Holy Catechism

Notes

1. This is the beginning, for instance, of S. James’s Liturgy.
2. See on this below, Qu. 54.
3. Concerning the genuineness of the Liturgy of James many doubt, and particularly heretics, who do not like to receive it as an apostolical composition, containing as it does Invocation of Saints and Prayers for the Departed. So in order to prove it spurious they put forward various objections: as that it contains Troparia, which are confessedly much later; that we meet in it the words Homoousion and Theotokos, these being likewise later; that till the time at least of the Philosopher and Martyr Justin, no form of Liturgy was handed down; since the Saint says about the Liturgy in his Apology, “When we have ceased from prayer, bread is brought, and wine and water, and the President likewise sends up prayers and thanksgivings as he has power.” To these objections, Fabricius adds yet another, to his mind, insuperable: That if the Liturgy we are discussing were the work of James the Apostle and Bishop of Jerusalem, it could not be unknown to Cyril of Jerusalem; yet the Liturgy Cyril comments on in his Five Catechetical Discourses to the Initiated is very different (multum est diversa) from that of James. (Greek Library, Vol. V. Note on Allatius’s Treatise of the Ecclesiastical Books of the Greeks, p. 11.) But to us orthodox, the testimony of the Sixth Holy and Œcumenical Council is all-sufficient, which in its 32nd canon, while it accepts as genuine the Liturgy of S. James, from it and that of the great Basil shows the use of water with the wine in the holy Cup, against the Armenians, who used to offer, as they still do, an unmixed cup. Thus, as our author admirably observes, supposing the troparia read therein, namely, It is meet verily, and To thee hail, thou that art highly favoured [or endued with much grace,] are much later than apostolic times, this does not prove the rest of the Liturgy is spurious; as for example, we cannot judge the Liturgy of Chrysostom spurious, because there occur in it Troparia and Contakia, and Canons, which are later than Chrysostom’s time. The same is to be said about the words Homoousion and Theotokos, even though they be later. And yet those who for one word, or one troparion indiscriminately reject an entire book are called critics. This likewise is to be noted, that all the churches did not employ this Liturgy of James, because Chrysostom (Hom. ii. on 2 Cor.) quotes out of the Liturgy in use in his time detailed prayers for Catechumens, though the Liturgy of James has nothing of the sort; but these prayers in Chrysostom are similar to those in the Liturgy of Clement. Therefore it is not extraordinary, supposing the Lord’s Brother in his Liturgy wrote Homoousion, yet in Alexandria where the use of it did not obtain, that Areius contended against the dogma of the Homoousion. And for the title Theotokos, we observe that in the Liturgy of the Lord’s Brother, it occurs always in the genitive case, and hence perhaps the man-worshipper Nestorius took occasion to blaspheme, saying that the Virgin Mary ought not to be called Mother of God (Θεοτόκος), but child of God (Θεότοκος), or born of God spiritually; because Θεοτόκος and Θεότοκος have the same genitive. Next, the heretics who pervert the clearest words of Holy Scripture to their own liking, it is no marvel if they madly attacked titles found not expressly in Scripture, but in some Liturgy, which as we said was not in use in all churches. (Concerning these names, see also Pedalion, Note to the Prolegomena on the First and Third Councils.)
   But as to the wise Fabricius, what must I say? That he had not read Cyril, or that, though he knew, he affirms falsely? The only differences between Cyril and James that we find are these: I. The Washing of Hands in Cyril is not read in James’s Liturgy. But many other directions are lacking in it, which the Priests knew, and were not obliged to have written in the book. II. In Cyril, after the Priest has said, Lift up your hearts, the people answer, We lift them up unto the Lord; then the Priest says, Let us give thanks to the Lord, and the people answer, It is meet and right. In James’s Liturgy however, according to the Paris Edition of 1560, after the Priest has said, Let us lift up our mind and our hearts, the people answer, It is meet and right. Yet this is an evident oversight of the copyist or the printer, as is apparent from the next prayer, How truly meet and right it is .... to give thanks to Thee. III. Cyril says, After the spiritual sacrifice is completed .... we beseech God for the general peace of the Churches, for the welfare of the world, for kings, for soldiers, and allies, and so on. But in James the memorial for kings and soldiers, and “allies is lacking. It is clear however that in Cyril’s time, the kings and the soldiers being Christians, their names were written in the diptychs, and so were commemorated. Consequently from these apparent differences no inference is possible. On the contrary, if any one will attentively read what S. Cyril says about the prayer after It is meet and right, and about the Memorial made after the Consecration of the Divine gifts, first of the living, then of the Saints, then of the departed, and will compare these with the corresponding parts of James’s Liturgy, he will be persuaded that Cyril celebrated and was interpreting this and no other Liturgy. And from other reasons it is clear that Cyril was acquainted with James’s Liturgy; from what he says, namely, about the Holy Spirit in the 4th Catechetical Address to the Candidates for Baptism: “Which searcheth all things, even the depths of God; Which came in form of a dove upon the Lord Jesus Christ,” and a little after, “Which spake in the Law and the Prophets, both in the Old and the New Testaments,” words taken from James, (pp. 23 and 25.) As for the objection out of S. Justin, we judge it superfluous even to meet it, as extremely wretched.
4. The genuineness of the works of S. Dionysius the Areopagite is attested by many councils. (See Pedalion, note on the 2nd canon of the Seventh Council.) The reasons put forward by those who disallow them are cold. See their refutation by S. Maximus the Confessor in the Preface to the works of S. Dionysius. See also the treatises of three Jesuits, Halloix, Delrius, and Lanselius, edited by Corderius with the Areopagitica, and of Contogonus Philologus, Critical Hist. of the Fathers. And we can add to the witnesses for the genuineness of the writings of S. Dionysius one who countervails many, the most discreet and holy Photius, whom many of the adversaries quote as agreeing with them, pluming themselves on his opinion, for the single reason that in the Myriobiblus (First Lesson) where he refers to the treatise of one Theodore, a presbyter, on the genuineness of the Areopagitica, he sets out the opponents’ arguments, but does not say how Theodore answered them. From this the noble writers conclude that forasmuch as Photius did not notice the attempts of Theodore, therefore he disapproved of them; therefore he judged the Areopagitica to be spurious. Hereunto others again oppose the observation that in the same Myriobiblus Photius (231st Lesson) says about the Areopagite: “And Dionysius, excellent in speech, more excellent in speculation, disciple of Paul and martyr of Christ, and bishop of the Athenians.” For what other reason could he say that Dionysius was excellent in speech, but more excellent in speculation, unless because of his writings? However, Photius also adduces expressions of his in his 3rd book of Theological Questions, (How we call the Deity One and Three) edited by our Eugenius with the complete works of Theodoret, (vol. v. p. 9). “This therefore even before our times was spoken of darkly by the revealer of secrets, the great Dionysius, who was initiated by the guide who gives unutterable instruction, how the supreme cause of everything intelligible is not one, nor unity, setting him above all that is of value in us, and in fact showing him to be before even the numbering of all else.” And again: “We behold the Divine original, celebrated in holy sort, as a Monad and Oneness, because of the simplicity and unity of the supernatural indivisibility, by means of which as a unifying power we are united, and, since our separate diversities are transcendently enfolded together, we are fitted into the Divine Monad and God-imitating union. He speaks, however, of a Trinity, observe, not in respect of number, but by reason of the exhibition of the supersubstantial productiveness, from which the whole family in heaven and on earth is and is named. And many such like things are to be read in the divine investigator of the Unseen, worthy even of the mystical teaching of Paul.” These two passages are taken, the latter without change, from the 1st chapter of the treatise on Divine Names, the former from the 5th chapter of the Mystical Theology. Again, in the Amphilochians (32nd of what is published, but 141st of the whole in the tract “No man hath seen God at any time,” p. 80). “And truly the disciple and subject of the words of the divine Paul, in words an orator, but in thoughts a philosopher, nay, rather distiller of the supernal grace of both mind and tongue, and fountain issuing to us the depth of divine wisdom, I say this great Dionysius cleverly and acutely seeks to prove that the nature of the Divinity is never in any way submitted to human conceptions.” And here Photius does not quote word for word the passage of Dionysius, though he could have found many suitable, because he was ill at the time of writing, as he says lower down. “And one might easily find thousands more of our sacred Fathers (since he had only mentioned Dionysius, Basil and Gregory) expressing themselves agreeably with what has been said, whom I should perhaps have quoted in their own words to illustrate their opinion, had not the severity of my disease increased my suffering.” But this we have signified for the refutation of those heretics, who are specially opposed to the writings of the great Dionysius, since they cannot endure to see an apostolic man, disciple of the chosen Vessel, comprising in his writings Prayers for the Departed, and some other matters which they reject: and we have signified this, because even with them the critical opinion of the most holy patriarch is of great weight. To us orthodox however, the question of the genuineness of the books of the Areopagite is determined far better than by Photius, though he be properly honoured for his holiness and wisdom, by the authority of two œcumenical councils which accepted them, viz.: the Sixth (canon 8), and the Eighth (canon 2). The Liturgy in Dionysius is none other I think than that of the Lord’s Brother. I gather this, besides other points, from the invocation, which the Areopagite makes when he begins the view of the rites in the Communion. “But O most divine and holy ordinance disclosing the clothing of the dark sayings symbolically laid out before thee, exhibit thyself to us clearly, and fill our spiritual faces with the one and unveiled Light.” He took this from the prayer in James. “And do thou uncovering the veils of enigmas which symbolically surround this holy rite, show them clearly to us, and fill our spiritual faces with the incomprehensible light,” &c. (p. 21).