Thursday, November 30, 2023

Brian Alan Stewart on the Lack of the Eucharistic Sacrifice being tied into the Bishop's Role in Didascalia Apostolorum (first half of the 2nd century)

The following is taken from:

 

Brian Alan Stewart, "'Priests of My People': Levitical Paradigms for Christian Ministers in the Third and Fourth Century Church" (PhD Dissertation; University of Virginia, May 2006), 109-12

 

Eucharistic Sacrifice?

 

As I have explored in earlier chapters, a common explanation given for the rise of priestly designations has to do with the bishop’s connection with offering the Eucharistic sacrifice. Does the DA support this idea? At first glance, there are a few texts that seem to suggest a connection Chapter 9 begins with a comparison between the old people of God and the Christian Church, quickly moving to a comparison regarding sacrifice. The author instructs, “The sacrifices which existed formerly are now prayers and petitions and acts of thanksgiving; formerly there were first-fruits and tithes and portions and gifts, but now there are offerings between the bishop-priest idea and the offering of the Eucharistic sacrifice. which are made to God for the remission of sins through the bishop. For they are your high priests.” [263] Here it appears that part of the responsibility of the bishop, qua high-priest, is to make the offerings of the Church. Certainly, as president of worship, this is one of the bishop’s primary tasks. Yet, nothing in this passage explicitly speaks of the Eucharistic offering. Instead, the Christian sacrifices are specifically named “prayers and petitions and acts of thanksgiving.” [264] Though the Eucharist certainly would have been seen as sacrificial in nature (a virtually unanimous Christian perspective) [265] it does not seem to be the foremost “sacrifice” in connection with the bishop’s designation as “high priest.” Another passage in the same chapter also speaks of the bishop as priest in the context of sacrifice by making the comparison between liturgical ministry in Israel and in the Church: “Therefore just as it was not lawful for him who was not a Levite to offer anything or to approach the altar (altarem/thusistērion) without a priest, so also you should not desire to do anything without the bishop.” [266] Again, the priestly metaphor seems to work along the lines of sacrificial, liturgical duties of Levites and Christian bishops. Yet, while the Eucharistic service may be in the purview of the author, it is clearly not the foundational idea. The immediately preceding context helps us see what the “altar” is: as the bishop stands in the place of God and the deacons in the place of Christ, “the widows and orphans should be understood by you as the type of the altar (in typum altaris/tupon tou thusiastēriou).” [267] A few lines later, the author commands, “Therefore, make your offerings (prosforas/tas thusias) to your bishop, either you yourselves or through the deacons; and when he receives from each, he will divide to each as he should. For the bishop knows well those who are distressed and gives to each according to his stewardship…” [268] The “altar” in this context, though related to the offerings provided in worship, refers metaphorically not to the Eucharistic altar, but to the poor and distressed within the community. They constitute the “altar.” The “sacrifices” brought to the bishop-priest are those goods and gifts which in turn are taken to the widows and orphans, “those who are distressed.”

 

The priestly function of the bishop, then, does relate to his task as one who receives and distributes the “offerings” of the people. The Eucharistic sacrifice, however, does not play a large role, if any, in the conception of the bishop as priest. In fact, the one chapter where Christian worship is addressed explicitly (chapter 12), the Eucharistic rite receives almost no attention. [269] As Collin Bulley notes, “Although there is no doubt, then, that the author of the Didascalia viewed the bishop as the one who normally presided at the Eucharist . . . he nowhere relates the bishop’s priesthood specifically to this function.” [270] Schöllgen also recognizes this absence of a Eucharist-priesthood connection and observes that “the liturgical service of the clergy in the Didascalia strongly recedes altogether.” [271] Although the ministration of the Eucharistic service may be one of the functions of the Didascalia’s bishop, it by no means holds a primacy of place or lies as the basis for understanding the bishop as a priest. Rather the bishop’s more general role as one who presides over all of worship (including but not limited to the sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving) seems to be the connecting point for the priesthood motif.

 

Notes for the Above:

 

263 Didascalia, chapter 9; Latin: Didascaliae Apostolorum XXV, in Tidner, 41; and Apostolic Constitutions 2.26, in Metzger1:236, though in a slightly different form.

 

264 The Apostolic Constitutions, in comparison with the Latin, omits the word “acts” (actiones) and speaks only of “thanksgivings” (eucharistiai). This may be taken to refer to the Eucharist; however, it is debatable whether this was the original wording of the Didascalia. Van Unnick also sees this passage as speaking of prayers rather than the Eucharist (“Moses' Law,” 22).

 

265 For an overview of the early church’s view of the Eucharist as sacrifice, see Robert Daly, Christian Sacrifice: the Judeo-Christian background before Origen (Washington, D.C.: Catholic Univ. Press, 1978) 311-372, 498-508; Dom Gregory Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy, 2nd ed. (Westminster [London]: Dacre Press, 1949) 110-118; G.W.H. Lampe, “The Eucharist in the Thought of the Early Church” in Eucharistic Theology Then and Now. ed. R.E. Clemens. (London: SPCK, 1968), 38-46; Edward J. Kilmartin, The Eucharist in the West: History and Theology, ed. Robert Daly, (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1998), 8-23. The pertinent church fathers on the Eucharist in connection with either sacrifice or altar include Didache 14; Ignatius of Antioch, Philadelphians 4; Ephesians 5.2; Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 41.1-3, 117.1-3; Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV 17.5, 18.1-6; Tertullian, Exhortation on Chastity 10.5; 11; Apostolic Tradition 4.11-12; and Cyprian, Epistle 63.

 

266 Didascalia, chapter 9; Latin: Didascaliae Apostolorum XXVI, in Tidner, 42; and Apostolic Constitutions 2.27, in Metzger 1:240

 

267 Didascalia, chapter 9; Latin: Didascaliae Apostolorum XXV-XXVI, in Tidner, 42; and Apostolic Constitutions 2.26, in Metzger 1:240.

 

268 Didascalia, chapter 9; Latin: Didascaliae Apostolorum XXVI, in Tidner, 42; see also Apostolic Constitutions 2.27, in Metzger 1:242, for a slightly revised version.

 

269 It is for this reason that Schöllgen does not want to place the Didascalia in the same category (Kirchenordnung) as the Didache and the Apostolic Tradition.

 

270 Bulley, 130.

 

271 “Der liturgischen Dienst des Klerus in der Didaskalie ingesamt stark zurücktritt.” Schöllgen, Die Anfänge, 91. Oddly, later in this same work, Schöllgen seems to suggest conflicting conclusions. One the one hand, he argues that the priestly understanding of the bishop is best explained because of the “understanding of the Eucharist as sacrifice” and “the liturgy of the Eucharistic celebration” (105). On the same page, however, he argues that the bishop is spoken of as a priest in connection with the Eucharist in only a few places (105).

 

Blog Archive