Regarding St. John Chrysostom and the Eucharist

@Stalwart, so that I am not a threadjacker, I thought I should fork this and @tag you, as my reply to your reply does not directly address the frequency of Eucharistic communion.

Before I begin my response, I wish to express my great personal respect for you as a Christian of orthodox beliefs and indefatigable piety, and I find it an extreme pleasure to discuss these matters with you energetically and with vigour. So please, I beseech you; do not mistake my eagerness for zeal or my enthusiasm for intolerance. As I see it, you and I are like MPs of the same party, honourable, right honourable, honourable and learned, honourable and gallant, or in the case of an MP who is a lawyer and in the military and a member of the Privy Council, right honourable, learned and gallant, friends, or better yet Noble Lords in the “Other Place” as the MPs most hilariously refer to it (in my childhood we used this as a euphemism for a firery eschatological destination rather less noble) whose time in debates is unconstrained, who needn’t worry about elections, and who, I am told, dine in rather better restaurants than those attached to the Commons or the Strangers’ Bar. Although Wesminster Palace does have the rat infestation, so perhaps we would do better to, if we are ever blessed to travel together to the homeland of the Anglican Church, dine at Simpson’s in the Strand and enjoy fine Scottish Roast Beef with Yorkshire Pudding, and the superb Mock Turtle Soup, which is devoid of turtles (hence the joke in Alice and Wonderland). Now to proceed with the reply as properly set out:

On the contrary, there is circumstantial evidence St. John Chrysostom wrote the liturgy attested to him, and of the ancient liturgies, the three major liturgies most likely written by their nominal authors are CHR, the Presanctified of St. Severus (and its derivative the Presanctified Liturgy of St. Gregory Diologos), and the Anaphora or Hallowing of Mar Theodore of Mopsuestia, which, like the liturgy of his friend St. John, reflects the understanding of Theodore on the Eucharist (which is that in the prothesis, the bread and wine become crucified body and blood of our Lord and in the Epiklesis, they are resurrected, so that the laity partake of his risen and supernatural flesh. This makes sense in light of the Byzantine prothesis and the Assyrian prothesis (the Assyrians alone use that liturgy), in which leaven from the previous Raza or mystery is reused when baking the bread for the next Raza; this they count as a sacrament in its own right referred to as Malka, meaning “the King.” The Byzantine Prothesis and less ornate preparatory rites of the Oriental churches are accounted as an integral part of the liturgy itself. I think the strongest argument against female priesthood is that I would not want to meet a woman who could get through the morose Byzantine Prothesis. Now, St. John very possibly subscribed to this interpretation as well; it would make sense given the relationship between him and Theodore of Mopsuestia was like that of St. Basil and St. Gregory of Naziazen; they were both students of the Antiochene school, famed preachers, and reknowned for scriptural exposition. But since Theodore was anathematized at the urging of St. Cyril by Emperor Justinian (70 years later), no one would be incentivized to publish pseudepigrapha in his name, except in the Church of the East, which was and is too rigidly controlled by tradition for that to work (and the lack of Greek speakers therein would cause any new writings of St. Theodore to show an accent).

On the other hand, the scholarly consensus is that Quincunque Vult is a forgery, because it in most of its redactions contains the filioque, which postdates St. Athanasius the Apostolic (although the Greek and Slavonic recension omits it, as one would expect), and also the work would be a superfuous product for him, since his entire career had one main focus: enforcing the creed negotiated at Nicea. And it is written in a different style of Byzantine Greek.

If you want real presence without spiritual presence, there are three ancient liturgies which will back you up, and one of them will surprise you: the Anaphora of Hippolytus (perhaps the second or third oldest liturgical text, depending on the age of the Liturgy of Addai and Mari, after that of St. Mark or St. Cyril, also attested in the Euchologion of St. Serapion, which we know, from the second century Strasbourg papyrus, to be the oldest text in continual use, as the Coptic, Syriac and Eastern Orthodox churches still use it, infrequently in the latter case, but nonetheless, it has always been prayed; for that matter that of Hippolytus has remained in continual use since at least the fourth century as it is the main anaphora of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church)

This prayer, one of the three oldest in continual use, as you doubtless know, contains a weak epiklesis, which is why 1979 BCP Rite II Eucharistic Prayer B merely adds text to it, and does not tamper with the epiclesis, unlike the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil (allegedly the source of Prayer C* and certainly that of prayer D from the same communion rite). Although you will likely know that both its Byzantine and Alexandrian form features an epiklesis which equivocates on what is happening. Let us compare:

St. Basil
“Therefore, Holy Lord, we, sinners and your unworthy servants . . . offering the images of the holy body and blood of your Christ, pray and call upon you, O Holy of Holies, that through your good pleasure the Holy Spirit might come upon us and upon these gifts which we offer and bless them and sanctify them and make this bread the precious body of the Lord and God and our Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen.”

“And this cup the precious blood of the Lord and God and our Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen . . . And all of us who partake of the one bread and cup unite us with one another in the communion of the one, Holy Spirit and see to it that none of us partakes of the holy body and blood of your Christ unto judgment and punishment, but rather that we find mercy and grace with all the saints who have been pleasing to you from the beginning . . ..

Excerpts From
The Eucharistic Epiclesis
John H. McKenna, CM

(By the way, you should buy that book; it has my highest recommendation and the author of it is in no respect affiliated with the Liturgical Movement; indeed I prefer it to other books we had a row over, but owing to the obscurity of its subject matter, it, along with another traditional Catholic liturgical book, The Genius of the Roman Rite, and The Liturgy in Medieval England, also brilliant, are not on my list for beginners)

At any rate, compare with:

St. John Chrysostom
Then bowing his head and pointing with his orarion to the Holy Bread, the deacon saith secretly:
Deacon: Bless, Master, the Holy Bread.
And the priest, rising, maketh the sign of the cross over the Holy Gifts
thrice, saying:
Priest: And make this Bread the precious Body of thy Christ;
Deacon: Amen.
And again the deacon pointeth to the holy chalice and saith:
Deacon: Bless, Master, the Holy Cup. And the priest blessing, saith:
Priest: And that which is in this Cup, the precious Blood of thy Christ:
Deacon: Amen.
And again the deacon, pointing to both the Holy Things saith:
Deacon: Bless them both, Master. And the priest, blessing both the Holy Things saith:
Priest: Changing them by thy Holy Spirit. Deacon: Amen, Amen, Amen.
[/b]

Lastly, as a surprise for you, because I like you, I shall point out for you that the Roman Canon has only the weakest possible Epiklesis and therefore of all ancient rites is most amenable to Calvinist or Zwinglian interpretation, provided it is shorn of content the Calvinist or Zwinglian would object to (which are mostly accretions, anyway). Thus I find it ironic that no one actually did this, not even Martin Luther, who kept the form of the Mass but supressed the canon except for the Institution Narrative, with his usual capricious flair. But that he felt comfortable eradicating the canon while essentially disagreeing with all other reformers and very nearly maintaining the Roman doctrine should indicate how much the Roman Canon can be your friend in showing a Patristic doctrine contrary to the Anglo-Catholic, Roman Catholic or Eastern doctrines of transubstantiation and physical transformation.

I would also note, my position on Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi is so strong, and my understanding of the worship texts so central, that if the certain author of a liturgical text appears to contradict the meaning of the text, the text takes priority over their commentary, which should be reinterpreted in light of what the liturgy says or otherwise set aside. This only works for highly liturgical churches like Anglicanism and Orthodoxy; in the Roman Rite an alternative approach is needed because the Roman Canon itself falls short of saying what Thomas Aquinas OP, or his fellow Dominican redactor of it, Humbert, who created the recension that is the Dominican Rite, or the fathers of the Council of Trent, say that it says. But its author is unknown; in the event it does not matter greatly because the Roman Patriarchate generally had other liturgies in their domains which agreed with the Thomistic-Tridentine position, either to some extent, as with Hippolytus, or to an extreme extent, as in the ancient Gallican and Mozarabic Rites, which can be dated to well before the year 1,000, when the former was suppressed and the marginalization of the latter began, or lastly in the Eastern rites of Eastern Catholics.

I will also concede to you @Stalwart that there is at least reasonable suspicion from my end, and perhaps even preponderance of the evidence, in favor of the idea that the extent to which the Eucharist was regarded as physical or spiritual was not uniform, based on the divergence of the Anaphorae of St. Basil, St. Chrysostom, St. Mark, St. James and the Roman Canon, until the 6th century when the Presanctified Liturgy crossed the heresiological firewalls and was adopted not just in the Oriental churches but by their bitter Chalcedonian (Greek and Roman) and Assyrian (psuedo-Nestorian) rivals. And after the sixth century, the liturgical texts start to become shockingly explicit even compared to St. Mark or St. John Chrysostom. But it seems to me entirely reasonable that whoever wrote the Anaphora of the Apostolic Tradition, and also St. Basil the Great, had a Eucharistic theology based on a spiritual, symbolic or communal presence, whereas St. John Chrysostom’s Eucharist in terms of the precision of its languages exceeds St. Mark/St. Cyril, rivals Ss. Addai and Mari (of which the Liturgy of Theodore of Mopsuestia now survives only as an anaphora), and is exceeded only by the Coptic recension of St. Basil with its Confiteor ante Communionem (“Amen, amen, amen, I believe and confess until the last breath that this is truly the body and blood of Christ..l”), or the Byzantine confiteor which is somewhat similiar but without a rejection of Eutychianism in the text, or the maximally explicit liturgies of the Syriac and Ethiopian churches, which can leave no doubt that a physical change occurs, when the deacon calls out “Stomen kalos, kyrie eleison, consider, my brethren, how awful [awful/terrible/great/dreadful/powerful] this moment is, when the Holy Spirit takes flight and hovers over the altar, changing the precious gifts into the true body and blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ...” At this moment, the flagellum, lined with bells like a tambourine, are shaken over the altar, as the priest moves his hands in a fluttering motion over the bread and wine. And the Epiklesis can be of an epic length.

*As to the actual provenance of the Star Trek prayer, this remains unknown, and given the sniggering this has caused among laity and clergy alike, I expect we shall not know with certainty who penned Eucharistic Prayer C; but at St. Francis of Assisi Episcopal Church, where I was briefly a member, it was used for half the year, from Trinity until Advent, Eucharistic Prayer B was used during Lent, and at other times it was Eucharistic Prayer A, as my friend the Vicar loathed Eucharistic Prayer D owing to the invariant preface and other usability problems I have commented on previously.

In closing, let me express again my pleasure and honor at being able to debate these points with a man of your godliness; in the hopes that we are best described as
Rather than

 

Thank you, and let me likewise say that as an Anglican-friendly Eastern Orthodox you have shown extreme charity and friendship. I only hope to reciprocate in turn.

Liturgical history isn't really my thing, so I would have to see the circumstantial evidence you have in mind. All I can say is that the research I've seen 3-4 years ago conclusively proved that the three liturgies you cite are merely named in the honor of a Church Father much as the Athanasian Creed was; and their origin comes from the 6th and 7th centuries. One strong piece of evidence against his authorship is its conflict with his known views on the Sacrament among his other writings (which we know are from his pen). If his theology in other (certain) writings differs from the theology in this (uncertainly attributable) liturgy, the most obvious conclusion is that the two were written by different men. Let that be all I say on the matter. Liturgical history is not my strong suit and I don't have the details at my fingertips for a more detailed discussion. Besides, the thread is not intended for this topic.

Do you see how strongly this text supports the Anglican doctrine of the Sacrament? It shows that the sacraments are the images (eikones) of the body and blood, whereas today's Eastern and Roman Catholic doctrine would draw a direct identity between the Sacrament and the body and blood.

Assuming this is a direct quote, it shows a huge variance between this text and the doctrine of the Sacrament in the Church Fathers, who did not make this direct identity between the Sacrament and the Body. St. Augustine and St. Ambrose are just two examples teaching that the Sacraments are the signs and the tokens for the spiritual body. I can find the quotes if you need, but I believe that it was St. Augustine in De Doctrina Christiana who teaches that a Sacrament is an 'outward and visible [signum] of an invisible and spiritual grace' a phrase taken literally verbatim as the definition of a Sacrament in the Anglican formularies.

While I don't seek to find common ground with Calvin (and to me Zwingli was a heretic), I agree that the Roman Canon does have a strongly patristic flavor. The Roman Canon is much more Anglican than it is (what became) Roman Catholicism!

The Roman Canon is also considered one of the oldest liturgical fragments, far preceding what is called now "the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom" (of questionable attribution as we mentioned here). Its authorship is unknown, it is very likely to have been familiar to St. Augustine, and in use before the 4th century AD. You're right that it is strongly at odds with the transubstantiation in Thomas Aquinas and today's Roman theology. And it is quite aligned with the Anglican/Patristic doctrine on the matter. To me this again shows that the deeper you go into the patristics, the less physical the doctrine of the Sacraments becomes, and the more accurate the Anglicans were in recovering it at the Reformation.

In principle I don't disagree. But while I am trying to avoid a liturgical discussion, your words on the matter are worth noting: St. Chrysostom's authorship of the "Liturgy" attributed to him is at best circumstantial, according you (and less than that, for me). Whereas his Homilies for example, have a hard evidence supporting them. So we simply cannot say with confidence that the liturgy was his, especially when his strongly attributable texts directly contradict it.

I appreciate the concession. And then I directly proceed to critique the latter end of your point, equating spiritual real presence with 'symbolic' or 'communal presence', which is not an actual presence at all.

Too often, people equate spiritual presence with a kind of wishy-washy memorialism. Let me affirm that spiritual presence IS real presence. Many people trying to make heads or tales of eucharistic theology often fall into the trap of inadvertent atheism, where anything that isn't physical isn't real. We can affirm that our Lord's presence is spiritual without impinging on it being 100% real, actual, truly present, truly there, etc. I warmly reject any Zwinglian memorialism, a heresy which plagues most of Protestantism, and which thankfully Anglicans (and Lutherans) have rejected. Rome and the Easterns teach physical presence (which I'd argue has colossal issues). The evangelicals and Zwinglians teach memorialism (which has even worse issues). Only Anglicans, by and large, retain the ancient doctrine of spiritual real presence.

On that note, cheers my friend, and thanks for the warm discussion.