Eucharist: Theology and Spirituality of the Eucharistic Prayer [1 ed.] 0268004986, 9780268004989

Citation preview

EUCHARIST Theology and Spirituality of the Eucharistic Prayer

IEUICIHlAIRJSll THE OLOGY AND SP IRITU ALITY OF THE EUCHARIST IC PRAYER

LOUIS

BOUY ER

Translated by C H A RLE S

UNIVERSITY Notre Dame

UNDERHILL QUINN

OF

NOTRE

DAME

PRESS

Nihil obstat:

Joseph Hoffman, C.S.C. Censor Deputatus Imprimatur: Leo A. Pursley, D.D. Bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend July 8, 1968

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: All translations of liturgical texts in this book are literal translations made for use by scholars and not necessarily the translations officially sanctioned for liturgical use.

ORIGINAL FRENCH TITLE: Eucharistie: théologie et spiritualité de la prière eucharistique First published by Desclée, Paris, 1966

UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME PRESS Notre Dame, Indiana 46556 www.undpress.nd.edu Copyright © 1968 University of Notre Dame All Rights Reserved Published in the United States of America Reprinted in 1970, 1973, 1974, 1977, 1984, 1989, 2004, 2006

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 68-17064 ISBN 978-0-268-07636-8 (web pdf) ∞ This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Acknowledgment is made to the following works for quotations used: For the Jewish meal prayers: David Hedegard, Seder R. Amram Gaon, Pt. I (Lund, 1951). For the Andrieu-Collomp papyrus: P. F. Palmer, S.J., Sacraments and Worship (Westminster, Md., 1955). For the Didache: Henry Bettinson, Documents of the Christian Church (London, 1959). For the liturgy of Our Lord and the liturgy of Our Lady: John M. Harden, The Anaphoras of the Ethiopic Liturgy (Lon­ don and New York, 1928). For the new translation of the Roman canon in English: International Committee for English in the Liturgy (ICEL). For the liturgy of Taize: Max Thurian,

The Eucharistic Liturgy of

Taize

(London,

1959). For the later Anglican liturgies: Jardine Grisbrooke; Anglican Liturgies of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (London, 1958).

For the Calvinish liturgy and Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer, as well as John Knox's liturgy: Bard Thompson, Liturgies of the Western Church (Cleveland and New York, 1961). For the Lutheran liturgy (new): Luther D. Reed, The Lutheran Liturgy, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia, 1960). For the Church of South India: The Book of Common Worship of the CSU (Oxford, 1962).

For the Swedish Lutheran liturgies: Eric E. Yelv,erton, The Mass in Sweden

(Henry Bradshaw So­

ciety, Vol. 57, London, 1920). For the Liturgy of Addai and Mari: F. E. Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western (Oxford, 1896). For the Roman preface for Easter (plus Christmas and Epiphany inserts: Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. For guidance in translating and for some passages reprinted from the Roman canon: The New St. Andrew Bible Missal (Bruges).

Contents

FOREWORD I.

THEOLOGIES ON THE EUCHARIST AND THEOLOGY OF

1

THE EUCHARIST II. III.

IV.

JEWISH L ITURGY AND CHRI STIAN L ITURGY

15

THE WoRD

29

OF Goo AN D

THE BERAKAH

The Word of God and the knowledge of God

30

T h e berakoth, the response to t h e Word

40

THE

JEWISH

50

Berako th

The

transmission

The

short

of

the

traditional

formulas

formularies

55

The berakoth preceding the Shemah: the Qedushah

58

The Tefillah of the

70

The meal

Shemoneh Esreh

berakoth

78

T h e different structures of t h e Christian Eucharist

V.

50

FROM

THE

JEWISH

Berakah

To

THE

CHRISTIAN

91

EUCHARIST Jesus'

use of the

88

berakah

T h e m e a l berakoth a n d t h e institution o f t h e Eucharist

VII

92 97

VIII

Contents The

meaning of

The

Jewish

the

"Memorial"

1 03

berakoth and the p rayer of the first

Christians

VI.

106

The

first

eucharistic

The

Apostolic

liturgies :

the

115

Didache

119

Constitutions

THE PATR ISTIC EUCHARIST AND THE VESTIGES OF THE PRIMITIVE

1 36

EUCHARI ST

The constitution of the traditional formularies of the

eucharist

The

1 36

West · Syrian

and

Gallican-Mozarabic

types

143 1 44

T h e Alexandrian and t h e Roma n types The survival of a more ancient typ e in the East Syrian

tradition :

Addai

and

146

Mari

Resurgence of tlte archaic type i n t h e Apostolic 1 58

Tradition of St. Hippolytus The transformation of the anamnesis and the birth

VII.

of the epiclesis

182

Other evidences of t h e s a m e typ e

1 84

THE

ALEXANDRIAN

AND

ROMAN

1 87

EUCHARI STS

Is St. Hipp olytus a witness of the origins of the Ro1 88

man liturgy? The Alexan drian liturgy and the presence of the intercessions in the first p art of the eucharist The Der

Bali� eh anaphora a n d the Andrieu-Col-

lomp p apyru s : Anamnesis The

200

and epiclesis in the Egyptian liturgy

kinship

eucharists

the anaphora of S erapion

b etween

and

the

the

192

209

Egyptian and Roman

primitive

form

of

their

epi214

cleses The structure o f the Roman canon a n d its explana-

227

tion

VIII.

THE W E S T SYR IAN LITURGY : T H E APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS AND THE LITURGY OF The

late

character

and the factors The

IX.

structure

of

in its

and

the

the

SAINT

JAMES

244

West Syrian eucharist 245

formation sources

of

th e

eucharist

of the Apostolic Constitutions

250

The final synthesis of the eucharist of St. James

268

THE CLASSICAL FORM OF THE BYZANTINE EUCHARIST

281

The

Antiochian liturgy of. the

Twelve

Apostles

282

IX

CONTENTS From the liturgy of the Twelve Apostles to the

286

Liturgy of St . John Chrysostom The liturgy of St. B asil, its composition and the

290

different stages of its evolution Syrian

survival in the lon g form

of Addai

and

Mari

304

The East Syrian Genealogy

X.

THE

and

Intermediary types

S u rvival o f

genesis

of

the

GALLIGAN AND MozARABI C

The

Gallican

kinship From

and

Mozarabic

epiclesis

310

EucHARIST

315

euchari st

and

its

t o imposed formularies :

the

316

with the West Syrian typ e

improvisation

329

problem of the liturgical year The

oralio fidelium a n d the intercessions of t h e 335

Canon

XI.

THE

307

MIDDLE

AGES:

DEVELOPMENT

AND

DEFOR-

338

MATION The

multiplication

their

deformation

of

the

late

formularies

and 338

The eucharist of Nestorius: scholastic theology and 342

b iblical overlay The

Armenian

new

developments

L ate

Syrian

eucharist:

fidelity to

tradition in 350

anaphoras

and

the

Ethiopian

ana357

phoras Preface,

Communicantes a n d Hane

igitur in the

s acramentaries The

silent

360

canon

and

the

accomp anying

false

developments

XII.

366

MODERN TIMES: DECOMPOS ITION AND REFORMATION T h e eucharist

b uried u n d e r untraditional formu381

laries and interpretations Luther's

380

Formula

Missae

and

Deu tsche

Messe, 384

the last pro duct of medieval deviation The un-eucharistic

eucharist

of

the

Reformers: 391

Zwingli, Oecolampadius, F arel and C alvin Survivals an d first attempts at restoration among the

Lutherans;

the

Swedish

liturgy

from

Olaus

Petri to John I I I

396

Cranmer a n d t h e Anglican eucharist

407

T h e first rediscovery of tradition by the English Calvinists

419

x

Contents The restoration of the Anglican eucharist in S cotland and with the Non-Jurors

424

The return to tradition with the French reformers : 429

from Osterwald to Taize T h e eucharist of the Church of S o uth

India

436

The new eucharistic liturgy of the American Lu439

theran Church

XIII.

THE CATHOLIC EUCHARIST RENEWED The

Twentieth

C entury

443 446

CON CLUSION

462

B IBLI CAL INDEX

475

INDEX OF RABBIN ICAL TEXTS

477

INDEX OF THE SYNAGOGUE LITURGY

477

INDEX OF AN CIENT CHR I STIAN WRITERS

478

IN DEX OF CHRISTIAN LITURGIES

480

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

48 2

Foreword

This book is the result of more than twenty years of research. It is appearing at a moment when the understanding of the traditional eucharistic prayer, and especially the canon of the Roman mass, is more timely than ever.

On one hand it has been

a very long time since we have seen such a lively and widespread desire in the Catholic Church to rediscover a "eucharist" that is fully living and real.

Yet, unfortunately, there has also never

been a time when we have been so confidently presented with such fantastic theories that, once put into practice, would make us lose practically everything of authentic tradition that we have still

preserved.

promoting

this

May

this

renewal

volume

and

contribute

its part toward

discouraging an ignorant and pre­

tentious anarchy that could mean its downfall. We are exceedingly grateful to all who have helped us in this work.

Among more recent researchers, we are particularly in­

debted to E. Bishop and A. Baumstark. No contemporary schol­ ar has more enlightened or stimulated us than this so upright and perceptive a master with whom we have had the honor of being associated as one of his more modest first-hour collabo­ rators in founding the Bernard Botte.

Institut d'etudes liturgiques

of Paris, Dom

The best homage that we could render to his XI

Foreword

XI I

critical knowledge is to say that even when we came to part com­ pany on a few secondary points we were able to do so only by attempting to apply his own principles in the spirit that he him­ self had inculcated in us. At this point may we also express our gratitude to all who have facilitated our research, particularly the Benedictines of Down­ side Abbey who put the treasures of the library of the late Bishop at our disposal.

E.

Professor Cyrille Vogel who did the same

for the University of Strasbourg libraries, Canon A. Gabriel whose warm hospitality, equalled only by his impeccable scholarship turned the Medieval Institute in the Library of the University of Notre Dame into a kind of seventh heaven for scholars and researchers.

Also the many Jewish friends who showed so much

sympathy for our studies, especially Rabbi Marc H. Tannenbaum of New York for his heartwarming encouragement and Cantor Brown of Temple Bethel, South Bend, merely

Indiana,

who was not

content with generously lending us the most

precious

books of his own library, but also helped us with his experience with the Synagogue ritual. If this book could make even a slight contribution

toward

friendship

between

Jews and

Christians,

it would be the realization of one of our most heartfelt wishes. A last tribute of our gratitude must go to our young confrere Jean Lesaulnier who untiringly devoted himself to procuring or photocopying for us the documents which we needed. Since the first edition in French of this work, a renewal of au­ thentic Roman formularies has been effected through the work of the

Consi lium ad exsequendam Consti tu tionem de Sacra Li turgia.

For this edition we have therefore added a supplementary chapter analyzing the reform of the Roman canon and the three new texts that have been added to it.

It is useless to underline the fact

that this reform has fulfilled some of the most important

desidera ta

of this book, a fulfilment which could have never been hoped for at the time that I undertook to write it. Louis Bouyer

Corpus Christi, 1966 A bbaye de la Lucerne Feas t of the Ep iphany, 1968 Brown University, Providence, R.I.

Theologies on the Eucharist and Theology of the Eucharist

T H I S BOOK I S WRITTEN TO TAKE ITS READERS ON A VOYAGE of discovery.

We believe that such a long journey is one of the

most exciting that can be offered to those who have some in­ kling about the rarely or not at all quarried riches of Christian tradition.

We embarked on it ourselves some thirty years ago,

and if we have frequently gone back to it, we make no claim to have brought to light all the treasures we foresaw from our first excursion. Our intention here is to try step by step to follow the progres­ sive unfolding of the Christian eucharist.

Our understanding of

"eucharist" here is exactly what the word originally meant: the celebration of God revealed and communicated, of the mystery of Christ, in a prayer of a special type, where the prayer itself links up the proclamation of the

mirabili a Dei

with their re-pre­

sentation in a sacred action that is the core of the whole Chris­ tian ritual. We will be told that many others before us, have undertaken this exploration.

Yet our aim is not quite the same.

1

In the first

2

Theologies on the Eucharist

place it is not the whole of the eucharistic liturgy which will con­ cern us, but once again, its core: what in the East is called the anaphora,

inseparably uniting the equivalents of

preface and canon.

our

Roman

But as mindful as we should wish to be of

it, the description of this eucharist is not our ultimate objective. What we shall be attempting is an understanding of what is com­ mon and basic in its different forms, and also the more or less suc­ cessful, more or less full-blown development of this kernel or rather this matrix of Christian worship. We may perhaps be forgiven if we mention here the emotion, which has still not cooled, that we experienced the first time we thumbed through these great texts in an old copy of Hammond1• It was the sense of unity that shone through in so many facets with the dazzling sight produced by the discovery of the most spar­ kling jewels of liturgical tradition.

We would discover the eu­

charist as a being overflowing with life, but a life of incompa­ rable innerness, depth and unity, even though this life could be shown only in a multiplicity of expressions, as through a har­ mony or rather a symphony of concerted themes that are grad­ ually orchestrated.

Before our eyes we had this iridescent robe,

this sacred vestment in which the whole universe is reflected around the Church and her heavenly Bridegroom.

In no poem,

in no work of art, and even more emphatically in no system of abstract thought does this

vov� Xeun:ov,

which is at the same

seem to us to be so well expressed. , People may think us rash (what does it matter?) if we add

time the

Mens

Ecclesiae,

that it is doubtless necessary to have had such an experience before we can engage in liturgical studies.

The liturgical move­

ment is something quite different from a game of antiquarians, a merely esthetic experiment, a questionable "mass mysticism" or a deadly and childish popular teaching method.

This is a test

which allows us to look at the liturgists of the past or the present and distinguish with certitude between those who are true "friends of the Bridegroom" and those who are merely scholars, not to say common pedants or commonplace hobbyists. There are people �ho have gone through all the texts but who have most assured1

Liturgies

Eastern

and

Western, 1 878.

AND

THEOLOGY

3

OF THE EUCHARIST

ly never had such an experience.

And there are others, mono­

maniac rubricists or eager "game masters," who, as far removed from the first as they may be, still share their same callousness. Some, as learned as they are, are nothing more than liturgical archeologists and others, even if they have convinced themselves that they are wardens or restorers of the liturgy, wiH never be anything other than its morticians or its underminers.

Only God

can probe the heart, but we are not prohibited from having our own impressions.

For my part, I am convinced that Cyril of Je­

rusalem (or the author of the catecheses that bear his name), Gregory Nazianzene, St. Maxim,us or St. Leo are not among those to whom grace was lacking, nor, on the threshold of the modern era, was Cardinal Bona, nor Edmund Bishop or Anton Baum­ stark who are close to our own age.

I admit that I am much less

sure of the liturgical salvation of other men from the past who because of their position had great influence in this field, not to mention some people of the more recent past or even of our own day, all of whom I should never be pardoned for relegating

in petto

and by name to my own private little hell.

If I should

be asked how I can justify such audacity, I should answer that it is enough to have eaten a few little morsels of ambrosia to spot with ease the

sobria ebrietas

of some and not to be taken in by

others who leave crumbs everywhere behind them;

they may

soil the whole tablecloth with their grimy hands, but since they undoubtedly came to the Lamb's banquet without much of an appetite, they have not even noticed that the food before them had a special savor. Not so long ago a Benedictine abbot who honors me with his friendship was telling me how he thought he had discovered what the liturgy was.

When he was a novice he courageously under­

took to read the whole of Migne, beginning with the first volume. Practically at the start he stumbled upon the eucharistic liturgy of the 8th book of the eyes were opened.

Aposto lic Constitu tions.

All at once his

In this confidence I found an echo of my own

long-standing impressions, for undoubtedly the text which most moved me in Hammond's collection was also this same one: the anaphora which seemed aimed at literally realizing the famous formula of Justin on the celebrant who "gives thanks insofar

4

Theologies on the Eucharist

as he can . "2 Everything, absolutely everything that can summon up what the ancient eucharist implied, is brought together in this text, even if it is true that more sober texts like the won­ derful anaphora of St. James give more appreciable expression to its progression and momentum. I hasten to add that both of us were merely echoing the pa­ trologists of the Christian Renaissance, not to mention many most distinguished Anglican liturgists, who thought they had found in this text the apostolic anaphora itself, and as it were the original and permanent model of every ideal eucharist.3 Yet how many contemporary liturgical scholars will turn up their noses at my displaying such naive enthusiasm a� the outset of this book (which I admit is still far from being quelled I). A be­ lated compilation by a heretic (or half-heretic), and an impostor to boot, a paper liturgy which never became (and morover never could become) in any sense a reality . . . All of this, as the most respectable manuals show us so well, is what we should have learned I Be assured, all of this we shall discuss at our ease, and if we do not retain all of these equally peremptory but unequally secure j udgments, it will appear that we also have good reasons for rej ecting the apostolicity of the pseudo-Clementine liturgy (to say nothing of the liturgy of St. James) . But at the very least we believe that these texts as a terminus ad quern if not as a ter­ m in us a quo of a very ancient evolutionary process have some­ thing to j ustify the rather j uvenile fancy of the 1 7th- and 1 8th­ century liturgists and of some others after that period, more than the negligence with which they are now treated by critics who are a bit too smug about their preliminary findings. Whatever the case, it is no hazy romanticism, based on inade­ quate knowledge, that explains the interest, even the fascination to which the Aposto lic Constitu tions' anaphora has for so long given rise. It is a particularly informative witness of what on the contrary is most theological in liturgical tradition. It un-

2 3

Justin, First Apology, 67, 5. Cf. W. Jardine-A. Grisbrooke, Anglican L iturgies of the seventeenth and

eighteenth

Cen turies (London,

1 958), and our eleventh chapter.

AND THEOLOGY OF THE EUCHARIST

5

doubtedly constitutes the greatest effort ever made to explicate in depth the theology which was latent in the ancien t eucharist. Obviously what we have here is a theology with which our modern manu als have not familiarized us-and this is surely why its discovery can be so delightful I This theology, as exacting as it may be (and it is in its own way), remains very close to th e first meaning of the Greek ()coJ..o yla, which designates a hymn, a glorification of God by the J.. 6yo c;, man ' s expressed thought. This thought is obviously rational in the highest degree, but ra­ tional in the way harmony i s ; it is an intellectual music whose spontaneou s expression is therefore a liturgical chant and not some sort of hair-splitting or tedious labeling. What the study we are about to undertake should give us is precisely a theology of this type, which alone lends itself to a eucharistic theology worthy of the name. Let us go further and say that this is the theology of the eucharist. This terminological accuracy is not irrelevant. There is actually a great gulf between the eucharistic theologies that have abounded in the Catholic Church and outside, beginning with the end of the Middle Ages and going through modern times, and what alone deserves to be called the theology of the eucharist. At a time when such a statement by anyone other than the pope would have appea red not only scandalous but absurd, Pius X I was not afraid to say that "the liturgy is the chief organ of the ordinary magisterium of the Church. " And if this is so for the proclamation of the Chris­ tian mystery in general, we may think that this has to be pre­ eminently true in proclaiming what is its very essence : the eu­ charistic mystery, and especially the celebration of this mystery. But it is a fact that current theologies on the eucharist in general do not pay attention to the "eucharist" in the primary sense of the word, to the great traditional eucharistic prayer. There are many theologies on the eucharist. They are practically never the theology of the eucharist, a theology proceeding from it, but rather something applied to it externally, for better or worse or reduced to skimming over it without ever deigning to come to grips with it. We have to admit that this is true, even of the best works that in recent generations have given us a healthier vision of the

Theologies on the Eucharist

6

eucharist than the one given to us by previous centuries. We must be grateful to Lepin4, de la Taille,5 Vonier, 6 and Masure7 who rej ected the views of Lessius and Lugo on the eucharistic sacrifice, and restored to us a much more satisfactory notion particularly of its relationship with the sacrifice of the Cross although we may perhaps be too quickly led without verifica­ tion to endorse the grievances they have against their prede­ cessors. But it is hard to admit that their own syntheses can be any more definitive when we observe that the place they give to the testimony of the eucharist on its own significance and its own content is j ust as sparse as that of their predecessors. Their works rely on a few words from Scripture : practically only the words of institution, and possibly something from the sixth chapter of St. John and the first Epistle to the Corinthians. Moreover they interpret them only in the context of medieval or modern controversies, without even a hint of the shift in perspective that is made inevitable by a primarily philological and historical ex­ egetical study, like the one recently undertaken by Jeremias8 on the eucharistic words of Jesus. But above all their constructs proceed much more from a priori notions of sign or sacrifice than from these texts. And if in the course of their study they en­ counter or run across a few liturgical formulas it is merely as a confirmation of their own notions that they use them. More often they cite them, at the expense of more or less belabored reasoning, to show how they can agree with theories of sacrament or sacri­ fice that have been worked out without their help. That such a fact has to be pointed out even in regard to recent authors so careful in trying to take stock of, and understand, all the riches of patristic and medieval theological tradition like 4

M. Lepin, L' Idee du saerifice de la Messe d'apres les theologiens depu is

l'origine

jusqu'a

nos

jo urs

( Paris, 1 926).

5 6 7

M. de la Taille, Mystery of Fai th (New York, 1 940-1 950) 2 vols. A. Vonier, The Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist (New York, 1 925). E. Masure, The Christian Sacrifice (London, 1 944). s J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (London, 1 9 66), English translation of the new German edition, published in 1 9 60, at Gottingen, of Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu, but taking into account modifications made by the author in his text in 1 964.

AND

THEOLOGY

7

OF THE EUCHARIST

those we have just mentioned, stresses the pure and simple ig­ norance about the eucharist (in the sense that we always use the word here, which is still its basic sense) manifested in so many

p

other prior s eculations with which our manuals are still encum­ bered.

The consequences of this state of affairs are grave pri­

marily, but not solely, on the doctrinal plane.

If they remain

within the bounds of orthodoxy, at least in the sense that they do not contradict it, eucharistic theologies so constructed create and multiply false problems.

They cannot resolve them (which

is not surprising since they are badly posited), nor can they ignore them since these theologies themselves are what created them in the first place.

The theology of the eucharist is thus found

to be swamped by interminable controversies which have the disappointing and futile result of diverting attention from the eucharistic mystery which ought to be its whole concern. One primary example of these bootless and fruitless quarrels is furnished in the High Middle Ages by the argument between the Byzantines and the Latins on the moment and especially the "how" of the eucharistic consecration.

Does it come about

through the words of institution or throngh a special prayer which will be called the epiclesis?

When one reads the authors of the

patristic era in both camps (a time when anaphoras were still in the process of formulation and men were able to have a con­ natural grasp of them) one has the impression that decisive ar­ guments could be found in favor of one theory to the exclusion of the other.

But, and we shall return to this point, this is be­

cause these texts are read in a light and with concerns that are foreign to them.

If, on the other hand, we immerse ourselves

again in the context of the ancient eucharistic celebration, the need for making a choice seems to vanish.

The essential that

either side wishes to retain and affirm can be equally upheld once a particular faction stops opposing it artificially to something on which it is in fact interdependent. Just as is the case for the old controversy that gradually be­ came set and hardened in the theologies of both East and West, for an even stronger reason we may expect this to happen in later controversies arising at times when no one was any longer able to reread the ancient formularies in accordance with their co-or-

8

Theologies on the Eucharist

dinates. This is the case particularly with the Protestant-Cath­ olic controversy that bogged down and came to a standstill during the baroque era. Is the eucharistic celebration an actual sacrifice or the memorial of a past sacrifice ? Formulated in this way as it has been and still is repeatedly, the question raised only defies any satisfactory answer, because strictly speaking it makes no sense. Beneath the words "sacrifice" and "memorial", it sup­ poses realities that are quite different from what the same words stand for in the ancient eucharistic formularies. What may then be said about modern controversies which continue to trouble men's minds within Catholicism itself on the problem of the eucharistic presence : not only Christ's presence in the elements, but also and especially the presence of his re­ demptive action in the liturgical celebration ? If we look at the eucharistic mystery either from the light of a philosophy that we might call prefabricated or from the point of view of a history of comparative religions which compares it with a thing to which it was not originally related, we get into an impasse whose only value is to warn us that we have been on the wrong track fro m the beginning. How can the same body be locally present in several places at once ? How can a unique action from the past become present again every day ? To get out of this trap it may be enough (and this is surely necessary I) to return to the ancient texts for a start. Provided we allow these texts to speak for themselves, the puzzles vanish, and the truth of the mystery, without losing its mysteriousness, becomes in­ telligible again, and therefore believable and worshipable. But the theologies on the eucharist which are not concerned with what we have called the theology of the eucharist, and do not even seem to suspect its existence, not only give rise to ab­ surd questions and sterile controversies. They inevitably react on the eucharist by more or less seriously altering and corrupting its practice. If the liturgy experiences deterioration through wear and tear, routine, and sclerosis, it buckles even more rad­ ically under theories which owe it nothing, when people are trying wrongly to remake it in accordance with them. For here we are dealing not with those errors that are mere negligences or more or less profound oversights. They are errors that are committed

AND THEOLOGY OF THE EUCHARIST

9

solemnly and on principle, and on the pretext of enrichment or reform they cripple and mutilate irreparably. Actually it is an established phenomenon that a liturgical the­ ology which does not proceed from the liturgy, and finds nothing really satisfying in it, soon comes up with pseudo-rites or aber­ i::a nt formulas. Riddled with these, the liturgy soon becomes disguised if not even disfigured. Sooner or later the feeling of incongruity in such a situation awakens a wish for reform. But if, as is too often the case, the reform then simply starts from a theology that is in vogue at the time and not from a genuine return to the sources, it cuts without rhyme or reason into what is still left of the original, and completes the incipient process of camouflaging the essential beneath the secondary. We have only to think of the 1 6th century Protestant reform of the eucharistic liturgy. Under the guise of a return to the Gospel eucharist, it merely achieved an artificial isolation of the words of institution into which medieval theology had already placed them in theory. From the tradition in which they had come to us, it kept only the late medieval tendency to substitute a psy­ chological and sentimental recall of the Gospel events for the profoundly mysterious and real sacramental action of the New Testament and the Fathers. And it crowned everything by flood­ ing the celebration with the penitential elements which in latter centuries had tended to overburden it. The end result is a eu­ charist in which there is no longer any eucharist at all properly speaking. If there is still in it some mention of a "thanksgiving" (which is not always the case) , this now has merely the sense of an expression of gratitude for the gifts of grace received individ­ ually by the communicants : a late medieval sense, degraded be­ yond the point of recognition, given to a New Testament ex­ pression which has almost nothing left of its original sense. These false theologies which weigh down the eucharist under a pretext of developing it, and then destroy it in claiming to reform it, obviously foster debased forms of eucharistic piety, which they in turn feed upon. Does it not say a great deal that in modern times the expression "eucharistic devotion" came pref­ erentially and even exclusively to designate practices of piety con­ nected with the eucharistic elements outside the liturgical action,

10

Theologies on the Eucharist

the eucharistic celebration?

We should

therefore not be sur­

prised if in fact this devotion too frequently did not content itself with ignoring the celebration and developed to its detriment, or reacted on it only to blur its meaning and misrepresent it.

The

mass becomes merely a means for refilling the tabernacle.

Or

else it is interpreted as if it culminated in the "adoration of the Blessed Sacrament" which the consecration emphasizes through the elevation, added to it at a late date. We shall see that far from reacting succesfully against this sub­ version of the original perspectives, the Lutheran liturgy on the contrary merely brought it to its logical term, by cutting out of the Roman canon everything that followed the consecratibn and the elevation, and by transferring the

dic/us

to this point.

Sanctus

and

Bene­

It is so very true that the "reforms" that

do not proceed from a better understanding of the traditional liturgy always do nothing more than put the finishing touches on its falsification. Without even going this far, what are we to think of a eucha­ ristic piety that multiplied "Benedictions" at the same rate that it made communion rarer and rarer?

One that delighted in in­

creasingly elaborate "Expositions" and in the most masses" possible?

private

"low

One that made devout visits to "the prisoner

of the tabernacle," but had not the least thought for the glorious Christ even though the eucharist sings (or sang) only of his vic­ tory? Here again it is easy for us to see the mote in the eye of our predecessors, but we run the risk of not perceiving the beam that is imbedded in our own.

Certainly we may congratulate our­

selves on our rediscovery of the collective sense of the eucharistic celebration through a return to notions of the eucharistic sacri­ fice that imply our own participation.

But it is already a very

bad sign that the values of adoration and contemplation, which yesterday focused on a eucharistic devotion that was in fact for­ eign to the eucharist, seem hardly to have come back to our cele­ bration of it, but have rather simply vanished into thin air along with the progressive disappearance of the practices in which they were expressed "Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament," "visits to

the

Blessed

Sacrament,"

"thanksgiving

after

communion,"

AND THEOLOGY OF THE EUCHARIST

11

etc. I n this situation, the collective celebration, animated neither by contemplation nor even less by adoration of Christ present in his mystery, runs the great risk of deteriorating into one of those "mass demonstrations" so cherished by contemporary pa­ ganism, with a superficial aura of Christian sentiments. Is it not inevitable then that our union through the mass with the Savior's sacrifice comes to be identified there, as we see only too often, with a simple addition of our own quite human works not to say a pure and simple substitution for the opus redemp­ tionis?

Since people cannot find satisfaction for such tendencies in a liturgy that certainly did not inspire them, we shall not be sur­ prised that they wish to profit from the present liturgical reform to obtain or impose what would be its ultimate deformation. Mixing superficial ecumenism with "conversion to the world, " they propose remodelings of the mass which, as always, claim to bring it back to its evangelical beginnings, though retaining (and if necessary introducing) only what, as we are told, suits the ·'man of today, " a man who. is said to be completely "desacraliz­ ed !" Having failed in his proposal of such a proj ect to the Coun­ cil, a bishop held a press conference to assure the widest publicity for this secularized "ecumenical mass, " th at today's man could comprehend without having anything to learn. Not daring to venture quite so far a conciliar theologian suggested that at the very least the canon should be shelved and replaced by the lit­ urgy of Hippolytus, accomodated to the times. Others by-pass words for acts. People are already preparing for the liturgy of tomorrow by "brotherly agapes" (which of course are also ecu­ menical) where unconsecrated bread and wine are distributed as obj ects of a simple "thanksgiving" ; obviously any suspicion of "sacramental magic" is absent from them. Undoubtedly all of this is in the realm of fantasy and appears so threadbare and ridiculous that we hesitated for quite some time before de­ ciding to mention it here. But let us be wary, for this is the way through which "pressure groups" in a short time could indeed bring considerable weight to bear on eventual reforms, and if they never did succeed in actually supervising them, they might at least curb or pervert their realization.

12

Theologies o n the Eucharist

Dom Lambert Beauduin said that the relative fossilization of the liturgy in modern times may perhaps have been its salvation. Had this not been the case, he explained, what still would have remained for us today of the great tradition of the Church ? The time of mummification has passed, and that is good . But it is not enough to change again in order to come alive. We must not permit a Lazarus who has j ust emerged from the grave to be submitted to such a decomposition which this time would bring him back lo it for good. Already we only too often observe how individual aberrations or collective day-dreams succeed in spinning a web around the best orientations of conciliar authority. For all the defects in the liturgy, whether of the past or the present, and for everything that accompanies, sustains or produces them in piety as well as religious thought, there can be but one remedy. And this is a return to the sources, as long as it is authentic and not one that is pretended or miscarried. What a singular encouragement it is for the Catholic theologian to see what positive things this return has already produced even outside the Catholic Church I Our spur-of-the-moment ecumenists who think they can go to meet Protestants by scuttling Catholic tradition don't have the slightest hint that the Protestants them­ selves have of ten rediscovered things which they themselves are still incapable of appreciating. For all the Protestants who are not resigned to living with what is most dead in their own past, there is no longer any attraction in a eucharist without mystery, without the real presence, which is nothing but a j oyful brother­ ly meeting in a common grateful remembrance of a Jesus who would appear as man only in so far as it could be forgotten that he is God. And, as a Protestant ecumenist recently told me "the greatest obstacle today to our coming together could be in those Catholics who think that for them ecumenism must consist in giving up everything which we are in the process of recovering, and in adopting everything that we are in the process of getting rid of. " And what can be said about attempts at making Chris­ tianity acceptable to modern man by secularizing it to the hilt, at a time when psychologists and anthropologists agree in ac­ knowledging that the sacred, the "myth" (in the sense the term is used by modern historians of religion, which has nothing in

AND

THEOLOGY

OF

THE EUCHARIST

13

common with the incredibly backward terminology or problem­ atic of Bultmann) cannot simply be taken away from a human being without causing him to suffer a fatal devitalization ? More than any argument, the best cure for these various il­ lusions of Catholics who wish desperately to be modern, but who have not yet had the time to inform themselves about what is most interesting in the evolution of their contemporaries, will be found in a rediscovery of this pre-eminent source that is the newly formed eucharist. However, in order to do so, it is neces­ sary to re-read and reinterpret the texts in taking pains patiently to discern the movement of the living faith of the Church which caused her eucharist to take shape, a eucharist which was the most pure and at the same time most full expression of that faith. This is what we at least wish to sketch o ut in the following pages. We shall not be concerned with rediscovering the formula of the apostolic anaphora, that was thought first to have been found in the 8th book of the so called "Apostolic" Constitutions, pre­ cisely, and then in many other texts. Even very close to our own day, the good Dom Cagin thought he had discovered it in the equally "Apostolic" Tradition as many admirers of Hippo­ lytus still do, who still appear not to be entirely disabused of this illusion. We shall not be dealing with this question quite simply because such a formula certainly never existed. If it had, every­ one would know it, for no one would ever have dared to fashion another one ! But this is far from meaning that there was not a type, a schema, a living an ima, as it were, of every euch arist that was faithful to its origin al purport, an an ima which revealed itself and is pro­ j ected in the most ancient eucharistic formularies. We can grasp it there again in its innate unity, as in its inexhaustible richness, somewhat as the Gospel, which eludes any simple formula and could not be contained in all the books that could fill the earth, is still authentically given to us in the four canonical Gospels. Undoubtedly for the eucharist there is no inspired, and to that extent definitive, formula. B ut this is because the eucharist of the Church, being by nature a human response to the Word of God in Jesus Christ, cannot be fully accomplished as long as the Church is not consummated in her perfect union with her Bride-

14

Theologies on the Eucharist

groom, the whole Christ reaching his adulthood only then in the definitive multitude and the perfect union of all his members. It is this movement, this spiritual burst of energy of the eucha­ rist, which from the first is oriented toward the "sign of the Son of Man, " that the documents of the Christian liturgy's creative period must allow us to recapture, and then to rediscover in the great prayers which have remained classic and which still today continue to consecrate our eucharists. In rediscovering their inner core, and in encountering, so to speak, the breath of life which penetrated them to form them from the inside, we shall at last be able to perceive the sense of what the Church does when she confects the eucharist, without which sense the Church her­ self could not become a reali ty in us and through us.

Jewish Liturgy and Christian Liturgy

IN ORDER TO RECOUNT THE GENESIS OF THE CHRI STIAN L IT­

urgy, and even more importantly to understand it within its own context, we must get a proper start. In a work of this kind, the first steps determine all that follows. To imagine that the Christian liturgy sprang up from a sort of spontaneous generation, motherless and fatherless like Melchizedek, or trustingly to give it a sort of putative paternity which would definitively erase any perception of its authentic genealogy, is from the start to reduce all reconstructions to a more or less scholarly, more or less inge­ nious mass of misconceptions. It is true that the Christian liturgy, and the eucharist especially, is one of the most original creations of Christianity. But however original it is, it is still not a sort of ex n ihilo creation. To think so is to condemn ourselves to a minimal understanding of it. For it would mean that we should be mistaken about the materials that went into its construction, but, what is much more serious, we should already be misled about the movement that hatched them in order to build this spiritual temple, or rather this great tree of life that the anaphora is. The materials from which the Christian eucharist was formed are something quite different 15

16

Jewish Liturgy

from mere prime matter. They are stones that have already been polished and skillfully worked. And they do not come from some demolition yard where they would have then been refashioned without concern for their original form. Quite the contrary. It is in a studio which has consciously inherited both a long tra­ dition of experience and its finished products that these will be prepared for their new function. And this will not be to do away with the first results but to complete them, through some re­ finishing in which not a j ot of the original engraving will be ef­ faced . With the first eucharistic formulas we can no more start from zero than we can with the Gospel. In both cases, by providential design, there is an Old Testament which cannot be overlooked. For if providence evidently did j udge this stage necessary, we have neither the right nor the ability to push it aside. Stating this already gives the direction in which we shall have to look for providence's preparatory work. It would be at least surprising if the Old Testament of the liturgy were not the same as that of the Gospel. It is nevertheless j ust what many scholars seem to admit as an axiom which needs neither proof nor discus­ sion. It is a foregone conclusion, they would like to tell us, that either there is no prehistory to the eucharist or else, if there is, it can be found only outside of Judaism. We must admit that the continued persistence of this state of mind, even with scholars who are as deeply intuitive as they are well informed, is somewhat disconcerting. When we see Dom Odo Casel's immense effort to find the an­ tecedents of the mystery of Christian worship in the most in­ congruous pagan rites, and the small concern he brought to the least contestable Jewish antecedents of this same mystery, we wonder how such an open mind could have remained so little open to certain obvious matters of fact. What is most surprising is that he was in no way ignorant of the Jewish texts whose com­ parison with Christian texts is indispensible before any o ther comparison can be made. He cites them.1 He observed their l Cf. O. easel, Le Memorial ius I , 1 62, 3 6 1 ff.

Luther, 361 ff. , 384 ff.

Gerhard, J. , 439

Maximus the Confessor, 374

Gerhardt, P . , 439

Melanchthon, 400, 406, 407 Narsai, 368 ff.

Gimenez de Cisneros, 3 1 8 Gregory

the

Great ,

137,

139,

Gregory

the

Nestoriu s , 342 ff. , 378 Oecolampadiu s , 391 ff.

1 8 7 ff. , 3 1 7 ' 3 3 8 , 366 Illum inator,

340

O rigen, 1 2 9

Gregory of Narek, 354

O sterwald, 4 2 9

Gregory of Nazianzum, 246, 250,

Paschasius Petri

340 ff. , 358

Radbertu s ,

(Laurentiu s),

417

400

ff.

Petri ( Olaus), 396 ff.

Gregory of Nys sa, 246, 250 Gregory V I I, 3 1 7

Petri Gothu s (L aurentius), 399 ff.

Hilary o f Poitier s , 327

Photiu s , 1 62

Hippolytu s

of

Rome,

13,

136,

158 ff. , 1 79 ff. , 252, 258, 263, 266

Ratramnus , 384 Ratteray, 427 Remigius of Auxerre, 373

Innocent I , 1 4 0 .

Row, 422

Innocent I I I, 382

Serapion of Thmuis, 203 ff.

Is aac of Niniveh, 340

Synesius of Cyrene, 203

Isidore of Seville, 321 ff.

Tertullian, 1 29

I sidore (Pseudo-), 324

Theodore of Mopsuestia, 1 50 ff. ,

Jagow, M . von, 390

349, 378

Jerome, 1 6 1

Theodoretu s , 1 62

John I I I o f Sweden, 3 9 6 ff.

Vigilius I, 360

John Chryso stom, 1 7 , 269, 281 ff. , 286 ff. , 296, 339 ff. , 374 John the Archcantor, 373

Wedderburn, 424 Wied, H . von, 407 Zwingli, 389, 3 9 1 ff. , 408

Index of Christian Liturgies

480

I N D E X O F C H R IST IAN L IT U R G I E S

A ddai

and

1 4 6 ff. ,

M ari

(liturgy

1 6 7 ff . ,

of) ,

1 7 6 ff. ,

208,

B axter ' s liturgy,

see

3 0 4 If. , 325, 349 Alexandrian liturgy, 1 92 If. , 3 1 0

Bobbio missal, 3 1 9

Ambrosian liturgy,

Brandenburg

3 1 5, 363

American (Episcopal liturgy) , 4 2 8 American (Lutheran liturgy) , 439 Andrieu-Collomp Anglican

40 7

liturgy

If. ,

p apyru s , in

200

Englan d,

441 liturgy

of

the

Non­

4 2 6 ff .

Jurors, Ap ostles

liturgy

of

the) , 341

Apostles ( Syrian liturgy of the Twelve) , 282 tianized Jewish prayers of the 7th b ook) , 28,

119

ff. ,

Constitutions b ook) ,

4

234

(liturgy ff. ,

13,

1 6 1 , 2 4 4 ff . , 2 7 8 ff. , 2 8 1 , 2 9 1 ,

Caius

College

B aden (Lutheran liturgy of) , 390 Codex,

287

ff. ,

302,

C alvin ' s

liturgy,

liturgies,

of

a

see

Geneva

3 1 7 ff.

Charar (Maronite anaphora) , 357 sacramentary,

363

Cl ementine li turgy (Pseudo-) , see Cologne

( Reformed

( Lutheran

liturgy

of) ,

407 Common O rder (Book of) , 420, 436,

441

Com m on Prayer (B ook of) ,

see

Anglican Cyril (liturgy of S t . ) , see Mark 390 B alizeh

anaph ora

liturgy

of),

392 ff .

1 00,

(liturgy

1 1 5 ff. ,

Epiphanius

Basil (liturgy of S t . ) , 2 6 9 , 2 8 1 ff.

ff. , 3 1 0 , 3 1 3 , 3 1 4,

339, 346, 35 1 , 360, 441

(fragment found

at) ,

of

an

200 ff. ,

·2 1 7 ff. Didache

3 7 0 , 376

29 0

(fragment

Mozarabic prayer in m s . form) ,

Der

St.), 341

289,

390

Denm ark (Lutheran l iturgy of) ,

St.), 350 ff. Athanasius (Ethiopian liturgy of

Basel

ran liturgy of) ,

Cranmer ' s liturgy, see Anglican

2 9 8 , 3 0 3 , 3 0 8 , 3 2 0 , 441 Athanasius (Armenian liturgy of

B arberini

390 ff.

Aposto lic Constitutions (Chris­

Constitutions

8th

liturgy

of) ,

Brunswick ( Lutheran liturgy of) ,

Chartres

see A ddai and Mari

Aposto lic

( Lutheran

Electorate

Brandenb u rg-Nuremb erg (Luthe­

Celtic

Apostles (Syrian liturgy of the) ,

of the

of the

324

(Ethiopian

Apostolic

431

390

Anglican l iturgy in S cotl and, 424 Anglican

S avoy

B ersier ( Reformed liturgy of E . ) ,

St.),

of

the) ,

27,

157

( Greek

liturgy

of

185

Epiphanius (Ethi opian liturgy o f S t . ) , 341

48 1

INDEX OF CHRI STIAN LITURGIES Ethiopian F arel ' s Form

liturgies,

l iturgy, of

341 ff.

see

Prayer

Luther

Neuchatel

of

J.

Knox,

420 ff.

Mai

Frankish supplement to the Gre­ gorian sacramentary, , 361 ff. Gallican liturgy ( ancient) , 3 1 5 ff. G allican

liturgies

of

century,

445

teenth Gelasian

the

eigh­

( archaic

L atin

ff. ff.

eucharistic

p rayer edited by A . ) , 1 85 ( l iturgy of S t . ) , 1 9 2 ff. , 2 1 4 ff. , 234, 240 ff. , 2 7 7 , 3 4 1 ff.

Mark

Maronite liturgy, 282 ff. , 357 ff.

of

the

Missale Gothicum, 3 1 9 , 3 2 2 ff. ,

liturgy

of),

Missale Mixtum,

sacramentary (Reformed

384 3 89

of) ,

Missale Francorum, 3 1 9 332 ff.

eight century, 361 ff. Geneva

(liturgies

( Form u la Missae) , (Deutsche Messe)

Moissac

391 ff.

319,

329,

334

of) ,

363

( sacramentary

Gregorian sacramentary, 361 ff.

Mone (masses of) , 3 1 9 , 325, 362,

Gregory the Illuminator (liturgy

Moxarabic liturgy, 3 1 5 ff. Nestorius (liturgy of) , 1 50 , 304,

of S t . ) , 340 Gregory

of

Nazianzum

(liturgy

of St. ) , 340 Hadrianum

(ms . ) ,

361

ff. ,

366

Hamburg (Lutheran liturgy of) ,

3 4 2 ff. , 3 7 8 Neuchatel (Reformed liturgies of) , 395 ( Farel), 429 ff. ( O sterwal d ) Non-Jurors

(liturgies

of

the),

426 ff.

390 Hipp olytu s (liturgy of St . ) , 1 1 , 1 3 , 136, 1 5 8

ff. ,

1 87, 252, 258,

2 6 3 , 2 6 6 , , 325, 3 3 5 . of St. ) ,

390 O ecolamp adius

Ignatius ( Syrian a n d Armenian liturgies

Nuremb erg (Lutheran liturgy of) ,

340

(liturgy

of) ,

Ordo

Romanu s

I,

Illyrica (Missa), 3 7 9 , 384

Ordo

Romanus

I I , 3 7 2 ff.

Isaac (Armenian liturgy of St.),

Ordo

Rumanus XV,

340

James (liturgy of St.), 4, 244 ff. ,

chatel

ff . ,

2 8 8 , 2 8 9 , 2 9 1 , 302 ff. ,

34 1 ,

351,

341 Our Lord (Ethiopian liturgy of) , 341

44 1

John I I I (liturgy of) , see Sweden

Paduan

John Chrysostom (liturgy of S t . ) ,

Petri (liturgy of),

2 6 9 , 2 8 1 ff. , 2 8 6 360,

ft. ,

3 1 0 , 3 39,

441

Knox Form

of

of

John) ,

see

sacramentorum

bicum, Lub eck

(Agende

319,

323,

(Lutheran

of) ,

362

see Sweden

of) ,

431

(Lutheran

li turgy

390

Riga (Lutheran liturgy of) , 390

Prayer

sacramentary,

361 ff.

Liber ordinum of Silos, 3 1 9 , 334 Liber

Prussia

sacramentary,

Rhein-Pfalz

(liturgy

Leonine

390

373

Our Lady (Ethiopian liturgy of) ,

340

307,

372 ff.

O sterwald (liturgy of) , see Neu-

Isaac (Armenian liturgy of S t . ) ,

268

see

Basel

mozara-

liturgy,

187

ff. ,

21 4

ff. ,

3 1 0 ff. Saint-Arnaud s acramentary, 3 6 3 S avoy liturgy, 422 ff.

326 liturgy

Roman

of),

S chaffner (restoration of the L u ­ theran liturgy by A . ) ,

432

482

Index of Modern Authors

Scottish

Episcopal

liturgy,

see

Testa mentum D omini (liturgy of

Scottish Presb y teri a n liturgy. see

Theodore of Mopsuestia (liturgy

An glican

the) ,

Common

Order and Form

of

Prayer Serapion

(liturgy

203

of) ,

2 1 7 ff. , 2 2 6 , 2 9 8

If . ,

Strasbourg ( Lutheran liturgy of) , 390

of) ,

( Lutheran

liturgy

of) ,

396 Syrian

317,

l iturgy

319

1 44

(East),

304 Syrian

liturgy

(Wes t),

ff. ,

244

193,

Taize liturgy,

3 1 5 ff. ,

ff . ,

1 43 ff. ; 324 ff.

432 ff.

fl. ,

hundred

349

eighteen

Ortho­

dox lEthiopian liturgy of the) , 341 Verona sacramentary, see Leonin e (liturgy

H.

of

von),

see

C o logne Worms

Stowe missal ,

1 70 ff.

304

1 5 0,

Three

Wied

Sweden

1 60,

( L utheran

liturgy

of),

390 Wurtemberg of), Z u rich

391

( L utheran

liturgy

3 90 (Reformed

fl. ,

liturgy

of) ,

408

Zwingli ' s liturgy,

see

Z urich

INDEX OF MODERN AUTH O R S

Abrahams, Andrieu, Assaf,

I.,

M.,

S.,

J.-P. ,

Aulen,

G. , S.,

1 6 7 ff. , 1 73, 1 7t1 , 1 8 6 , 1 8 7 ff. ,

76

191,

29,

385,

115,

235,

472

A.,

1 69

B ousset, W. , 2 8

H.

U r s von,

H.

M.,

G. ,

227

B aumstark,

A.,

Brightman,

32

287, 17,

59,

128,

149,

289,

296,

302, 340, 370

430

ff .

Broom, S . , 409

342

Beauduin, L . , 1 2

Buber, m . ,

Bultmann, R . ,

B ettinson,

H.,

C abrol . , F . , 1 8 8

Bianch ini,

F. ,

117

C adier,

361

1 96,

369

1 95 ,

Brilioth, Y . , 3 8 5 , 392 ff. , 3 9 7 ff. ,

Bentzen, A . , 4 3 , 247

Bona,

E.,

F.

209, 2 1 1 , 2 4 1 , 2 5 7 , 2 6 2 , 2 6 5 ,

31 9

1 39-40, 1 88 , 2 1 7 , 2 9 1 ff. , ' H 5 ,

E.,

68,

120

B� mnister,

Bishop ,

120

B o uyer, L . , 2 5 , 2 6 , 4 6 , 6 5 ,

83

B althasar,

325,

C.

Bourque, E . , 3 6 1

116

403

B a llerini, 3 6 1

Bardy,

234,

Bouman,

52

Audet, Baer.

24, 201

ff.

Cardinal, 444

Botte, B . , 149, 150 ff. , 1 5 6 , 1 59 ,

Cagin,

J. , P.,

Capelle, B . , C app uyns ,

32 13

395 13,

222

1 64 , 2 0 2 , 2 0 5 M.,

336

483

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS e asel ,

0. ,

16

Goodenough, E. R . , 2 1 , 28, 1 2 0

Cassel,

D. ,

55

Grelot,

Causse,

A.,

94

Grisbrooke,

C erfaux,

L.,

244,

121

0., 23

Chadwick , Chavasse, Childs ,

B.

S.,

84

Clark ,

F. ,

383 P. ,

201

R.

H.,

Cross,

F.

L.,

161,

J. ,

382

Cullmann,

0., 19, 61 J.,

D avidson,

I . , . 52

22,

D.,

Deden ,

39

D., L.

4,

45

A.,

C.

E.,

2 ff.

Haneberg,

D.

B.

von,

1 59

I . M . , 1 6 7 , 1 9 3, 2 6 9 ,

Harden, J . Harn ack ,

M.,

358 ff.

von,

A.

94,

205

Hauler, E . , 1 60

D anielou ,

D embitz,

368

315

Davi e s , W.

A.,

2 8 1 , 2 9 0 , 340 ff. , 3 7 1

Collomp ,

W.

Jardine

W.

Hammond, Hanssens,

C onnolly, C ourtenay,

31

4 1 9 ff.

Haldar,

36 1 , 364

A.,

P.,

Hedegard ,

D.,

23,

52,

54 ,

56,

5 7 , 5 9 , 6 0 , 6 1 , 6 2 , 64 , 65 , 6 6 ,

118

70, 71 , 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 8 1 , 82, 83, 84, 131

20

Hertz, J . H . , 8 3 , 8 5 Horner,

82

N.,

G.,

De Sola Pool, D., 6 1

Hurwitz,

Dix, G . , 1 03 , 1 39 , 1 4 0 , 1 70 , 1 8 5 ,

Jacob ,

160

S.,

E.,

83

37

227, 229, 324, 330, 409, 414,

Jaub ert, A . , 9 8

419

Jeremias, J . , 6 , 80, 9 7 , 9 9 , 1 00,

Dodd,

C.

Drews ,

H.,

P.,

22.

Duchesne,

L.,

D u esberg,

H.,

Dupont,

101

102, 1 03 , 1 05

1 8 8 , 245

J. ,

242,

Joel, B . 258

38

52

I.,

Jungmann ,

34

K avanagh, King,

Ehrenreich, C . L . , 5 0

Kittel,

Knopf-Kruger,

Endels,

I.,

3 1 9 ff.

51,

78

Krau ss,

S.,

L abriolle,

Feltoe,

L agarde,

36 1 ,

364

Ferotin, M . , 3 1 9 , 323 ff.

Lanne,

de, 2 9 2

P.

de,

E.,

L a Taille, M . Lebon,

Frere, W. H . , 1 88 , 245, 320, 428

Lebrun, P.,

Funk, F . X., 1 1 9 , 120, 1 23 , 1 25 , 1 3 5 , 1 60 ,

205

160

341

Finkelstein, L . , 79, 1 02

133,

114

55

P.

Finch, R . G . , 25

1 29 , 1 3 1 , 1 32 ,

414

142, 315

Kovalevsky, E . , 3 1 5 , 334

391 L.,

237,

G . , 33, 37, 65, 96

Engb erding, H . , 2 8 2 , 290, 292 ff. C.

176,

A.,

1 38,

A.,

Eizenhiifer, Elbogen,

217,

363 ff. , 3 66 , 3 7 2 , 3 7 7 , 379, 3 8 1 ff .

Dupont-S ommer , A . , 20 L.,

1 88,

A.,

d e , 6, 222

J., 207 351

ff. ,

397,

444 Lenain de Tillemont , Lepin,

M.,

6

Gebhardt, 205

Lietzmann , H . , 3 6 1

Gillet, L . , 58

Ligier,

Gimenez de Cisnero s , 3 1 9

Lods,

Ginzberg, L . , 5 2

Liihe, W. , 439

Goguel, M . , 1 0 1

Lo ssky,

L., A.,

260, 3 0 3 33

VI . ,

64

167

430 ,

Index of Modern Authors

484

Renaudot, 1 5 1 , 2 9 6 , 305, 345 ff. ,

Lowe, E. A . , 3 1 9 Lukyn William s , A . , 1 7 , 3 8 , 5 5

358, 3 7 9 Richardson, C . C . , 1 7 1 , 1 75

Mabillon, J . , 3 1 9 , 444 Mahon, L . , 1 8 8

Robert, A . , 36

Mai, A . , 1 8 5

Robert s , C . H . , 202

Martimort, A . G . , 360

Rowley, H . H. , 35

Mascall, E . , 3 8 7 , 4 1 4

Ruinart, Th . , 1 1 4

Masure, E . , 6

Schuster, I . , 9 1

Mathew, G . , 250

S chwartz, E . , 1 6 1 , 1 62 S eraphim

Mercier, B. Ch. , 269 ff. Mohlberg, 323,

L.

C. ,

327 ff. ,

1 85,

361

319

ff. ,

(Metropolitan) ,

141

Sholem , G . , 5 4 Siffrin, P . , 3 1 9 ff.

ff.

Mone, 3 1 9

Singer, S . , 24, 83

Mowinckel, S . , 4 3 , 231

Stephenson, 383

Murato ri, 3 6 1

Sukenik , E . L . , 2 6 , 27

Nautin, P . , 1 62 ff.

Tattam , H., 1 5 9

Neh er, A . , 34

Terzagh i , N. , 203

Newbigin, L . , 438

Thomp son, B . , 396,

Niel sen, E . , 53

Thurian, M . , 8 6 , 1 04 , 4 3 2 ff. Cardinal ,

412,

419

Norden, E . , 249

Tommasi,

Oberman, H . , 382

Travers, Herford R . , 2 0 , 5 4

319

O deberg, H., 67 ff.

Trembelas, P . N. , 340,

Pedersen, J . , 45, 79

Vermes , G. , 49

Peterson, E . , 2 2 1

Vonier, A . , 6

Pomare s , G . , 3 6 4

\Varner, G. F . , 3 1 7

Porter, W. S . , 3 1 5

Werner, E . , 6 0 , 1 2 6 , 3 6 7

Puech, A . , 2 4 6

Wigan , B . , 428

R ae s , A . , 282

Wil s o n , H . A . , 361

R ahmani,

I. ,

1 60 ,

171

ff. ,

1 75

Ramsey, A . M . , 6 5 , 434

Wobb ermin, G . , 205 Wolfson, H. A . , 22

R atcliff, E. C . , 1 4 6 , 1 5 2, 408 ff.

Yelverton , E. E . , 399 ff.

Reed, L. D . , 388 ff. , 3 9 7 , 399 ff. ,

Z unz, L . , 76

441 ff.