CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

THE EARLY LITURGY TO THE TIME OF GREGORY THE GREAT:

SACRAMENTALITY AND THE GOODNESS OF CREATION

BY

NATHAN D. MARCH

DR. MARK M. MOROZOWICH

TRS 640 – INTRO LITURGY & SACRAMENTS

29 MARCH 2004

The premise underlying Josef Jungmann’s The Early Liturgy to the Time of Gregory the Great is that one cannot properly evaluate or solve the liturgical problems of the present unless the past is studied.[1]  He employs a method that investigates the structure of the liturgy, which became more complicated over time due to constant adaptation and additions, in order to uncover the original intentions.[2] His primary concern is the pre-Gregorian liturgy since it is the period where the foundation of the liturgy is laid down.[3]  In Chapter Ten, “The Defense against Gnosticism”, he discusses how the Gnostic crisis of the second and third centuries influenced the liturgy.

Gnosticism was a loosely organized syncretistic religious movement of the second and third centuries that strove to give an explanation of the problem of evil in the world and to teach a way of salvation.[4] Gnostics believed that individuals had an uncreated divine spark that was imprisoned in the material body and in need of freedom. This could only be achieved through the recognition of true spiritual identity by means of the “gnosis” of experience rather than human reason.  They held to a strong dualism between matter and spirit which denigrated the created order and negatively assessed human history.  Material creation was the result of a lesser god, Demiurge, who upset the original perfection of the cosmological hierarchy.  Many Christian-Gnostics rearticulated Christianity by appeal to private interpretation of Scripture, and outside hidden realities reserved for the elite, which put them in opposition to Church authorities. 

Orthodox theologians countered Gnostic contempt for matter by affirming the essential goodness of creation.[5] They expressed salvation in terms of recapitulation which reconciled the proposed dualisms of Gnosticism and offered a positive assessment of human history.[6]  The doctrine of apostolic succession offered a remedy to the Gnostic private interpretation of Scripture and placed proper use of them squarely in the center of the publicly assembled Christian community gathered around the Bishop.[7]  The rule of faith was the rule of truth, and only those in communion with the Church had any right to the Scriptures.[8]

Jungmann remarks, “What is most surprising about Gnosticism is not that it should have had its repercussions in the field of theology, but that its effects should have been felt also in the field of liturgy.” [9]  For example, he notes that the kerygma of Christ preserved in the Apostles’ Creed specifically emphasizes the earthly events surrounding the work of salvation in order to exclude Gnostic interpretations.[10]  He proposes that only in the light of the Gnostic conflict can some of the liturgical developments of the period be understood.[11] The two significant developments he elaborates on in the chapter are the development of the offertory and the introduction of a permanent stone altar.

These developments can be understood more significantly against the backdrop of early Christian antiquity discussed in the previous chapters of the book.  He notes that early Christian gatherings were aware of their priestly character, considering themselves a priestly community, a plebs sancta.[12]  He remarks that the Christian place of worship differed fundamentally from the temples of other religions.  Whereas in other religions, where the place of worship was the focus and the gathering of the community accidental, the Christian focus was on the assembled community[13] centered on the Bishop.[14]  The community understood its worship as glorifying God in spirit and truth.[15]  In this context worship was primarily understood as a spiritual sacrifice.

Jungmann notes the first appearances of the practice of the faithful bringing offerings to the altar corresponded with the timing of the Gnostic crisis.[16] By the time of Cyprian in the third century a clearly developed practice of an offertory procession existed.[17]  Whereas previously Christian worship had stressed the thanksgiving, now the material gifts of bread and wine were emphasized as offered gifts to God by the community in a solemn act.[18] The emphasis on the oblation changed the picture of the Mass considerably. The shift in understanding of the event from a spiritual to a real sacrifice is demonstrated by the shift in preferred terminology for the Christian celebration from Eucharistia to oblatio or sacrificium.[19] Jungmann notes the shift in emphasis is still evident in the present liturgy where phrases which safeguard the material aspect of sacrifice are still found.[20]

This change in emphasis also exerted its influence on the conception and furnishing of the church buildings.[21] In Christian antiquity the church building was called the domus ecclesiae with emphasis clearly on the assembled community gathered around the Bishop with his cathedra as the focal point of worship.[22]  In this context, Jungmann suggests that the altar was not stressed because it was not considered an essential element of Christian worship.[23] He notes that Christianity did not need altars because the Christian oblation was the body and blood of Christ which was already holy and the property of God.[24]  Altars were often constructed of wood and other perishable materials for they were simply considered the place where the gifts of bread and wine were placed.[25] He considers the appearance of permanent altars of stone in the fourth century evidence of the development of the theological understanding of the sacrificial character of the Mass.[26]  Whereas Christian antiquity stressed the spiritual element in Christian worship against the pagan cults of the time, the Church in the third and fourth centuries, defending themselves against Gnosticism, emphasized the material and sacrificial dimension.[27]  The spiritual sacrifice was now understood as a real sacrifice and the table upon which the sacrifice was celebrated gained importance.[28]

The Gnostic crisis highlights many of the ideas propounded by Kevin Irwin.  Irwin remarks that we do not live in two different worlds with liturgy offering an escape from the mundane to the eternal; he rejects the kind of dichotomy characteristic of the Gnostic world view.[29]  Irwin suggests an alternate world view which accepts that the world we live in is flawed, but affirms the essential goodness of creation, understanding that in this world God is experienced.[30]  Sacramentality regards all reality the bearer of God’s presence and the instrument of his saving activity.[31] Creation expresses God’s creative idea and reveals the divine intention to manifest God’s power and goodness.[32] Hence, creation is not evil as the Gnostics regarded it, or indifferent as modern empiricists hold, but essentially good and itself revelatory.  Irwin notes that the sacramentality of creation is closely linked with the principle of Incarnation which unites the divine and human, spirit and matter.[33]  Together they underscore the discoverability of God in human life and explain why created things are used both as a motivation and a means to praise and worship God.[34]

Irwin states that we worship God through the things of this world.[35]  Sacramental liturgy articulates our faith in God and what we believe about the human person and the cosmos.[36]  It affirms the goodness of creation and our relationship to it. Thus, one of the principles underlying sacramental liturgy is the reverence and use of creation.  The symbolic-sacramental significance of creation in liturgy is to assert that it is a mediating sign of God’s creative idea and action and that it is able to communicate God’s knowledge and love.[37]  Irwin reiterates the notion that we are a plebs sancta, a priestly people, who are called to stand in the center of the world and unify any dichotomy between the natural and supernatural in our act of blessing God, that is of both receiving the world from God and offering it to God.[38]  

John McKenna remarks that an “unconscious materialism” that equates reality with physical and measurable reality affects present day sacramentality.[39]  This modern day world view equates “symbol” with “unreal” and reflects a deeper tendency to separate matter and spirit like the Gnostics of the second and third centuries.[40]  As J. Baumgartner points out, “for a worship service to regain its expressive power it will be necessary that it reclaim its character as event, as an action of gesture and symbols, in short, as a fully human act.”[41]  McKenna’s three levels of symbolic process can assist in understanding how the present day symbolic actions and proclaimed words surrounding the offertory and preparation of the gifts can assist in uncovering the deeper meaning of liturgy as an experience.[42]  His creative approach to liturgical reflection, when applied to the liturgical events surrounding the offertory, invites us to choose to live from a sacramental world view that continually reaffirms the goodness of creation since it comes from the goodness of God the Creator.[43]  It accents that the gifts themselves are intended for us, and are the means by which we discover God and worship him.  Further it emphasizes that we are a plebs sancta, a holy people, who offer worship “in spirit and truth.”[44] We offer our whole lives to God with and through the creation we receive.

ENDNOTES