First Eucharistic Prayer in the Christian Religion - Coursework Example

Of First Eucharistic Prayer in the Christian Religion: Brief History and Theological Reflections Introduction Christianity as a religion starts from the simple towards the complex. In its early creation, the small number of believers attempt to define their faith and system of belief within the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. And the First Eucharistic Prayer was initiated as a form of church ritual; in general, this is a “copy” of what Jesus instructed them to do: “Do this in remembrance of me.” Like a thriving religion, however, the institution of the Eucharistic Prayer was far from simple. There were changes and alterations; there were struggles within and among the believers. Scholar Mazza explores and examines the four texts available to him in order to decipher the structure and content of the First Eucharistic Prayer: (1) Jewish festive meal, (2) Luke’s Last Supper, (3) Didache, and (4) the First Letter to the Corinthians. The “texts” that describe the rituals characterized in the Jewish festive meal and the Didache were written anonymously since both texts are oral tradition; this implies that the two texts were made by the people who practiced them -- there was no particular author who wrote them. In Luke’s document, it is assumed that the writer is Luke who was one of the disciples of Jesus. And the author of the Letter to the Corinthians is none other than St. Paul himself. In his rigorous research, Mazza uncovers the nature of this Eucharistic Prayer and how it shapes the study of Christology and Ecclesiology. Brief History According to Mazza (1999, p.20), Luke’s description of the Last Supper has similarity or “analogous” to the Jewish festive meal. Monti (1993, p.117) says that the Last Supper instituted by Jesus of Nazareth is considered by many Christians as the “most important aspects of this liturgy (i.e., eucharistic prayer).” And Mazza attempts to find a connection or relationship between the Last Supper and the Jewish festive meal; after all, Jesus was fundamentally a Jew. There are three basic stages of the Jewish festive meal: first, the rite of the Qiddush as an introduction to the festive celebration; second, the meal proper; and third, the rite of the cup accompanied by Birkat ha-Mazon (Mazza, 1999). In the Qiddush rite, it begins with the rite of the cup and the reading taken from the passage in the Book of Genesis. Afterwards, a short blessing is performed. At the concluding part of the Qiddush is the rite of bread. After the rite of the Qiddush and the meal proper is the recitation of the Birkat ha-Mazon; Birkat ha-Mazon is a ritual characterized by thanksgiving to God, usually done at the conclusion of the meal (Mazza, 1999; Johnson, 2009). The parallelism of Luke’s version of the Last Supper to that of the Jewish festive meal also stretches to the document called the Didache (Mazza, 1999). Prior to the modern scholar’s abbreviation of such document into Didache, it was originally named as “The Training of the Lord Through the Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles” (Milavec, 2003). This implies that the primary aim of the mid-first-century document was for the instruction or teaching towards the newly-converted non-Jewish believer. The description of the eucharistic celebration as described in Didache is of “Antiochene origin,” particularly in the mid-first century (Mazza, 1999). Like Luke’s Last Supper and the Jew’s festive meal, the Didache contains the rites of cup, bread, and blessing. Unlike Luke and the Jew, however, the Didache has an added feature: embolism or the prayer for unity (Mazza, 1999). This is interesting because the supplication for unity reflects the state of the Christian Church in its early inception -- that is, the presence of division among first-century Christians. According to Mazza (1999, p.22), said document has the general theme of thanksgiving; in fact, the act of thanksgiving is seen in “three successive eucharists.” Mazza (26) observes that the eucharistic prayer practiced by the Christians in Corinth has similarity to the eucharistic rites largely used by the Jews and the Antioch Christians. He further notes that Paul, in one of his letters to the Corinthians, provides two descriptions of the Eucharist: first is the eucharistic rite of the Christian Church particularly in Corinth and second is the Last Supper rite in which Jesus partakes in the upper room (Mazza, 1999). Here, the concept and/or praxis of Eucharist is apparently twofold; the Last Supper is viewed as one eucharistic rite while Paul’s eucharist is another one. And Mazza notices the rapid change, if not modification, of liturgical tradition from the Last Supper (in Luke’s depiction) to the Church in Corinth. On the other hand, Paul’s eucharist is very close to the eucharistic rite portrayed in the Didache; both share the connection between the bread rite and embolism. Their main difference, nonetheless, is the absence or presence of the meal proper. In contrast to the Didache, the First Letter to the Corinthians expresses no thanksgiving after the supper. Mazza compares and contrasts the four texts available to him in order to discern the historical development of the present-day Eucharist. He argues that today’s Eucharistic Prayer is substantially brought into form and content through the shifting from the end of the Supper’s rite to the “rite at the beginning of the meal” (Mazza, 1999, p.28). From Mazza’s synoptic outline, one clearly observes that Paul’s eucharistic rite -- as shown in his First Letter to the Corinthians -- lacks an act of thanksgiving after supper. This is what Mazza (1999, p.29) means when he states that the absence of a meal proper -- in the eucharistic rite practiced in the Church of Corinth -- permits the merging of texts “into a single text that would hold for both the bread and the wine.” Due to this absence and the impact of juxtaposition, the bread-cup sequence becomes more prominent rather than the cup-bread sequence. And in this process, the Eucharistic Prayer has become a single text (i.e., no meal proper) as it is known to this day (Mazza, 1999). Structure and Content: Past and Present Based from the four texts critically examined by Mazza, the First Eucharistic Prayer fundamentally occurs in the mid-first-century of Antiochene origin. In the Didache document, the structure of its eucharistic rite greatly mirrors the present-day Eucharistic Prayer. Although the eucharistic celebration is a “copy” of the Last Supper, the Eucharist of today is widely considered as the antitype of “the true reality” (Mazza, 1999). Here, there are several differences in terms of the Eucharist’s structure, one of which is the sequence of performing or conducting a particular activity within a particular rite. In Didache, for instance, the rite of the cup is utterly missing after the meal proper. In contrast to Luke’s Last Supper and the Jewish festive meal, the eucharistic rite outlined in Didache contains an act of thanksgiving without an accompaniment of the rite of cup. On the other hand, the eucharistic prayer which is administered in the Church of Corinth categorically follows a sequence of rite of cup, then rite of bread, and finally embolism. Evidently, there is no more rite or activity after embolism or prayer of thanksgiving. In Paul’s eucharist, the meal proper is obviously wanting. The meal -- in the traditional sense of the meal -- is not part of the eucharistic celebration. And in the passing of time, Paul’s eucharist remarkably evolves. With the absence of supper or meal, the two rites (i.e., cup and bread rites) become per modum unius or a single whole (Mazza, 1999). With respect to the content of the First Eucharistic Prayer (i.e., as portrayed in Didache), its distinctive feature is the particular word usage it contains. In Didache, for example, the rites of cup and bread are accompanied by acts of thanksgiving. Conversely, Paul’s eucharistic rite essentially blesses the cup and the bread. The variation between these two texts is quite interesting because of their unique word usage. The words “thanksgiving” and “blessing” have their own relevance or appropriateness. In Mark and Matthew, says Mazza (1999, p.30), the prayer associated to bread is a “blessing” while the prayer associated to cup is a “thanksgiving.” Mazza, however, fails to provide a satisfactory explanation of why the difference between bread and cup, between blessing and thanksgiving. Nonetheless, he offers a suggestion by saying that this is due mainly to the dominant custom strictly followed by the Jewish people (Mazza, 1999, p.30). As if agreeing to Mazza, Van de Sandt (2005, p.150) states that the prevalence of “thanksgiving” over the “blessing” is an aspect of Christian influence. The lexis utilized in the Didache document and the First Letter to the Corinthians substantially varies. Mazza (1999, p.30) explains that while the Mark and Matthew documents follow the Jewish custom, the Didache and the First Letter to the Corinthians have the tendency “proper to the Antiochene tradition.” This implies that all elements characterized in the text should be consistent from beginning to end; if Didache uses the word “thanksgiving” from its ending (i.e., at the rite of bread), therefore it should be transferred to its beginning (i.e., at the rite of cup). What is strange, though, in these two documents is the principle or reason why “thanksgiving” and “blessing” are used in Didache and Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians, respectively. On the one hand, the Didache document mirrors that of Luke in using the word “thanksgiving” in the rites of cup and bread. On the other hand, the First Letter to the Corinthians reflects that of the Jewish festive meal in utilizing the word “blessing.” With respect to the ancient documents such as the Didache, what seems to be the surviving form or structure in this modern time is their “institution narrative” in which the rites of bread and cup are performed. In the present-day eucharistic prayer, forms and contents change tremendously. (The present-day Eucharistic Prayer is written or modified by the Church authorities such as Bishops and the Pope.) In fact, the present text has undergone several modifications compared to the new text of the First Eucharistic Prayer or the Roman Canon. In general, the structure remains the same: te igitur, commemoration of the living, communicantes, proper forms of the communcantes, hanc igitur, quam oblationem tu, institution narrative, mysterium fidei, anamnesis, epiclesis, intercessions, and doxology. Contrasting between the present and the new texts, changes occurred prominently in relation to verb forms, adjectives, and conjunctions. In the Institution Narrative, for example, the present text “suffered” alters from active verb into passive verb: was to suffer. Also, a change from active to passive verb occurs when the present text “looking up” is modified into the new text as “with eyes raised.” The conjunction “and” is cancelled and becomes “saying” in the passive verb form. The phrase “[i]n a similar way” is added prominently. Additional adjectives are apparent in the Institution Narrative such as “precious.” “venerable,” and “eternal.” On Christology and Ecclesiology According to Mazza (1999, p.33), the Didache compiler of the Mystical Eucharist adds up a “lengthy narrative development.” He further states that such addition of narrative in the Didache text is driven primarily to the compiler’s “confession of faith” (Mazza, 1999, p.33); Mazza contents that the sense of “confession of [the compiler’s] faith” is limited to the field of Christology. As a whole, Didache and the Mystical Eucharist subtly explore Christology in general and the nature of Jesus in particular; it asks the fundamental question: “who is Jesus?” (Rausch, 2003). For instance, it writes in Didache 9: “We give you thanks, our Father, for the life which you have made known to us through Jesus your servant (pais)” (Mazza, 1999, p.33). In this passage, Jesus of Nazareth is pictured here as a servant of the Father (i.e., God). The term “servant” speaks of a person who follows the will of his master or lord. The description of Jesus as a servant of God implies that he is a human being -- that is, he is not a God. Mazza (1999, p.23) notes that the image of Jesus portrayed in the Didache document suggests that “Christianity is still a development and unfolding of Judaism.” In the reproduction of Didache, the Mystical Eucharist compiler adds up a narrative: “Through whom you have made all things and whom you have sent to become a human being for our salvation” (Mazza, 1999). Apparently, the compiler views Jesus of Nazareth as a human being who is sent by the Father to save His people. Consequently, this has an implication to the structure and content of the eucharistic prayer; and if we believe Mazza -- i.e., his utterance on Christianity as the unfolding of Judaism -- then the eucharistic rite in the Didache framework is an extension of the Jewish festive meal. In fact, Del Verme (2004, p.113) affirms by saying that this document has a “pre-historical existence in Jewish sources.” Mazza (1999, p.27) observes that Paul’s idea of the Eucharist based from his Letter widely differs from that of the Didache document. On the one hand, Didache describes the eucharistic rite as a religious activity or “model” that aims for the unity of the Church. From the perspective of Didache, the notion of Church refers to Christianity as a religion. In the mid-first-century world, Christianity as a system of faith was composed of a small number of believers. Furthermore, its faith or system of belief was at the initial stage of development. Perhaps the need for unity within the Christian Church was, at that point in time, pragmatic. On the other hand, Paul considers the Eucharist as a “model” for the unity of the people or assembly of Christians. In contrast to Didache, Paul’s conception of the eucharistic rite centers on oneness of the assembly itself, and not merely the ideal Church. For instance, the believer who eats and shares the eucharistic bread is also one or in unity with other fellow believers. Moreover, Christians who drink in the eucharistic cup are one with the blood of Christ. In essence, they are in complete harmony with themselves as an assembly of people. Mazza (1999, p.27) generally notes that the variation between Paul’s and the Didache’s conceptions of the Eucharist is obvious with respect to their different assumed ecclesiologies. Unlike in Didache, the Church of Corinth in that period of Christian history was “quarreling with one another over their leaders” (Fee, 1987). Conclusion In comparison to modern-day Eucharist, by and large, the First Eucharistic Prayer transpires in the mid-first-century Antioch society. The eucharistic activities are shown in detail in the document called the Didache. The eucharistic practices prominent in the Didache are almost analogous to the Jewish festive meal and Luke’s Last Supper; although variations are quite apparent, such as the structure or sequence of the eucharistic rites. In general, the First Eucharistic Prayer is an evolution from the Jewish tradition towards the growing Christian religion. Thus, such Eucharistic Prayer reflects the changing views of Jesus the Christ and the Church itself. And in the present-day world, the First Eucharistic Prayer continues to change; the modifications are generally made with respect to its form (e..g, verb). At certain extent, though, these modifications are by-products of the evolving ecclesiology and christology in the postmodern environment. Reference List Del Verme, M., 2004. Didache and Judaism: Jewish roots of an ancient Christian-Jewish work. New York, NY: T & T Clark International. Fee, D.D., 1987. The first epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. Johnson, L.J., 2009. Worship in the early church, Volume 1: an anthology of historical sources. Collegeville, MN: Pueblo. Mazza, E., 1999. The eucharist in the first four centuries. In: A.J. Chupungco, ed. 1999. Handbook for liturgical studies: the eucharist. Collegeville, MN: Pueblo, pp.9-60. Milavec, A., 2003. The Didache: text, translation, analysis, and commentary. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press. Monti, J., 1993. The week of salvation: history and traditions of holy week. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor. Rausch, T.P., 2003. Who is Jesus?: an introduction to Christology. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press. Van de Sandt, H., 2005. Matthew and the Didache: two documents from the same Jewish-Christian milieu? Assen, Netherlands: Royal Van Gorcum and Fortress Press. Read More