb stabbed in the projection and not elsewhere?
C. Because this part of the projection signifies the front of Christ, just as the upper portion where the Cross is, signifies His back parts. “For the Cross was not laid in front, but behind the Lord’s Body; wherefore the holy Bread continues to have the Cross on top, and is laid face downwards in imitation of the Lamb; for the Lamb has learned to go not on his back, but face downwards.” Moreover, the precious Bread is found laid in the Paten mouth downwards; since it bears the Cross upon it as it goes, like an innocent lamb. And this is the wood of the Cross, looking forward to which, Jeremiah, ch. xi. 19, [LXX.] said in reference to the precious Loaf, “Come and let us lay the tree upon his bread.” So also the God-accepted offering of the Cup of thanksgiving we know was foretold by the Holy Ghost in Judges ix. 13, “Leaving my wine, saith the Scripture, the joy of God and of men;” as we read in the Hebrew. “The wine of God, and the joy of God, the great cup of the New Covenant.” Jerome interprets it, Vinum quod lætificat Deum et homines. The Wine that maketh glad God and men. But in the translation of the LXX. the words “of God” are omitted, why, I have not discovered.11
40. Ex. Can you tell us anything about the Little Offering?
C. The Little Offering we learn from S. Epiphanius in his Ancorate was of two sorts, one round, the other square: “the former representing the penny and coin of our salvation, the latter the four quarters of the world.” The Church sings, “He giveth the penny, whereby He redeems souls.” The words, “Jesus Christ conquers,” which we see on the Little Offering, are the very words which Nicephorus, Bk. 8, ch. 32, says the great Constantine had set up in Byzantium inscribed on three crosses; on the first, Jesus; on the second, Christ; on the third, Conquers; certainly each of them had its name, he says, after the word inscribed on it.
41. Ex. You said that the portion of the all-spotless Mother of God is placed on the right side of the Seal. Declare now what other portions are produced, and why?
C. Portions of all the Saints are produced for their glory and honour and greater sanctification.12 And next, portions of all other Christians, alive and dead, and severally by the name of those who offered the gift themselves, for the remission of sins and for eternal life. “We commemorate righteous men and sinners,” writes Epiphanius in his 75th ch. against Heresies, “praying for God’s mercy; and on behalf of the righteous, Fathers and Patriarchs, and Prophets, and Apostles, and Evangelists, and Martyrs, and Confessors, and Bishops, and Anchorites, and all the orders, that we may distinguish our Lord Jesus Christ, or separate Him from the rank of mankind through honour paid to Him.”
And assuredly it was seemly that the King of Glory should not stand alone at this majestical altar, but that He should be published and magnified by the presence of the Saints, who as attendants are present to represent the nine Orders of Angels: and that the portions of the rest of Christians, as sinners, and unworthy, should not stand close to Him, but through the mediation of the Saints, they should receive from the Pearl sanctification and remission.
The custom of the Portions, and particularly of the portion of the Saints, we retain as an old one in the Church, and this is what S. Dionysius describes in the 3rd Book of his Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. “When the venerable symbols, by which Christ is signified and partaken of, he says, have been placed on the sacred altar, there follows without interval the Roll of the Saints, signifying how they are indissolubly joined in the transcendent and holy union with Him,” and so forth.13
42. Ex. You have several times referred to the Pearl: what do you call the Pearl?
C. Pearl is a name given to the Precious Loaf and all the parts into which it is divided. Thus at the end of the Holy Liturgy the divine Chrysostom says: “And the priest washes the holy Cup thrice, and takes care that what is called the Pearl does not remain therein.” And Gregory of Nyssa, in his Epistle to Letoïus: “For as casting pearls to swine is forbidden, so to deprive of the Precious Pearl one who has already through freedom from passion and through purity become a man, is a thing unfit.” Indeed not only the Precious Loaf, the very Body of the Lord, but likewise His precious Blood, Balsamon named the Pearl in the Interpretation which he writes. “For as it is not right,” he says, “to cast pearls before swine, this is the Gospel precept, meaning as he does by pearls the Lord’s holy Body and the precious Blood, and by swine those who live according to their passions and wallow in the mud of sins.” Clement of Alexandria,14 Pæd. Bk. ii. ch. 12; Isidore of Pelusium, Bk. i. Ep. 182; and Ephraim the Syrian, in his Treatise of the Pearl, mean by Pearl the very Master Christ.
43. Ex. Explain the difference which exists between the other portions and the precious Loaf itself.
C. The difference is great, since in every sacrifice there are three ends in view, Worship, Propitiation, and Thanksgiving. Worship pertains to the Holy Loaf, since this alone is offered in remembrance of the Son of God and in worship. Propitiation pertains to the portions of sinners, since by them the great God, Who for our sins is angered, is made propitious and favourable. Thanksgiving applies to the portions of the Saints, since through them God is thanked and glorified because of the great benefits which He has given them, among which pre-eminent is the mediation with Him for our salvation.
Symeon of Thessalonica, in the Book on the Temple, notes the difference which the portions stand in towards each other. “For those which are brought for the Saints are for their glory and honour and advancement of their dignity, and the greater reception of the divine enlightenment. But those brought for the faithful, if dead, are for the ransom of sins and unification in divine grace; if living, for the removal of terrors, for the forgiveness of sins, for the hope of eternal life. For they stand for the persons on whose behalf they are brought; and there is a sacrifice offered to God on their behalf, and there is a message reaching to us from the Fathers, since the offered Portions produce much advantage,” assist in many respects.
He shows however “that in proportion as the act is helpful when offered for the worthy, so is it dangerous and damaging if done on behalf of those who are not, so far as men can be, meet. For the Portion which is laid in any one’s name near the divine Bread while it is sacrificed and made Christ’s Body, itself at once partakes of sanctification, and being introduced into the Cup is united to the Blood; whence likewise to the soul, for which it is offered, it transmits grace. There arises therefore a spiritual Communion. And if it be a person who makes profession of piety, or who has sinned, but repented, that man invisibly receives into his soul the Communion of the Spirit, often indeed finds aid to his body, as we have been taught. But if it be a person living in habits of sin, and not severing himself from it, being unfit for the Communion, the Sacrifice made on his behalf will be condemnation to him. Wherefore heed must be taken that the priest receive not the offering, nor yet offer it on behalf of such as carry on sin shamelessly, (or with open scandal,) lest he too be condemned with them.” And as we have it in the 7th chapter of the 4th Book of the Apostolical Constitutions: “Those who have been in sin and have not repented, not only will not be heard when they pray, but will even provoke God, since they remind Him of their vileness. Avoid therefore such ministrations, as the price of a dog and hire of an harlot. For both are forbidden by the laws; just as neither did Elisha accept what was brought from Hazael, nor Ahijah what was brought from Jeroboam.”
Let priests by this estimate their position and the secrets of their own conscience. If even lay people who are in sins and do not repent are cast out from the Church, they and their gift as the price of a dog and hire of a harlot, how much more priests? “No one who is chained by fleshly desires and pleasures is meet to come, or draw near, or minister to Thee, O King of Glory; for Thy service is great and terrible even to the very Heavenly Powers.” Such are the open expressions,15 though said secretly, of the Church’s great light-bearers, Basil and Chrysostom. As for those who without shame thus openly cease not to work lasciviousness and all other deadly sin, we have a Synodical decree, which forbids us even to be found listening at their Liturgies.
44. Ex. Tell us about the rest of the Offering after the Priest has taken off the Portions you spoke of. What is done?
C. The Offering was in old time brought and hallowed whole, often even two or more, according to the number of the people; because then all Christians at every Liturgy used to partake of the Spotless Mysteries, ecclesiastics and laity equally, children and women. So we read in the Ordinance of the Holy Liturgy of S. Clement.
And after this, says the Rubric, “let the Bishop partake, then the Presbyters, and the Deacons, Subdeacons, and Readers, and Singers, and those in discipline, and among the women the Deaconesses and Virgins and Widows, next the children, and then all the people with reverence and devotion, without disorder.” And the Evangelist Mark in his Holy Liturgy: “Send down on us and on these loaves and on these cups Thine All-holy Spirit to hallow them and consecrate them, as being the Almighty God;” since in those days the priest used to offer as many loaves and as many cups as would suffice to distribute to the clergy and the people.16 In fact, whosoever did not partake at the time of the Divine and Holy Liturgy was regarded as a heathen man and a publican, especially the ministers. Concerning them we have also the Apostolic Canon: “If any on the Holy List do not partake of the Offering when made, let him explain the reason.” But in our day so holy a custom does not obtain, and therefore one only Seal is offered, as we saw, and from the rest of the Offering comes the Antidoron [Blessed Bread—Ed.] which is distributed at the close of the Liturgy in place of the gifts of the Divine Communion; although at the time of the holy and great Lent for the Liturgies which are called Liturgies of the Presanctified, more than one Little Offering is consecrated, as need arises.
The Antidoron is named also Fraction, and Sharing the Blessing, Breaking of Holy Bread, and Spiritual Blessing. And the distribution of it was intended, as Balsamon interprets on the 2nd canon of the Council of Antioch, “So that even those who cannot partake of the holy and life-giving Mysteries may still be obliged to wait till the end of the Divine Rite and from the priestly hand receive this for sanctification.” Consequently they grievously err who do not tarry till the end in God’s Temple to receive the sanctification and grace of the Antidoron, as the Church ordained; the more so that S. Germanus in his explanation of the Holy Liturgy, who called the Offering a type of the Virgin’s womb, infers that the Antidoron too is a type of the very body of the Virgin. “And from partaking on the one hand,” he says, “of the Spotless Body of our God which was born from her, and of the precious Blood, comes Sanctification and Adoption to the faithful, while Spiritual Blessing and all other supply of good things comes and is entrusted to the Christian race through the distribution of the bread (that is the Antidoron) of the body of the Mother of God.”
And this is the reason why the title All-holy is given likewise to the Blessing or Breaking of Bread, which is customary at the present day at the Hagiomnesia. Agapæ is the name given them by the Council of Gangra in the 11th canon, and by the Laodicean Council in the 27th canon. This Blessing, the Thessalonian will have it that the Church received by tradition from the holy Apostles themselves, writing thus on the custom of elevating the Bread of the all-holy Virgin; what is the meaning of its being triangular; how it is elevated; and what is the meaning of the words said thereat. “This,” he says, “avails to help us, signifying the Trinity and its oneness on all sides. A loaf is brought three-sided throughout, and by its angles and sides represents triplicity, by its upper single point, unity. Wherefore whichever way you turn the loaf, it has three angles and terminates in a sharp and single point. This division of the loaf was originally handed down by Apostolical tradition from the Fathers without writing, as following daily custom, presented to one only God in Trinity in the name of the Mother of God, since through her divine parturition we have known the Trinity. And the elevation betokens offering to God; but saying, ‘Great is the Name of the Holy Trinity,’ proclaims our confession of the God of the Universe. And to Him he offers the bread and magnifies His Name. Moreover the words, ‘All-holy Mother of God, help us,’ also proclaim the Incarnation of the Word; for this is signified by the title Mother of God. And we believe she is present ready to help; and the bread is brought as a gift to her; nay rather to Him Who took flesh of her, and for our sakes willingly endured the Cross—which likewise the elevating priest betokens by the sign of the cross.”
45. Ex. What are the Liturgies of the Presanctified, so-called? and what need is there to offer in the Sacrifice more than one Little Offering?
C. We call the Liturgies presanctified which do not allow of fresh Transubstantiation of the divine gifts, but the identical holy gifts are again offered, which already sanctified the Priest keeps from another Liturgy for the worship of God, for his own communion and the communion of those who approach in faith. They are said only at the hour of Vespers and on a fasting day in Lent. I said fasting day, because on the Sabbath and Lord’s Day there is no Presanctified Liturgy: indeed on these two days the Priest presanctifies as many Little Offerings as there are days in the week that he has to celebrate on. So we have it in the 52nd canon of the holy and Œcumenical Sixth Council. “On all days of the holy Lent, except the Sabbath and Lord’s Day, and the holy day of the Gospel Tidings [the Annunciation—Ed.], let there be a Liturgy of the Presanctified.”
On Wednesday and Friday moreover, since they are days of Passion, the Church more commonly employs the Service of the Presanctified as significant of mourning, (for which reason it is still said on a fasting day.) This is clearly what Socrates in the 5th book of his Histories specially adduces at Alexandria even from his own times. “Again in Alexandria,” he says, “on Wednesday and what is called the Preparation (Friday) the Scriptures are read, and their contents are explained by doctors; and all parts of the Communion Service are performed saving Celebration of the Mysteries.” Explanation by the doctors was the Word of Doctrine, which was never lacking on such holy days.17
The words “Right Wisdom, Christ’s light shines to all,” which the Priest pronounces in the midst, at the Door namely, where the Holy Gospel is read in the Holy Liturgies, holding together with the censer also one taper lit, are said for a symbol of the true light and the spiritual odour of the holy Gospels, which as glad tidings of joy have no place in the Liturgy of the Presanctified.
On the holy and great Thursday many little offerings are presanctified according to the need which the daily ministers have, to distribute to the sick during all the period at every hour and request, anointing together with the Lord’s Blood, as the Commentary says, by means of the Tongs, the precious Bread, that there may always be a participation under both species of the Body and Blood of Christ, according to what is said: “he that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood abideth in Me, and I in him.” S. John vi. 56.18
Whence I observe that as among Gentiles, where Priests cannot speak openly lest the Holy Gifts should suffer some disrespect, the daily attendants of the churches under pressure of circumstances usually receive the Pearl into their bosom without procession of lamps and priestly array in order to communicate the sick brethren and such as are departing in Christ; so in the regions where Christianity is practised and the Church is triumphant, such a custom is improper, meriting abhorrence and condemnation. The words are Symeon’s of Thessalonica. And certainly so, if in Supplications, performed with the holy fragments of the cross, with the images of the Mother of God, and with holy relics we see such a concourse of people and praiseworthy devotion. “A Litany, writes the same Thessalonian in his book on the daily holy services, ch. 39, is a calling upon God and common supplication of High Priests, Priests, ordained Monks, Deacons, and Monks, of all the people (saving those who believe not in God) and of the Clergy and the Emperor himself.” “There must be,” says Codinus in his book about the Offices of Constantine, “a Supplication, as the custom is, and in the Supplication the Emperor must walk:” how much rather at the seasons when the King of kings is borne round, our Lord and God, His all-spotless Body, should we all run together without distinction, and the priests march first with all boldness in priestly vesture with accompaniment of lamps and lights? Whosoever obstructs, does a thing certainly worthy of abhorrence, as we said, and of condemnation.
46. Ex. Finish the Oblation for us.
C. As a symbol of the spices, which the ointment-bearers were bringing to the tomb to anoint the body of Jesus, the Deacon or the Priest censes the precious gifts and the veils with which he covers the holy Paten and the Cup: since as the Thessalonian Symeon himself makes interpretation, “not to all at first was Jesus known, and after taking His body not even thus did He quit the secrecy of His Godhead and His providence, but is incomprehensible and infinite ever.” And this is the reason why the Veils were so called from καλύπτω which means to cover. There is besides an idea that this incense of the Prothesis betokens also the Myrrh and Frankincense of the Wise Men, since the Prothesis signifies too, as we said, the cave wherein Jesus was born. And I observe that this custom of the Incense the Church holds from the holy Apostles themselves, as appears in their holy Constitutions, which they ordained: “Let it not be lawful for anything else to be brought to the Altar save oil for the lamp and incense at the time of the holy Oblation,” so it runs in the 3rd canon.19 S. Hippolytus discoursing on the Confusion of Antichrist speaks of “the privation of Incense as a great sorrow to the Churches, and the Churches mourn with a great mourning, because neither Offering nor Incense is ministered.”
47. Ex. You mentioned the oil. I pray you, why do we light candles in the church, and lamps in the day time even, when other light is not wanted?
C. This ordinance is old both among the Hebrews and the Gentiles, and the Apostles received it for glory and majesty of the First Light, the God of the Universe, Whose Mysteries we celebrate, and without Whom not even at mid-day can we say that we see. For He is the true light, which lighteneth every man coming into the world, apart from Whom every man walking in darkness stumbleth. So when the blessed Paul was discoursing at an assembly on the first day of the week, at the dawn of the Lord’s Day, “there were many lamps in the upper chamber (we read in Acts XX. 8,) where the Disciples were gathered together to break bread,” which was the Mystery of the Holy Liturgy.
Thereupon the celebrant of the Ministry of the Incense proceeds, and as he says, without break, that God-given Troparium which through a divine Angel we learn in the life of S. Cosmas, the singer, was received from Heaven by John Damascene, viz., “In the tomb with body, in Hades as God with soul, in Paradise by the thief’s side, and on the Throne Thou wast, O Christ, with the Father and the Spirit,” he censes the holy Table and the whole Temple for a symbol of the double-natured coal, the God-man Jesus, and the two natures. The ashes of the Censer symbolize the very Body of Christ: “In the tomb with body.” The coal symbolizes Christ’s soul: “in Hades with soul.” The fire symbolizes the Godhead: “in Paradise by the thief’s side, and on the Throne wast Thou, O Christ!” “The Censer, explains the most holy Germanus, signifies the manhood, and the fire the Godhead of Christ.” Double-natured Coal also the Lord’s Brother called the very Master Christ for this reason, in the Prayer of the Incense at the Introductory Entrance.20
48. Ex. What else follows?
C. As soon as the Priest has finished the Prayer of Prothesis, “O God, our God, Who didst send the heavenly Bread, the food of the whole world, our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer, and Benefactor, blessing and sanctifying us, Thyself bless this Prothesis and accept it on Thy heavenly Altar. Remember in Thy goodness and love to man, those who offered, and those for whom they offered,” &c., and the Deacon has finished the Ministry of the Incense, they come both before the Holy Table; and invoking the treasures of boundless power of the All-holy and consecrating Spirit, and the Almighty presence, the one kisses the Table, the other the Gospel, for the difference of their rank; and saying inwardly, “It is time to sacrifice to the Lord,” &c., and with three prostrations, they entreat both of them the God in Trinity to open their lips that they may celebrate the Mystery duly and acceptably to God, and may come boldly to the exclamation in the second part, as we said, of this holy sacrifice.
Notes
- The ancient Christians in assembling on the Lord’s Day used to offer in the church, as each one could, bread and wine which the deacons took and laid up in the Prothesis. After the departure of the catechumens and the shutting of the doors, while the Cherubic Hymn was sung, of the bread and wine was presented enough for the Communion of the faithful. What was over the deacons distributed to the clergy after the Liturgy. (Vide Apost. Const. 8, c. 12 and 31; Justin’s Apol.; Dionys. on the Eccl. Hier. 3; Fabian of Rome, Ep. 3 to Bp. Hilarius, in Argentes against Azymes, Vol. I. c. 25.) Now the Oblation took place during the Cherubic Hymn because at that time it is absolutely necessary when the precious gifts are about to be offered on the Altar. And again, because through persecution and the scarcity of churches it was not possible for all the faithful to arrive before the beginning of the Divine Liturgy. And thirdly, as I suppose, because in case the gifts had been offered before the Cherubic Hymn, whilst the doors remained open, there was risk of their being insulted by the heathen, if they, as sometimes happened, should come in and hinder the Celebration. But when after the cessation of persecutions these reasons were no longer in force, the holy fathers Basil and Chrysostom, because of men’s laziness, shortened the Holy Liturgy, and transferred the Oblation to the beginning; and so it became the first portion of the Liturgy.
- These names are indeed found in S. Dionysius, saving perhaps two or three, but they do not all mean the Divine Liturgy. For instance, Blessedness of the Most High, occurs in the 1st and 3rd chapters of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, but means the Divine Nature. Again, Symbol of Worship, or Catholic Hymnology, or Hierarchic Eucharist, this Father names the mere symbol of the faith; because they had even then some sort of Symbol of the Faith, as S. Maximus shows. Again, by Liturgical Array, S. Dionysius intends the Order of the Ministers, that is the Deacons. The Holy Prayer is the name he gives not to the Liturgy, but to a particular prayer at the beginning of the Liturgy. The Sum of Theology, is what he calls the Operation of God, that is the Dispensation of the Incarnation. Sacred Record of Divine Songs, is what he calls the Psalter. Of others we take no notice, not to be too long. And I suppose that the author took these epithets not from the Areopagite, because he would not else have fallen into such misconceptions, but received them without test from some one else. And we must observe that not all the names of this Divine Mystery occurring in S. Dionysius are found in the above list, for besides the rest he omits Rite of Rites, which appears at the opening of the 3rd chapter.
- Here again the author misunderstood the Saint’s expression which runs thus: “But again, when being set free and unrestrained by subordinate matters, the Celebrant addresses himself in undiminished care to his proper function, after making also his own spiritual entrance into the one, he sees clearly the words of union in the rites, while he makes the conclusion of the gracious advance to the second to be the more divine return unto the first.” Eccl. Hier. iii., see at end of interpretation of the celebrant’s exit and entrance for censing.
- Ep. ad Decentium, c. 5. [See Smith’s Christ. Antiq. s. v. Elements, p. 601; and Fermentum, p. 668.—Ed.]
- The Papists introduced many novelties in the Mystery of the Divine Eucharist. 1. They offer Unleavened Cakes. 2. They offer not even Unleavened Bread, that is an unleavened lump with the consistency of bread, but a sort of thin wafers like what are used for sealing letters. 3. They have removed the most essential portion of the Liturgy, the Invocation of the Holy Ghost; wrongly supposing that by the Lord’s words, recited narrative-wise by the Priest, This is My Body, and this is My Blood, they change the precious gifts into Christ’s Body and Blood. And so they do not perform a liturgy. 4. They do not give of the cup to the laity, but only of the unleavened wafer, and not even of the same from which the Priest partakes, but of others though consecrated at the same time no doubt. 5. They deprive innocent children of this mystery. Against these innovations many of our authors have written, but no one has dealt more fully or weightily with the investigation of these points than the renowned Eustratius Argentes in his Book against Azymes. But to understand what Bulgaris says concerning the passage of S. Epiphanius, it must be known that this passage is put forward by some of the Westerns to prove that the ancient Church offered Azymes. Wherefore they say from the fact that according to S. Epiphanius the Ebionite heretics used to celebrate the Mysteries in imitation of the Saints, that is of the orthodox, with Unleavened cakes, it follows that the Orthodox used to celebrate with Unleavened. But who does not perceive the rottenness of this argument, or rather this fallacy? Because, supposing the conclusion were right, we ought equally to conclude that the Orthodox celebrated merely with water, and only once in the year. Which would be false. Cardinal Bona accordingly meeting this attempt at proof, for though a Western, he did not hesitate to allow that the Ancient Church of the West offered Leavened bread, says that the phrase “in imitation of the Saints” refers to what immediately follows “in the Church;” that in fact in this respect only Epiphanius speaks of the Ebionites imitating the Orthodox, that they used to celebrate their Mysteries in the Church, while as regards frequency and matter they differed. This interpretation of Epiphanius’s words is approved by others of our authors and by Bulgaris above, who adds also certain names of Fathers in explanation of the word “Saints.” However these err in their interpretation; because in Epiphanius the word ἁγίων is neuter, and “in imitation” is meant to imply blame. And the intention of the passage is this; that the Ebionites celebrate Mysteries perhaps, namely, false ones in imitation of the holy rites, or true mysteries which are celebrated in the Church; but they celebrate them at intervals of a year, &c. And that this is the sense is shown beyond question by another parallel passage of the same Saint (Hær. 47) pointed out by Argentes (Vol. I. c. 29, schol.) The Mysteries among the Encratites take place with water only, not even being Mysteries, but shams done in imitation of the true.”
- The Pope Leo who introduced Azymes into the West, not reintroduced them as the Schoolmen falsely assert, but first introduced them, is Leo IX. elected Pope in 1049, and for this and the other popish heresies excommunicated by the Easterns in the Patriarchate of Michael Cerularius. (See Argentes against Azymes, Vol. I. c. 30, introduction.) [Patriarch of Constantinople, A.D. 1054.—Ed.]
- [“Blessed be our God always, now and ever, and to ages of ages. Amen.”—Ed.]
- According to the ancient order the washing of the Priests’ hands took place before the sacrifice of the precious gifts, and after the oblation. The Apostolical Constitutions (viii. 11,) appoint it after the Salutation. The Areopagite (Eccles. Hier. ch. 3,) appoints it after the reading of the Diptychs, which, in the Liturgy he describes, came after the Salutation and before the hallowing of the Gifts. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his explanation of the Divine Liturgy, (Cat. Myst. 5,) begins with the washing of Hands, which he explains thus: “Forasmuch as the hands symbolize action, by washing these we represent clearly the purity and spotlessness of our actions;” thereupon he proceeds to the Salutation and the rest of the Liturgy. Finally S. Germanus (Mystical View) mentions the washing of the hands, and explains it after the Great Entrance. And this is specially memorable, because this Saint explains the Liturgy of Chrysostom. (He flourished about A.D. 715.) And I do not understand how Argentes in expounding in his treatise against Unleavened Bread (Vol. 3, ch. 2,) the ancient order of the Liturgy, says that the priests used to wash their hands before they put on the priestly vesture, (Art. 6 and 7,) and adduces in support the above-mentioned passages of the Apostolical Constitutions, Dionysius and Cyril. Observe, however, that even lay people formerly washed their hands on entering into Church, for the same reason as the priests. (See Chrys. Hom. 73 on S. John.) But this custom ceased, as Argentes assures us, when on the invention of the Tongs, the laity ceased to receive the Lord’s Body into their hands.
- That the Priest represents the Holy Spirit does not follow from what is said by S. Germanus about the oblation.
- What is here stated by the writer, that the priest stabs the bread on the right side of the projection, is contrary to the direction of the Divine Liturgy, in which we read; “And having placed it (the holy bread) face upwards in the holy dish, upon the Deacon’s saying, ‘Slay, sir,’ the priest slays it in the form of the cross, saying, ‘The sacrifice is made,’ &c. And he turns the other side up which has the cross, and stabbing it on the right hand part with the spear under the name Jesus, he adds, One of the soldiers, &c.” And rightly, because according to the concise Interpretation in the Euchology concerning what are the right hand portions of the holy loaf, &c., our Lord had the cross behind His Sacred Body; but this is the cross which is cut by the priest, since the visible cross is only made for honour of the bread that is to be consecrated, and is made by the bakers. Hence therefore it is clear that the author is wrong also in the following answer, “The part of the loaf signifies the front of Christ, just as the upper part, where the cross is, signifies what is behind.” What is added that “The holy loaf continues to have the cross above in imitation of the Lamb” and so forth, (which shows that the writer took the text and the introduction from different quarters, though I know not whence) this we say is altogether inadmissible. Because Christ is truly and actually not a lamb, but a man; but He is called a lamb metaphorically because He set Himself forward for us a spotless sacrifice to God and the Father. Wherefore the holy loaf represents not the lamb, because it would be a figure of a metaphor, or a type of a type, which is absurd; but it represents the humanity of Christ. And Daniel Georgopulus in his Holy Anthology, composed in 1827 with the sanction and approval of many of the most notable prelates of Greece, and of Callinicus Castorches the Sacred Herald, and printed at Venice in 1833, says thus about our author, “Take notice that the right hand part of the holy bread is what is towards the priest’s left hand, since the seal signifies Christ, and the cruciform mark made by the holy spear signifies the Cross. And the opinion of Nicolas Bulgaris in the Holy Catechism that the holy Bread lies in the paten face downwards, as a lamb led to the slaughter, is not correct.”
- Perhaps Θεοῦ was lacking in the edition of the LXX. used by the author. But the Vatican MS. has “My wine which gladdeneth God and men;” and the Alexandrine, “The joy of men which cometh from God.”
- The expression, “greater sanctification” which our author took from the Thessalonian, (See the passage quoted below, Qu. 43,) is not correct. For the Saints do not need help from us, since rather they help us by their offices. But the priest offers the portions of the Saints, thanking God that through the Incarnation and communion in the spotless mysteries He glorified them, and made them fellow heirs with Christ and to reign with Him, and made them gods by participation, at the same time putting them forward as agents on our behalf. And this is clear from what the priest says when he lifts the portions: “In honour and memory of our most blessed glorious Lady, Mother of God and ever-Virgin Mary; by whose intercessions receive, O Lord, &c. And of all the Saints, for whose supplications look upon us, O God.” (See Nicol. Cabas. ch. 7. 49, 50. Gabr. Philad. on the Portions.) He offers the shares for the faithful, alive and dead, praying that they too may share God’s kingdom. They are produced moreover from the same loaf to show that the Son and Word of God became through the Incarnation of one substance with us, and that “we who are many are one bread and one body,” (1 Cor. x. 17,) having Christ for head. Hence I do not understand why some priests offer a portion of the Incorporeal [i.e., Angels—Ed.] Because I. Neither the printed ancient Euchologies have any such portion, nor the Slavonic Liturgical books, nor does Gabriel of Philadelphia introduce it. II. The brief interpretation in the Euchology—what are the right hand portions of the Holy Loaf, &c., says, concerning the holy portions: “which we set out nine in number, neither more nor less, in imitation of the heavenly orders. For as there, according to the deeply versed Theologian Dionysius the Areopagite, all their host is divided into nine orders; so here in the divinest way, for Jesus continues to be the same in both.” Here the saints for whom shares are offered, are clearly distinguished from the Angelic Orders. III. Those who offer a share of the Incorporeal do not all of them arrange the shares on the same plan, or say the same words. But some make the first share of the Incorporeal, the second of the Forerunner and the Prophets; others make the first of the Incorporeal and the Forerunner, the second of the Prophets. Again in lifting the portion of the Incorporeal some say, “By the Protection of the Great Captains,” &c., others, “In honour and memory of the Great Captains,” &c., others, “Of the Great Captains,” &c. So out of such great diversity and variety, which occurs in this part only of the oblation, we can easily, I think, conclude that this portion was not originally appointed, but certain priests, observing that in the supplications and dismissals, the Church invokes the protection of the Incorporeal, conceived it right in their piety to add also in the oblation a portion for them: and this they did, adding the words, as in the supplications, “By the protection,” &c. This, others with more reason, have corrected as being out of place, some by turning, “By the protection” into “In honour and remembrance,” and some by altogether removing the “By protection” and by understanding in a general way what was said over the portion of the Mother of God, “In honour and memory.” And this conjecture, that the addition arose out of the Supplication, or out of the Dismissal, is strengthened by a certain manuscript Euchology of Goar’s, in which, after the portion of the Mother of God is read, “By virtue of the precious and life-giving Cross, by the protection,” &c. IV. In all the Liturgies of James, Basil, Chrysostom, Clement, after the consecration of the divine gifts, the priest again commemorates the Saints and the rest of the Orthodox alive and dead, that is all whom he mentioned in the Oblation. And in commemorating the Saints in Chrysostom’s Liturgy, he says, “Moreover we offer Thee this reasonable service for those who have gone to rest in faith, forefathers, fathers, &c., and every righteous spirit perfected in faith; particularly the all-holy,” &c. The other Liturgies too have something similar. Clearly then these Fathers did not offer a portion of the angels, since they would have commemorated them likewise after the consecration, or at least would not have excluded them, as they do in saying, “For those who are gone to rest in faith,” and the like. V. And lastly, the word by which the portions are offered does not suit the angels. Because the Son of God did not take the nature of angels, but human nature, (Heb. ii. 16,) nor for angels was He incarnate, and suffered and instituted the mystery of the Divine Eucharist, whereof angels cannot partake, in that they cannot eat and drink; neither does Scripture call the angels Christ’s Body, or Fellow heirs, or say they shall reign with Him. (Comp. Damascene on the holy images. Serm. 3.)
- This passage does not seem appropriate to expound the Portions, because the sacred Father by the Roll here intends as Pachymeres paraphrases, the proclaiming of the Saints by reading the Diptychs, which occurs after the oblation.
- More correctly, Clement the Alexandrine.
- [In the Priest’s secret prayer during the Cherubic Hymn—.Ed.]
- That many patens and many cups were offered is further shown from the Liturgy of S. James, where we read: “And when he putteth a single portion in each cup.” And again, “When the deacons raise the patens and the cups to distribute to the people,” &c. That offerings however were offered entire, that is entire loaves, and not broken pieces, as the author asserts above, is by no means proved, and is in fact incredible, since it would demand huge patens.
- The Teaching not only took place in the Presanctified Liturgies, but also always in the perfect Liturgies after the reading of the Scriptures, a thing now unfortunately omitted. “Next after the reader has ceased,” says S. Justin the Philosopher and Martyr in his 1st Apology, “the president applies in discourse admonition and encouragement to imitate these good things.” And Saint James in the Liturgy: “Next are read consecutively (or at great length) the Sacred Oracles of the Old Testament and the Prophets; and the Incarnation of the Son of God, His Sufferings and the Resurrection from the dead, His Ascension and again His Second Coming with glory are set forth. And this is done every day in the holy and divine Celebration. And after the reading and teaching,” &c.
- The Westerns and favourers of the Latins, to justify may be the papal Church, in not giving the cup to the laity, put forward the following pleas, endeavouring to prove that even in the ancient Church the Communion under one or two kinds was indifferent, and that the Eastern Church too sometimes communicates in the one kind only. I. That in the ancient Church the Deacons would carry the Holy Eucharist to the sick in the species of bread, and many Christians would reserve a part of the holy Bread, which they received into their hands from the priest to partake of on the other days when the Liturgy was not celebrated. II. That in our presanctified Liturgies the communion is made under the species of Bread only; because they say dipping the holy Bread in the Lord’s Blood is an innovation of the Greeks: nay, even if this be done, when the moisture dries, the species of Wine fails, and only the species of Bread remains. III. That the Manicheans who originally used to conceal their impious doctrines and mingled in the churches with the Christians, escaped the notice of the orthodox, though partaking of the Bread only, for they abhorred the Cup, and scarcely after the lapse of much time became known through systematically abstaining from the cup; an argument that the orthodox too partook or not, at pleasure, of the precious Blood. IV. That even the Eastern priests communicate infants simply with the precious Blood. (Bossuet, Traité de la Comm. sous les deux espèces, and Hist. des Variat. Bk. xi. Peter Arcudius de Concord. iii. c. 50, 56.) But the answer to these attempts is not difficult. I. By the ancient ordinance the holy Bread after being elevated was dipped in the precious Blood. So we read in the Liturgy of the Lord’s Brother. “Then the priest breaks the bread, and with his right hand holds one half, and with his left the other, and dips the portion in his right hand in the cup, saying, ‘The Union,’ &c. And he seals that which is in his left hand; then with the portion which is sealed, he seals the other half; and at once begins to divide, and first to place in each cup a single piece, saying,” and so forth. Consequently the reserved holy Bread was entirely dipped. II. From what has been already stated, it is clear that the dipping of the reserved holy Bread is not an innovation, but quite the reverse, a most ancient and apostolical institution, since even what was not reserved was dipped. And whereas they say that when the moisture dries the species of wine is lacking, this is plain nonsense, because the red colour which remains is an accident, not of the bread, but of the wine. III. If, as they prate, the orthodox partook indifferently of two kinds or of one only, the Manicheans would never have become known through their abstinence from the cup. So that the case of the Manicheans in fact proves that the ancient Christians regarded Communion in both kinds as necessary. But whereas the Manicheans for a long time unknown to the orthodox partook only of the holy Body, the cause lies in the multitude of communicants, which prevented the deacons who were administering the cup from perceiving whether all present came forward. IV. To infants who cannot eat, the Church of necessity administers of the holy Cup alone. This however does not remove the obligation on such as can eat and drink, of communicating under both kinds according to the Lord’s command; “Take, eat, and drink ye all of it,” and again, “except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His Blood, ye have not life in yourselves,” (S. John vi. 53.) And of the rest of the popish arguments for communion under one kind, see the refutation in Argentes, (Vol. iii., c. 5.)
- “And forthwith the censer points to the humanity of Christ; the fire to His Godhead; and the sweet smelling smoke means the sweet smell of the Holy Ghost going forth: for the censer is interpreted as most fragrant joy. But the incense appears instead of the spices which they were bringing for the burial of the Lord: and the myrrh and frankincense are the wise men’s; the pure prayer of good works, whence comes the sweet smell; as the Apostle says, ‘We are a sweet savour of Christ,’ (2 Cor. ii. 15.)” Germ. Mystical View. Moreover censing the Altar and the whole temple at the beginning of the Liturgy is a very ancient custom. See Dionys. Eccl. Hier. ch. 3, and Lit. of James.
- The Lord’s Brother refers to the vision of the Prophet Isaiah, (vi. 6, 7.) “And there was sent to me one of the Seraphim, and in his hand he had a coal, which he took with the tongs off the altar. And he touched my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips, and shall remove thine iniquities, and purge away thy sins.” But the coal is called double-natured because of the two natures of the wood and the fire, and in this respect is a type of the God-man Jesus.