History and Development

of the

Divine Liturgy

of

Saint John Chrysostom

Known as the “Greatest of the Fathers”; John the “Golden-Mouth"

Born in 347 A.D., in Antioch, Asia Minor,John's father died when he was young, and he was raised by a very pius mother. Well educated; studied rhetoric under Libanius, one of the most famous orators of his day. John served as a monk, preacher and a priest for twelve years in Syria. While there, he developed a stomach ailment that troubled him the rest of his life.

It’s for his sermons that John earned the title "Chrysostom" (golden mouthed). They were always on point, they explained the Scriptures with clarity, and they sometimes went on for hours. Reluctantly consecrated a bishop of Constantinople in 398, a move that involved him in imperial politics, John criticized the rich for not sharing their wealth, fought to reform the clergy, prevented the sale of ecclesiastical offices, called for fidelity in marriage, encouraged practices of justice and charity.

As Archbishop and Patriarch of Constantinople, John revised the Greek Liturgy. He was proclaimed Doctor of the Church in 451 A.D.

John’s sermons caused nobles and bishops to work to remove him from his diocese. John was exiled twice from his diocese and banished to Pythius, dying on the way there, in 407 A.D.

Page 1

Chapter I

Liturgies of the Apostles

T he only source of information concerning the method in which the Eucharist was celebrated during the lifetime of the Apostles is from New Testament accounts, but these are scanty and meager. They are just a number of allusions, giving no fixed order and no real description of the first Liturgies celebrated by the Apostles or their disciples. It was taken for granted by the sacred writers that their readers had personal knowledge of such things as the daily celebration of the Eucharist. Through the study of these allusions, both separately and collectively and by comparing them to contemporary practices and subsequent Liturgies, liturgical scholars are able to deduce a number of nonessential elements that made up the whole Eucharistic rite in the days of the Apostles.

No matter what else was connected with the Eucharistic celebration, we know that the early Christians obeyed the Lord’s command: Do this in “anamnesis” of me. Do what? Do what Jesus had just done: ‘take bread, give thanks, bless and break it, say the words of institution, and give it to others; likewise with the chalice of wine.’ These are the essentials of the Last Supper commemoration performed by the Apostles in obedience to the Lord’s command. We know that the Apostles had dedicated their lives to spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ and they were willing to be killed for it; therefore it is only natural for us to believe that they would also obey him in this.

The question is: How did the Apostles and their disciples carry out this command? Sure, they carried out the essentials, but what were the nonessentials that were connected to the celebration of the Eucharist? Since the Gospel accounts omit nearly all of the details of the Eucharistic supper, it is safe to infer that the paschal ritual was deemed to be essential to it. Also, the paschal meal was eaten only once a year, whereas the Christians celebrate the Eucharist frequently. For the Apostles to have carried out the paschal ceremony on a frequent basis would have been a violation of the Old Law, to which they (the Apostles) still adhered to.

If the Apostles and the early Church did not celebrate the ritual of the paschal meal in connection with the Eucharist, did they hold to any meal at all? There are many different opinions concerning this, but the majority opinion is that the celebration of the primitive Eucharist was connected with a meal. Of the early Christian writers, starting with the fourth century, the Greeks held that this meal came before the Eucharist; while the Latins maintained that it came after the Eucharist. Saint John Chrysostom clearly states that the meal came after the Eucharist.

The Acts of the Apostles mentions, three times, the “breaking of bread” in the Christian community. This was a common Jewish expression, which meant either having a meal or the preliminary ceremony of bread-breaking at a meal with the usual blessing of the bread and the giving of thanks. Which ever, the implication is clear, we cannot ignore the meal element. The early Christians adapted it to express a new concept that was entirely different from the old Jewish one.

At the Last Supper the term “breaking of bread” had taken on a completely new meaning, totally different from the old concept of having a meal or the preliminary ceremony of bread-breaking at a meal. The command of Jesus, Do this in “anamnesis” of me , would have been unnecessary if the “breaking of bread” still meant the same as it always had, since the Apostles, having been Jews, would have continued with those normal Jewish practices in any case. Thus the use of the expression “breaking of bread” , in the Book of Acts, has an additional meaning, one acquired at the Last Supper. It now denotes the celebration of the Eucharist. In Corinthians, St. Paul states: “ And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking the partaking of the body of the Lord? ” (I Cor. 10:16) .

In Acts (20:7-11) tells of Paul celebrating a Mass in the evening at Troas : “ On the first day of the week when we were assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, being about to depart on the morrow. And he continued his speech until midnight . And there were a great number of lamps in the upper chamber where we were assembled. ” To put it in plain language, it means: “ At Sunday Mass, St. Paul preached the sermon, for he was going away the next day. ” It is plain to see that the assembly of Christians and the Eucharist were held on Sunday, though by Jewish reckoning the evening would be that of Saturday. The building was not a church or a synagogue but rather private houses, for there were many lamps in the upper room.

Though nothing more can be discovered from this passage, we can find more detail about the primitive Eucharist in Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians (I Cor. 11:20 -24) . Here we find the first definite evidence of a meal being connected with the celebration of the Eucharist. It was called the Lord’s Supper by Paul. Later it became known as the “agape” . We know of the gross abuses concerning it, Paul condemned two faults: the first was that each little group or clique began supper without spreading out all of the provisions in common and without waiting for the whole congregation to assemble. The second, far more reprehensible, was that they did not share their food with the poor and the latecomers, who were not attached to any group; instead they consumed their own supplies with such blatant selfishness that some became drunk while others went hungry. St Paul wasted no words when he condemned their unchristian conduct, shameful enough by itself without it being connected with the celebration of the Eucharist. He had to remind the Corinthians how the foundation and the meaning of the Eucharist should remind them of the close connection that the Eucharist has with Golgotha . Doing so without attempting to prove to them that in the Eucharist the bread and wine become the body and the blood of Christ, but rather treating it as an accepted fact, he categorically states that anyone who receives it unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, i.e., the death of Christ.

The first Christians most likely found it natural to combine the celebration of the Eucharist with a meal. Originally Jesus had celebrated it within the framework of a meal. Since the Apostles and most of the very first converts to Christianity were Jewish, they were used to religious meals. In every pious Jewish home, the evening meals, especially the Kiddush , those held on the eve of the Sabbath, had a semi-religious character. There were the more formal suppers, called the chaburah ( from the word chaburoth which is the plural form of chaber, meaning “friend”) : small private groups of friends and members of a family took part in these formal suppers on Sabbath or holyday eves. Each one brought their own contributions. Whenever the Apostles gathered after Christ’s resurrection, they joined in a common meal. In Jewish tradition, Jesus and the Apostles would have been viewed as just such a chaburoth group among hundreds of others in Palestine , with the exception that their bond of union was much closer then most.

Fortunately, the customs connected with these chaburah suppers are very well known thanks to scholars from rabbinic sources. The main meal (supper) in Jewish homes were governed by the same rules and customs as were the chaburah , but in the latter, the regulations were observed with much more exactness and formality.

Being elective, the preliminary serving of what we would call relishes or hors-d’oeuvre was not considered part of the meal proper. Therefore each guest said the prescribed blessing over them for himself. But once the guests had washed their hands, and the “ grace before meals ”, had been said, no latecomer was allowed to join. Only those who had participated in the “ grace before meals ” were considered ‘one company’: they alone could partake of the supper. After this, all the prescribed blessings were said for all the participants by the host or leader alone (except for the blessing of the wine during the main course) .

At the formal chaburah and at every Jewish supper, the “grace before meals” was a beautiful ritual. The father of the house or the leader of the chaburah took bread and broke it while pronouncing the customary blessing of bread, “Blessed art thou, O Lord, our God, the King of the world who bringest forth bread from the earth” ; then he eats a piece of it himself and gives a fragment to each person at the table. The entire group was drawn together into a unit, into one company, through the blessing and sharing of the one bread. This blessing of the bread was followed by the main course where all present ate whatever they wished. However, whenever a different kind of food was brought in for the first time, the host or the head of the household would bless it in the name of all present. If wine was served during the main course, each person blessed his own cup with the customary blessing for wine every time their cup was refilled: “Blessed art thou, O Lord, our God, and the King of the world who createst the fruit of the vine.” When all had finished eating, water and a towel were brought in and each washed their hands. Sometimes, perfume was also offered.

Then, in the name of all who had eaten, the father of the house or the leader recited a rather long prayer called the Blessing or Benediction; which one can compare to our grace after meals. At all chaburah meals and even at all the less formal Kiddush suppers, this Benediction was recited over a special cup of wine, called the Cup of the Blessing . This Benediction began with an invitation to drink of this cup, by the father or host:

“ Let us give thanks… [And when at least a hundred people took part, he added] Unto our Lord God .”

The guests answered:

“ Blessed be the name of the Lord from this time forth for ever more. ”

The Leader:

“ With the assent of those present we will bless him of whose bounty we have partaken . ”

Guests:

“ Blessed be he of whose bounty we have partaken and through whose goodness we live . ”

The father or leader went on to recite the Benediction, parts of which most certainly predate the destruction of Jerusalem .

After this Benediction, the host/leader sips a little wine, and then passes it around to each of those present. Once again, this final common cup, the Cup of Blessing, gave a sense of oneness to the whole group. Lastly, after singing a psalm, the group broke up. This was the religious character of all formal Jewish suppers, especially the Sabbath meal on Friday evenings.

These religion-sponsored meals with their proper adaptations for Christian use were continued among the first Christian communities. Chapters IX and X of the Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (c. A.D. 80-100), prove that the Christians did have such semi-religious meals modeled along the chaburah lines. The similarity between the Jewish and Christian usages is startling:

IX.

1. Regarding the thanksgiving; give thanks thus:

2. First, concerning the cup: “We give thanks to thee, our Father, for the Holy Vine of David thy servant, which thou hast made known to us through Jesus thy servant.” To thee be the glory forever.

3. Concerning the broken bread: “We give thanks to thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge, which thou hast made known to us through Jesus thy servant.” To thee be the glory forever.

4. “As this broken bread was scattered upon the top of the hills and, when gathered, became one, so gather thy Church from the ends of the earth into thy Kingdom. For thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever.” . . .

Both the Jews and the Christians had a Cup of wine and bread which was broken. The Christian blessings for both bread and wine were based on the Jewish.

The Thanksgiving after the meal is similar but without direct borrowing of text from the Jewish Thanksgiving prayer; though the sequence of the three ideas remained identical. The Christian gave thanks for the earthly; so did the Jew. The Christian gave thanks for “spiritual food and drink,” which meant the Eucharist, the center of the New Dispensation or Covenant; the Jew gave thanks for the Old Covenant whose central point was the Law and circumcision. Lastly, the Christian prayed for the Church while the Jew prayed for Judaism and for the “land.”

The fact that the cup preceded the bread (as it did in the Eastern agapes which followed a century or two later) are a completely Christian innovation. These table-prayers of the Christians, which hold a beauty in them, were apparently composed by men who possessed considerable knowledge and appreciation of Jewish customs and tradition. With such a background, the first Christian converts would have regarded the celebration of the Eucharist within the framework of a supper as a matter of course, especially since Jesus himself had set the precedent. When Jesus celebrated the first Eucharist in the form of the paschal supper, he performed the first consecration at the bread-breaking ceremony and the second at the third cup of wine, the Cup of Blessing, after the principal course. Therefore, the meal quite naturally formed a link between the Last Supper and their own celebration of the Eucharist in the minds of the early Christians.

Evidence indicates that the thanksgiving after the common meal was the origin of the anaphora texts, for all the Christian anaphoras were and are introduced by the invitation Let us give thanks to the Lord or Let us give thanks to our Lord God. This is an almost literal translation of that prescribed by the Mishnah at the chaburah meals attended by at least a hundred people: Let us give thanks unto our Lord God. Later, when the Eucharist was celebrated without the meal, a whole new content, though still one of gratitude, had to be given to these ancient Christian meal prayers into which the Eucharistic narrative were woven. The Christian anaphora is still in its nature a prayer for a meal. The fact that the father of the house or leader alone was to pronounce the blessings in the name of all present also fitted in well with the Christian usage: the priest or bishop presided and transubstantiated the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.

Now, returning to St. Paul and his First Letter to the Corinthians, the eleventh chapter becomes much clearer and meaningful. The Jewish regulation was very strict: “latecomers not present for the ceremony of bread-breaking could not participate in the rest of the ceremonies, nor in the meal itself. This alone would have warranted Paul’s insistence that they “wait for one another.” Besides the utter selfishness, immoderation, and excess indulged in by each little clique when they consumed their own supplies, the Corinthians had lost all perspective in the celebration of the Eucharist. Instead of being the center and focal point, the Eucharist became merely the occasion for their “get togethers,” thus the Eucharist was relegated to the background.

There is of course another side to the episode at Corinth. The actions of the Corinthians, is less shocking if one understands that being Gentiles, the Corinthians had no prior background that would have made them regard meals as a semi-religious function, as had the Jews. When Paul introduced the Eucharist combined with a meal, the recently converted Gentiles could not shrug off their familiar practice of the hetairiai, which were clubs which were associated in a broad sense with a religious meaning, but they were really a mere pretext for unethical merry-making.

Page 2

Chapter II

The Apostolic Catechetical Synaxis

D ue to their Jewish roots, the first Judeo-Christian communities met in the Temple or in the synagogue (for those living outside Jerusalem ) for the reading of the Law and the Prophets, to sing the psalms, and to hear the doctrine or explanations of the Scriptures. The Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists of the early Christian era used the expression synagogue and to go to the synagogue to indicate not only the meeting place of the Jews who lived among the Christians but also the assemblies of the Christians, even after their final break with Judaism.

Christians met less and less in the synagogues after 70 A.D., as they began to hold their own somewhat modified services (which they adapted from the worship of the synagogue) in their own places of meeting. This instruction-and-prayer service later became more formalized and was called the catechetical synaxis, which today is the first part of the Divine Liturgy, called the Mass of the Catechumens.

This service, as we learn from New Testament sources among others, consisted of readings (lections) from the Scriptures, the singing of psalms or hymns, a sermon and prayers.

Whether held on the mornings or evenings of Sabbaths, on Mondays and Thursdays of each week, or on feat days, the services of the synagogue were all very similar in their composition, but there were a few differences. The early Christians based their own prayer service on the Morning Services of the Sabbath.

On the basis and the evidence contained in the Mishnah and the Talmud, we can reconstruct what the first-century synagogue service was like. The general order of the service was directed by an archisynagogus ( leader of the synagogue) . It consisted of the following:

1. Prayer: Introducing the Shema was a twofold blessing, announced by the presiding leader with the words “Barku el” (“Bless the Lord”) . During these prayers the members of the congregation stood facing Jerusalem . The Shema is a kind of elementary creed professing the Israelite faith in the “true and eternal God,” that was then recited. Besides the blessings contained in it, the Shema was composed of extracts from the Pentateuch (Deut. 6:4-9; 11:13 -21; and Num. 15:37 -41) . The solemn recitation of the Shema is one of the most ancient features of the Jewish liturgical life.

2. Reading from the Law: This selection from the Law, called the Parascha, was usually chosen by the leader and was translated into the vernacular Aramaic.

3. Reading or excerpts from the Prophets: This was called the Haftara (“conclusion” to the readings) , which were also translated into Aramaic, by an interpreter for those who did not speak the ancient Hebrew.

4. Psalms: These were sung while the scrolls were being put away.

5. The Sermon or Midrash: This was an explanation of the Scriptures just read or an exhortation based upon them. The Midrash was delivered by whomever the leader of the synagogue appointed.

6. The Eighteen Blessings: This is called the Shemoneh Esreh which is recited by the “Angel of the Synagogue”, which consisted of benedictions with the added element of petitions.

7. Prayer Blessing: This was intoned by a priest or layman. It consisted of the “Offering of Praise” and the “Aaronic Blessing”.

Like Jesus before them, the Apostles continued to frequent the synagogues. This was an effective way of reaching the Jews and evangelizing them. Unfazed by the bitter opposition and the persecutions, the Apostles continued to work for the conversion of the Jews, not only in Palestine but in the synagogues of the dispersion.

Upon entering a town or a city, the Apostles immediately established contact with the Jewish community and preached in the synagogues. The final break with Judaism was inevitable but it was not the Christians who took the initiative in this break. When synagogues of the dispersion became centers of bitter opposition to the doctrines of Christianity, the Jews themselves took the traditional disciplinary actions against the new believers, whom they considered to be heretics in their eyes, in the form of the herem (excommunication) or the niddui (temporary exclusion) from the synagogue.

Due to their exclusion from the synagogues, the Apostles and their followers were forced to organize their own congregations for prayer and instruction. Unlike the Eucharist, which was celebrated only by the faithful, the baptized alone, these prayer and instruction services were open to the catechumens and those who were just curious.

The Sabbath Morning Service of the Jewish synagogue provided both the inspiration and the pattern the specifically Christian Synaxis. This is very evident from Book VII of the APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS (chaps. 33-38) : There the Christian Synaxis is in effect the whole Greco-Jewish Morning Service for Sabbaths with only a few superficial modifications. The double reading from the Law and the Prophets was in usage in Jewish Morning Service in the first century A.D.; thus we find St. Paul speaking in the synagogue “after the reading of the Law and the Prophets” (Acts 13: 15) . The Christians retained these Old Testament readings in their own assemblies but, since the synaxix was a distinctly Christian service, they added readings from the New Testament. One of these was a selection from the Apostolic Letters, or the Epistles. St. Paul himself ordered these readings, at least in regard to his own letters (Col. 4:16; I Thess. 5:27 ) . The other was from the Gospels, considered most important of all, for it contained the very words of Jesus Christ. The total number of readings in the primitive synaxis was four. Traces of this early arrangement are found in several Eastern Liturgies of today. The Copts, for example, have preserved the four pericopes, though they replaced the readings from the Old Testament with other texts. The Syrian Nestorians still maintain the Old Testament readings. The Byzantine Liturgy and its antecedents formerly had four pericopes, but it reverted to two, the original number in the synagogue.

The Christians retained these Old Testament readings in their own assemblies but, since the synaxix was a distinctly Christian service, they added readings from the New Testament. One of these was a selection from the Apostolic Letters, or the Epistles. St. Paul himself ordered these readings, at least in regard to his own letters (Col. 4:16; I Thess. 5:27). The other was from the Gospels, considered most important of all, for it contained the very words of Jesus Christ. The total number of readings in the primitive synaxis was four. Traces of this early arrangement are found in several Eastern Liturgies of today. The Copts, for example, have preserved the four pericopes, though they replaced the readings from the Old Testament with other texts. The Syrian Nestorians still maintain the Old Testament readings. The Byzantine Liturgy and its antecedents formerly had four pericopes, but it reverted to two, the original number in the synagogue.

The singing of the psalms, mentioned by St. Paul (I Cor. 14:26) was most likely taken from the Morning Service of the synagogue. Though the psalmody known as the Smiroth does not follow immediately the scriptural readings in modern day synagogue usage, there is reason to believe that in the first century it did. In the Byzantine/Orthodox Liturgy this primitive psalmody is called the Prokeimenon (in the Slavonic churches it is called Prokimen) while in the Latin church of the West, it is known as the Gradual.

The Christian sermon or homily (I Cor. 14:26) replaced the Midrash. The “common” prayers of intercession, similar in general content and litany type form replaced the Jewish Eighteen Blessings. Just as the Eighteen Blessings was divided by Amen responses, so were some of the very ancient litanies of the Eastern Liturgies. Later the Amen's were replaced by the Kyrie eleison.

Other liturgical practices existed among the first Christians, most of which are still in use today. During services, men were bareheaded, women had their heads covered (I Cor. 11:6-7). Women were not permitted to speak in the assemblies (I Cor. 14:34-35). There was the Pax, or kiss of peace (Rom. 16:16; I Cor. 16-20; I Thess. 5:26; I Peter 5:14), and a public profession of faith (I Tim. 6:12). The people indicated their assent to prayer with the old Hebrew “Amen”. They prayed with uplifted hands (I Tim. 2:8) as does the priest today. Almsgiving or collection for the poor was usually made at the assemblies (I Cor. 16:12; Rom. 15:26). Sunday, as the day of the Resurrection, was probably sanctified in addition to the Sabbath; if this did not happen in all the Christian communities during the lifetime of the Apostles, it certainly did soon afterward.

Page 3.

Chapter III

Liturgy of the Second-Century

T he separation of the Eucharist from the meal was begun, most likely, within a generation after the lifetime of the Apostles, although the common meal, or agape, was to continue for several more centuries and even longer in the East. The change may have been desired on account of abuses, as happened in Corinth during Paul’s time, and perhaps necessity forced the issue. With an ever-increasing number of converts, the Christian communities became way too large for the table-gatherings. Thus, the best solution would have been to discontinue the meal and to celebrate the Eucharist as an independent liturgical function. Since the tables were removed from the places of worship, a larger number of faithful could be accommodated in a room.

While the Eucharist was still connected with a common supper it was celebrated in the evening. It was not necessarily a literal imitation of the Last Supper; as both Jewish and Greek custom had formal evening meals. But after its separation from the common meal, the Eucharist could be celebrated freely at other times of the day. There was another reason that made the change desirable. Sunday was being sanctified in addition to the Saturday Sabbath as the Lord’s Day in memory of Christ’s resurrection. According to the Scriptures, Jesus Christ was the Sun of Justice, the Sun of Truth. This idea took root in the minds of the early Christians. Since Jesus rose from the dead at dawn on the first Easter Sunday, his rising from the tomb coincided with the appearance of the natural sun. Sunrise , therefore, became the symbol of the rising Sun of Justice. Therefore, could not the Eucharist be celebrated at dawn on Sunday morning?

No matter what the reasons for the change, by the start of the second-century, the Christians began to meet before daybreak for their services. Around the year 111-112 A.D., Caius Plinius Caecilius Secundus, better known as Pliny the Younger, gives us not only many interesting details regarding the government of Bithynia (a Roman province in Asia Minor ) but also a brief sketch of Christian practices during his day.

As the governor of Bithynia , Pliny refers the question of investigating the Christians and their punishment to Emperor Trajan. He received an anonymous statement with a list of people accused of being Christians. During examination, some denied that they had ever been Christian; others admitted that they had once been, but had forsaken Christianity some years before. Some even became informers and told him of their meetings: “They aver that the whole of their fault or error is this: that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day (stato die) before daybreak to sing a hymn in alternate verses (secum invicem) to Christ as to a god, and that they bound themselves by a solemn oath not to do any wicked deeds, nor to commit any theft, robbery, or adultery, nor to falsify their word nor to refuse to give up a deposit when they should be called upon to deliver it up. When they had done this, it was their custom to depart, and then to meet again to eat food . . . but ordinary and harmless food.”

Opinion is divided as to whether the second meeting, when the Christians ate their food, was the agape or the celebration of the Eucharist (or both) . The first meeting or service was the Synaxis and took place in the early morning before dawn (ante lucem) . The Carmen Christos quasi deo dicere secum invicem (“to sing a hymn in alternate verse to Christ as to a god”) can be interpreted in various ways. Generally, Carmen meant a hymn or any set form of words even without a metrical rhythm or rhyme. Secum invicem (“in alternate verses”) may imply antiphonal singing, but it can also be interpreted as a litany type form of prayer, one in which the deacon or celebrant “bids” a petition and the congregation responds to each invocation.

St. Justin, martyr and philosopher, wrote the First Apology most likely at Rome circa A.D. 148-155 in order to convince the public at large of the harmlessness of the Eucharistic celebrations. Considering the times, his letter was very frank, but it had no effect on contemporary opinion.

Justin wrote about the Eucharist as it was celebrated in the city of Rome of his day. If its celebration were radically different from the way they were celebrated in the East, where he had first hand knowledge (he a Greco-Roman, and he had lived in Ephesus for a period of time and had traveled around to various Oriental Churches) , he most certainly would have said so. He describes the Eucharistic celebration twice: first, proceeded by baptism [chap. 65] , then preceded by the Synaxis [chap. 67] . Even though it is not a complete account of the service, it is a good synopsis of what went on in the mysterious meetings held by the Christians:

Chapter 65:

Thus, after baptizing him that professes his faith and assents to our doctrine, we lead him into the assembly of those called the brethren to say earnest prayers in common for ourselves, for the newly baptized, and for all others all over the world so that we who have come to the knowledge of the truth may also by the grace of God be found worthy to live a good life by deed and to observe the commandments by which we may gain eternal life.

After finishing the prayers, we greet each other with a kiss. Then bread and a cup of wine are brought to the one presiding over the brethren. When he takes it, he gives praise and glory to the Father of all in the name of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and gives thanks at length because he considered us worthy of these gifts.

After he finishes the prayers and thanksgiving, all the people present cry out in agreement: “Amen.” Amen is a Hebrew expression and means “so be it” . After the one presiding has given thanks and all the people have cried out in agreement, the deacons, as they are called by us, distribute the Eucharistic bread and the wine-and-water to everyone present so that each may partake, and they (the deacons) carry them to those who are not present.

And on the day which is called for the sun, all who are in the towns and in the country assemble together in one place and the commentaries of the Apostles or the writings of the Prophets are read, for as long as time permits. When the reader finishes, the one presiding gives a speech in which he admonishes and exhorts all to imitate these beautiful teachings in their lives. We all then stand up together and recite prayers. And when we have finished the prayers mentioned above, bread and wine mixed with water are brought and the one presiding offers up prayers and likewise thanksgivings as much as he can and the people chime in with “Amen.” Then to each one is distributed a portion of the things over which the thanksgiving had been spoken and each one partakes of them, and a share is brought by the deacons to those who were absent.

As there is no mention of a common meal being connected with either description, it is valid for us to conclude that, at least in the West, the celebration of the Eucharist was no longer connected with any such meal. Another interesting item is the apparent fusion of the synaxis with the Eucharist, since nothing in Justin’s description indicates a separation of the two services. Aside from later irrefutable testimony, indirect evidence from Justin himself argues for the distinction of the two rites. On occasions of baptisms, the baptismal ritual took the place of the synaxis. Had the synaxis and the Eucharist already been fused into one, the baptismal rite could not have rightly been substituted for the synaxis. The first sentence of chapter 66 corroborates this, for only the baptized who led virtuous lives could attend the Eucharist and receive it.

Justin uses no other term but Eucharist for the consecrated bread and wine. From this time forward, the word Eucharist is the technical term which refers exclusively to the consecrated elements.

Justin emphasizes the word Amen of the congregation after the thanksgiving prayer of the celebrant. Why this prominence on something which now seems somewhat trivial? The early Christians, having been Jews, valued the term and stressed its use. This “stamp of approval” was merely an outward expression of the spirit, the sense of unity and oneness with one another which the early Christians felt very deeply. With the Amen, the celebrants sacrifice became their own. They reiterated that unity and oneness, with this one word, which was so forcefully urged by St. Ignatius of Antioch fifty years earlier regarding liturgical functions: “…when you come together, there should be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope in holy joy.” It is rather sad that many churches today have lost much of that spirit of oneness. If the day should ever come when virtually the whole congregation receives the Eucharist at every Sunday Liturgy, this spirit of oneness may again become prevalent in the Catholic community.

Three other second century writers provide a few additional details of liturgical information. Two of these writers, Athenagoras of Athens and Theophilus of Antioch give so little information that they hardly worth mentioning. They both point out the fact prayers were recited for the emperor, an important element in the intercessory prayers of future Liturgies. Athenagoras of Athens, in his comparison of the pagan sacrifices with those of the Christians, mentions that the latter prayed with uplifted hands. St. Irenaeus gives more details regarding liturgical functions. He mentions lections and a homily or sermon, an oblation of bread and wine, a consecration which he calls the word of invocation, the word of God, and the invocation of God, and that the Amen was said by every one together.

Many things that are familiar to later Christians were totally unknown in the liturgies of the second century. The clergy did not have any special vestments for the services; they usually wore ordinary clothes of the time, though those particular garments were reserved exclusively for liturgical use.

Page Page 4.

Chapter IV

Agape

T he separation of the Eucharist from the common meal did not happen suddenly, it came about gradually. By the first half of the second century, the separation was, for the most part, complete in the majority, if not all of the Churches. The common meal was not completely abolished, but it was held separately from the Eucharist. As a semi religious function, the common meal continued to be an important part of Christian life for several centuries. We are fortunate to have many details about the ceremonial connected with the agapes, especially in the writings of Tertullian (160?-230? A.D.) especially in his Apologeticus. He tells us:

“Our repast, by its very name, indicates its purpose. It is called by a name which among the Greeks means ‘love’ (agape) . . . by this refreshment we comfort the needy . . . No one takes his seat at the table without first praying to God. They eat as much as appeases their hunger and drink as much as men who are temperate. They satisfy their needs as men who remember that they must still worship God during the night. They take part in conversation but never forget that the Lord can hear all. After the lamps are lit and hands washed, each one, according to his ability to do so, is expected to read the Holy Scriptures or to sing a hymn in the center (of the room). This shows if he drank to excess. The meal likewise ends with a prayer.” 

Tertullian does not give any information as regards the content of the prayers said; therefore we cannot make a comparison between them and the chaburah suppers of the Jews. The washing of hands and the lighting of lamps were chaburah customs, but, after all, these were also common practices at evening meals in almost the entire Mediterranean region. After stressing the meaning of brotherly love and affection as the purpose of these common meals, Tertullian oddly forgets to mention one of their most important symbols, the common cup! The logical explanation for it is that in his locality this important part of the ceremonial had been eliminated and replaced with the cup of the Eucharist at the time the Eucharist became separated from the meal.

The Egyptian version of the Apostolic Tradition contains the most complete information about the agape. Authorship of the original Greek manuscripts written about 215 A.D. is attributed to the Roman presbyter Hippolytus of the third century. It contains a lot of information from the second century. Almost unknown in Rome and the West, likely due to the fact that the author had set himself up as an antipope during the reign of Pope Callistus, though he was later reconciled to the Church and died as a martyr in 235 A.D. – the Apostolic Tradition had been widely known and copied in the East, especially in Egypt and Syria. Its original Greek version has not survived, like so many other works, except for a few fragments, but the Coptic, Ethiopic, and Arabic versions are extant, as well as a partial Syriac version. The great popularity of the original works in the East can be attributed to the belief that it contained the tradition of the Apostles.

The Apostolic Tradition presents a fairly complete picture of the common meal, which retained all of the attributes of a Christian chaburah even after the Eucharist had been separated from it:

And he [ the bishop], after having broken the bread, must always taste of it and eat with those faithful who are present. And before each takes his own bread, they shall take from the hand of the bishop one fragment of the loaf, for this is the eulogion [blessed bread]. It is, however, not the Eucharist, as the Body of the Lord.

And before they drink, let each of those present take a cup, give thanks and drink. And thus let the baptized have their meal.

But to the catechumens the exorcised bread should be given, and they shall offer a cup each for themselves. A catechumen shall not sit at table at the Lord’s Supper . . . .

And if the faithful should attend a lord’s supper without a bishop but with a presbyter or a deacon only, they should similarly partake in an orderly way. Let all, however, be careful to receive the blessed bread from the presbyter’s or deacon’s hand; a catechumen shall receive the exorcised bread in like manner. If only laymen are present without a cleric, let them eat with understanding, for a layman cannot make the blessed bread. But after giving thanks for himself, each should eat in the name of the Lord . . . .

Comparison of the agape as described above with the old Jewish chaburah Meal provides some parallels which leave little doubt of the agapes obvious Jewish roots even after a century and a half of change.

§ Jewish Chaburah Meal

1. Only the host or leader of the chaburah was to begin the meal saying the “grace before meals .”  

2. This “grace before meals” consisted of the leader taking bread, breaking it, reciting the customary blessing of the bread, and eating a piece of it.

3. After eating a particle of the bread, the leader of the chaburah gave a fragment to each of those present at table.

4. This ritual of bread-blessing and breaking was the formal beginning of the chaburah meal.

5 . Each of the guests could bless his own cup of wine during the main course of the chaburah meal.

6. The old rabbinical regulations forbid eating with “uncircumcised men” (Acts 11:13 ).

7. Jewish custom, however, permitted Gentiles to drink in presence of the chaburah.

8. The chaburah suppers were religion-sponsored or semi-religious functions, as evident from all the religious ceremonial connected with them.

§ The Christian Agape

1. It was the bishop (or presbyter or deacon) alone who had the right to say the formal grace or bless the bread which began the agape, “for a layman cannot make the blessed bread.”

2. This grace consisted of the bishop (or presbyter or deacon) taking bread, breaking it, blessing it, and tasting of it.

3. After tasting it, the bishop or presiding cleric gave a fragment of the loaf to each of the faithful who were present.

4. This ceremony of bread-blessing and breaking also began the Christian agape.

5. Each of those present also blessed his own wine-cup during the agape, “And before they drink, let each of those present take a cup and give thanks and drink.”

6. The Christians apparently had a similar rule: “A catechumen shall not sit at table at the Lord’s supper . . . . “

7. The catechumens not having been initiated into the Church, though they had to eat apart from the faithful, were allowed to receive “exorcised bread” (not blessed bread).

8. The Christian agapes were also religion-sponsored meals.

The “blessed bread” of the agape, or Lord’s Supper, was not the Eucharist “ as is the body of the Lord ,” nor were the cups of wine over which each of those present gave thanks individually. No parallel in the agape of “ thanksgiving ” was said over a Cup of the Blessing, which was a really important element of the Jewish chaburah meals. This leaves us to believe that when the Christian parallel to the Cup of the Blessing had become the chalice of the Eucharist in a separate service ( where it was joined to the institution narrative and the Eucharistic formulae to form the consecration of the wine ); no substitute took its place in the meal.

In the East, where the clearer distinctions of Jewish practice were generally much better known and appreciated than in the West, the agape even after its separation from the Eucharist did have a common cup. Its Jewish parallel was not the Cup of the Blessing ( which was transferred to the Eucharistic service ) but the Kiddush cup. The agape in the Ethiopic version of the apostolic tradition , into which it had been interpolated from an unknown Eastern source, had, for example, such a common cup as well as several other items of the Jewish chaburah :

Concerning the bringing in of lamps, at the supper of the congregation. When the evening has come, the bishop being there, the deacon shall bring in a lamp, and standing in the midst of all the Faithful, being about to give thanks, the bishop shall first give the salutation, thus saying: ‘The Lord be with you all’. And the people also shall say: ‘With thy spirit’. And the bishop shall say: ‘Let us give thanks to the Lord’. And the people shall say: ‘Right and just, both greatness and exaltation with glory are due him’. And they shall not say: ‘Lift up your hearts’, because that shall be said at the time of the Oblation. And he prays thus, saying: ‘we give thee thanks, God, through thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord, because thou hast enlightened us by revealing thee incorruptible light, we having therefore finished the length of a day and having come to the beginning of the night, and having been satiated with the light of day which thou hast created for our satisfaction, and now since we have not been deficient of the light of the evening by thy grace, we sanctify thee and we glorify thee through thine only Son our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom to thee with him be glory and might and honour with the Holy Spirit now, etc. And they shall all say: Amen. And having risen up therefore after supper, the children and virgins having prayed, they shall say the psalms: and afterwards the deacon, holding the mingled cup of the Prosfora, shall say the psalm from that in which is written Hale luya, and after that the presbyter has commanded: “And likewise from those psalms.” And afterwards the bishop having offered the cup, as is proper for the cup, he shall say the psalm Hale luya, which is to say: “We praise him who is God most high: glorified and praised is he who founded the entire world with one word.” And likewise, the psalm having been completed, he shall give thanks over the cup, and shall give of the fragments to the Faithful. And as they are eating their supper the believers shall take a little bread from the hand of the bishop before they partake of their own bread, for it is Eulogia and not Eucharist as of our Lord. 

This is a great example of the ceremonial connected with the agape in the pre-Nicene East, though the actual composition is of a later date. The Jewish chaburah suppers that were held on certain festivals, on Friday and Saturday evenings (beginning and ending the Sabbath) had several items added to those of the ordinary chaburah. The Christian parallel to this special chaburah is the agape that is described in the Ethiopic version of the Apostolic Tradition.

A. Just before the birth of Christ, lighting, bringing in and blessing the lamp had become an integral part of the chaburah ceremony for those special formal occasions; we know this from the rabbinic schools of Shammai and Hillel which debated the exact point in the meal when this should be done , and whether the word lamp(s) in the blessing should be singular or plural: “Blessed art Thou, O Lord, our god, King of the world, who createst the lamp(s) of fire.” The Ethiopic version has a parallel ceremony of the lamp-blessing, though the blessing itself has been thoroughly remodeled along Christian lines. The text does not inform us whether this ceremonial was carried out at all Eastern agapes or only at those of Sunday. The Christians moved the lamp-blessing from the end of the proceedings to the beginning, which is understandable, since the Cup of the Blessing and the accompanying thanksgiving were transferred to the Eucharistic service.

B. Besides the Cub of the Blessing, in the festal chaburah, the Jews blessed and partook of an additional common cup called the kiddush cup. The Cub of Blessing never preceded the breaking of bread. From this fact we can come to the conclusion that the common cup of the Eastern Christians, described in the Ethiopic text, was the Christian parallel, not of the Cup of the Blessing but the kiddush cup of the Jews. In the East, therefore, no less than in the West, the Christian parallel of the Cup of the Blessing had been transferred to the Eucharistic celebration after its separation from the meal – where the words of institution and the consecratory formula were pronounced over it to confect the Eucharist. The common cup, the Kiddush stayed in the agape.

C. What about the “alleluia” psalms mentioned in the Ethiopic version? In Jewish practice, the festal chaburah suppers, those held on the eighteen Jewish feasts such as Passover, Pentecost, Tabernacles, etc., all included the song of the hallel. The hallel as part of the ceremony of the Passover supper dates back before the time of Jesus Christ. In the Egyptian hallel we find the alleluias to be a prominent feature. The “alleluia” psalms sung by the eastern Christians at their agapes were most likely none other than the psalms of the Egyptian hallel.

Liturgical Language:

The liturgical language in the Eastern as well as the Western Churches was mainly Greek, until the later part of the second century. In this, the young Church adopted the practice of the Jews in the diaspora. Palestinian Jews never had a strictly vernacular service either in the Temple or in the synagogues around the countryside.

Hebrew, not the vernacular Aramaic, was their liturgical language until about the second century A.D. The Jews of the diaspora, on the other hand, did hold their synagogue services in Greek, which was the general vernacular of the Levant already in the first century of the Christian era. When the Church spread beyond Palestine, the Christians took over this practice of using Greek in its services, except for a few Hebrew words such as  Amen, Alleluia, Hosanna, etc. For the first two centuries, Greek was the language of most Christians in all the large Eastern cities, such as Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem; it was also the language of the first Christians in Rome, the majority of whom were Greek speaking Levantines living in the foreign quarter. In the beginning, the question of a special liturgical language never came up. Greek was used simply because it was understood by most of the early converts, even at Rome.

Latin as a liturgical language was first introduced in the African Church at the close of the second century. Rome and the Western Church most likely adopted it some time during the third or fourth century. The change occurred because Greek ceased to be used and understood by the Christians of the Western Church. Thus, when the language of the people changed, so did the language in the Liturgy.

From the third to the fifth centuries, both the Greek and Latin appear to have been used side by side in the Churches of the West. During this period of transition most people of the time knew both languages; the rest knew either one or the other.

In the majority of the Eastern Churches, it was less complicated, at least for some time. With the passing of the centuries, one Eastern Church after another replaced Greek with its national language. In Greece of course, no such change was needed.