Enrico Mazza ‘Translated by: Matthew J. O'Connell MYSTAGOGY A Theology of Liturgy in the Patristic Age PUEBLO PUBLISHING COMPANY New York carne UMESTEE GF AMERICA UERAR vasingin 20‘The Old Testament passages that Cyl tes atthe end of his first instraction on the Eucharist add nothing to wat we have s2en thus fr. I's clear, there too, that according to yal, the (Od Testament does indeed speak of the lnurgy of Chistian in- ‘sation, but only ina symbolic way. A final confirmation of this interpretation canbe seen in Cyi' interpretation ofthe Lavabo, ‘which symbalizes the need of pusicaton because the hands ae the symbol of human activity. This symbolic meaning, whichis, expressly stated as suc, is supposte by «biblal cation thet pays the usual typological role: “Have you not heard blessed David unveling this same mystery (mstaggounts) and saying: “Tail wash my hands among the Innocent and I wil cece your altar, O Lord’ (Ps 256)? Therefore, to wash one’s hands i 0 be rot guilty of sin." ‘Wie may concicethat Cy’ biblical typology can serve too plain the meaning ofthe nts, but not fo ensure the connection between saving event and liturgical nite. The eason i that his bbl typology operates on the level of symbolism and that he doesnot tse this ermencutical method fo support sacramental backs it up, so to speak, wih the theory of “image” and “iar Alon” of the saving action of Christ. ‘This method is applied to baptism and anointing but, oddly ‘enough, it does not asem tobe applied to the Eucharist. The ‘sion is not easy to expla, erpecially inc the Last Supper {is Cys point of reference. The reason is possibly his concern 10 prevent the ontological category of “image’~"Imitaon” from be- Ing interpreted inthe purely external tens of alegoccal repre- sentation, a ifthe image and imtation were a mater sxply of ‘amatzation. This concer Is fll justified bythe fact thatthe ‘Ritual underlying the liturgy thot Cyl ealebated had already ‘moved in that direction and tat other authors, such a8 Theo- ore of Mopsuestia, had faithfully taken thei lead fom CHAPTER SIX Final Reflections ‘The mystagogialRomales {have now fished studying are e- sgrded as among the mast important witnesses tothe Iturgy Of the lat fourth century. They were delivered in the contest of CCuistan inition and as such make wpa erry gee wlth spol characteristics that diflerentoe them fom other mys- tagogies, although, of couse, they share certain fundamental tele wth al ofthese. “These homilies are fly homogeneous among themsaves, all of them having been delivered within a rather ezcumscribedpeeiod and geographical are, Despite this majo advantage forthe st dent, i proves difclt o formulate a general theory that would [ccount for all the aspects that have emerged from analysis of these texts, As a mater of fact 0 nvr very ile about these ret mystagogies ofthe late fourth century; we have the texts ‘but almost nothing else that would help us situate them in a detalled way. Were we to attempt, ner these conltions,t constrect at all coats general theory of mysiagog, we might well end up tak- ing postions that are history erroneous because vated by anachronism. in fac, fom all he material discussed inthe pre- ‘ezding chapters, i becomes very lar thatthe mystagogial method ofeach author difers from that ofthe other despite the fac that ll these men share a omamon purpose: to ive the ‘optized the understanding and modvation tht will enable them to lve the life in Christ that has been bestowed in them in the -Muzgcalcelebratin. To this end, dhe Fethers develop a theology ‘ofthis itungy wherein the new he of the neophytes has its vgn. usAAs made clerin the general remarks a the beginning of this study, the itugial theology Uhave boen stdying always uses ‘typology and indeed does so necessarily. And, in fact, each of ‘the four authors uses typology as the proper method for develop- ing theology of the liturgy. At the sume time, however, each of the fou differs from the other in his use of typology; should come as no surprise therefore, that this deren makes self fet their mysiagogical method and leads tothe radical difer- ences we have Been seeing, ‘The diferent ways of using typology and therefore, the ifr ‘ent mystagogial methods do not comespond tothe schol to ‘hich the author belongs (Alexandrian School, Antochene school) orto the dec influence ofthe method used by Phil of ‘Aleandela. On the cantary, we have seen Theodore developing «profoundly allegorical mystagogy, even though he belongs to the Ansochene schoo: his method is due rather to his source, that is, dhe Rua that regulated the iturgieal celebrations of his Church. At the same time, however, we have seen that Cyr of Jerusalen, whose liturgy is « development of the same Ritual, rejects the method of allegorical interpretation ofthe tury, at least forthe Eucharist rom thse facts, i clear tht when it ame to myeagogy, there was a wide range of choices end tat each suitor ould evelop his mystagogy along deftly personal nes. This is {nue in particular of John Chrysostom, who makes morality the eystone of al is mytagogieal homies these do not on this account become any ess mstagogical than the homies ofthe other authors. Itis possible that in these choices, not only the pastoral needs to ‘which the preacher had to respond, but also his personal ast played a part. Thus, Ambrose’s use of liturgical Spology is very ferent from Cyrit's. For Ambrose the two Testaments ar, a it were, superimposed on one another, thas giving rise toa nique taglal perspective that explains sacramental reals and sacramental etfeacy, while atthe same ime malatalning @ Aegree of distinction betieen event and sacrament. In Cyl’ ap- proach, on the other hand, the to Testaments remain fay di- ra tinct, and the sacraments are in no way confased with the sav ing realities of which they’ are the sseraments atthe same te, however, Cyril comes down decidedly onthe side ofeficacy and realm. Theodore, 109, maintains a strong reals, peeps ‘even an exaggerated realiom, and yet his theory on the relation between eschatology and sacrament suocesflly preserves adi ference or etter, 9 distance between the sacraments and the sving historia events that are the objets ofthe sacraments In Ambrose’s view, biblical typology directly conveys the con- ten ofthe sacraments, whereas for Cyr, stanly provides an ‘external confirmation of sacramental theology, the ater being ‘established by nontypoogis! means. In ight of al this, only one lal canbe made: mystagogy, o¢ typology applied tothe lturgy Is a way of constructing a theo ogy of the sacraments. Given the mystagogial texts that we have, we must acknowledge that in the actual constuction of this theology, many other factors ply a part and explain the profound diferences that exist among the several authors. I taystagogy te the met aoe conmteuci « Ueogy of the Sacraments, ve will not be surprised to find that there ae a ‘many mystagopies as there ate sacramental theologies or that there is mote than one mystagopical method at work inthe same ‘An example in Ambrose biblical typology serves to establish an ‘ontological connection between two events, namely, the Ltugl- tal eelebration and the event narrated in the Serptues. Ima ters not whether the Scpture are those ofthe Old Testament or the New. For infact the Christan sacraments are older than those ofthe Jews, and Melcizedek isan author of the saca- tents, This procedure ensures the historic salve real and efficacy of the sacraments, butt also opens the way 0a subse ‘quent development thats already present in some passages of ‘Ambrose himeelf and that he fully shares: the complete dents tion ofthe nite with the historical saving event. @“Typology lends itself very wel to this development. The theory cf “lation” and “Hkeness,"on the other hand, does nt lend Lise as well and is therefore regressive, 0 the point of alling into complete disuse and bing replaced bythe doctrine of “pres ence” pure and simple, This replacements not an eccentric development but rather is perfec consistent, inasmuch asthe “iitaon” and "keness” §pply not tothe realm ofthe extemal and visible, bat othe entoogsal structure ofthe itgy. The problem with them s that they overemphasize othemess and aierence an ae there {ore no longer compatible witha theology that is concerned ‘more with the immanence ofthe even in elation tothe nit ‘han with the transcendence of the event over there. ‘The choice, of couse snot betwen inmanence snd tanscen- dence, since, as Theodore teaches without using the voebulary, Immanence is possible only because of transendence. The doc. tne of “imitation” and “likeness” has a spec and strong cnto- logical connotation that defintely implies “presence.” As soon as ‘otherness is seen a5 opposed to identity, the concept of "pes fence” prevas and then becomes the sole category of sacramen {een The ever anaes ino the Iara rete bdy and blood of Christ ae transformed int the bread and ‘wine and are, therefore, “within” dhe Bread and wine jst a the ly Spits “within” the water of baptism and the oof anoint ing. “This evolution gives one the mpresion tha the problem be- Tongs eso the history ofthe lrg and t interpretations than to the history of culture and phiosophy. Inthe homies Ihave been considering, the dscusion of saca- ‘mental realism slats withthe observation that what i cen in the sacrament fers fron what i believed about ind vdetu, alu nti). In order to move fom appearances, which are the object of the senses, to true reality, which the objec of faith, some account must be given ofthe relationship between these two levels. The doctine of ssramentlity i intended #9 do 6 roctly thai is an answer tothe question of the connection bbeseen two levels of ing hat corespond to two levels oF Inowidge, namely, secing and believing, we turn to Cy, we find thet the entre technical voabulary that he uses with grest care inthis context already present in Plato's Phd The problem with which Plato dealing ¢ not ‘ofcourse, sacramentalty or the connection between what is seen tnd what is believed, but the relation between the one and the ‘many and therefore the connection between the sensible and the intelligible, “Ag matter of fac, his writings, ato adopts valous per specives inthis matter he says that beteen the Sense and the intelligible there ise relason (a) of minis or lnutaon, oF (9) of meteor partition. or (2) of inna aseocaton, (@) of paves ox presence." And agai “The sensible is amit. ‘8 ofthe intelible because it imitates i, though without ever ‘taining equally with i. To the extent thatthe sensible ‘achieves is own essence, itprtiptes, hat, shares inthe intl- gible (and, in particular, through this ‘sharing’ in the idea the sense reality Is and is knows)" The distinction between two levels of realy, the inteligbe and ‘the sensible, stray the master thread running through al of Platonic thought We should, therefore, not be surpised to find ‘that when the Fathers ofthe Church were faced with an analo- ‘gous prablem in connection withthe ontologial value of the sac- ments, they made use of concep aleady developed by Plato and Platonisn. ‘The development ofthe theory of the “supraceleta” (hyper ‘ourrion) helps Plato 10 explain the variety of sensible things ‘wth the aid ofa superior and unifying principle (the Ie) The Idea provides an entological explanation® ofthe sensible things that depend! oni In ke manner, the Nistor saving event provide an ontologieal explanation ofthe sacrament that pirate in i. We should ber in mind thatthe Mile Paton “coded the interpretation of the dessa being, ‘Moughts ofthe divine mind" they also adopted the view that 169‘the Ideas “as such are the eternal paradigm and rule of al things. "= Ifthe Pltonism thatthe Fathers used sometimes casts doubt on the adequacy oftheir theoreti approach when It comes to en- suring stcramentl realism, we ought fo recall that the fist fane- ton ofthe Idea and the Supraclestial i ontologia, thats, the dea exercises a function inthe ontolgieal structuring ofthe be Sings that participate in [At this point, a further step has to be taken. H. Keimer and K Galser ofthe Tabingen School and G. Reale ofthe Catholic Uni verity of Milan have Begun anew era in the interpretation of Plato with ther retrieval an wtlization ofthe Protlogy con tained inthe “unwsiten teachings” G. Reale has this 0 sy ‘when speaking ofthe “unveriten teachings: “Only in the light ofthese is it posible to give the ontology ofthe Ideas (and there- fore the entire thought of Plato) its ity and complete mean- ng" Tn fact, "the realty which desves from the Principles is conceived by Plato not as existing on the horizontal plane but as forming a vertical stractre, with a seis of successive eves, ‘each subordinate to those above and ll depending in simi Tne manner on the two supreme Principle" le we adopt this prspetve it is completly logical to think of the secrament as analogous, and not ental, oth the historical saving event that i its ontological foundation and measure." ‘A problem to which I constantly called attention as Canalyzed ‘the mystagogial homilies is that ofthe fll identity or simple snalogy between the sacrament and the objet of which tis the sacrament. Here is how the problem i seen in Pao's ontology: "According tothe predominance ofthe one or the other Princ ple, a thing can be ‘equal or ‘unequal but insofar a tsa utcuar being it participates in both Principles... Moreover, the same diference inthe degree of the commingling of he two Principles is also atthe bass ofthe relation between the inteligh- ble and sensible world." And again: “Pato therefore accepts, the axiom tha the foundation of wltimate principle can only be ‘hat which sina in essence to the prncpiated and not that ‘whichis equal in esence tot, and consequently that there must wo bos diference in dimension between pendple and rinipiatd. "2 In light of this new interpretation of Pat thet i based on the Protlogy, Astle to undergoes a reappraisal, for he now ap ‘pers asthe contintor, abel ert one ofthe Platonic sy {em rather than as the author ofa completely alternative system, (One ofthe more important ercisns that Aristotle levels aginst ‘Plato concerns precisely the Supracelestil Aristotle suggested ine stead thatthe Idens be understood “as forms-in-matter. This View of Aristotle had great success."4 Ie Lam core, in many passages ofthe patsistic honilics that have studied the same itinerary isto be see: (the starting point isthe assertion that partipation, imitation, likeness and {ype explain the relation of identity between events and sacra rints> but then 2) te authors change curse and end with @ doctrine of events that become sacraments. The objet ofthe sc ‘ament becomes dential with the sacrament inthe sense that it is immanentized and is henceforth within the sacrarnent. In this Kind of development, we can see something ike the problem ‘Aristotle fl in fae ofthe Platonic Hess; he produced “a tong, ‘heretical xtc’ of then “which argued forthe naceenity of Immanentzing them; he therefore reformulated the ideas as formeinvmatier= Beit noted: Ambrose hinsell isthe author ‘ofthe sacramental concept of "ansfguration,” whichis the remote ancestor ofthe medieval development of the theme of eanssubstantation” tv. A pivaL QUESTION Bat were the Fathers conscious ofall his? Certainly not. We, however, must indeed be conscious of, for otherwise we will ‘not properly understand te ontological throst undesying tstic thought in this area. In fac, this thrust emerges with anty only hen we turn tothe Platonic thought i the Back- {ground and use it as « ermeneutialprncple. I we are con ious ofall his, we will alo understand why the Fathers, who ‘id ot have fll macery ofthe ontology ofthe “second voyage” fand the “unten teachings,” finaly abandoned typology 268 mdoctrine of the scraments, because they fl the need of 2 ‘greater sacramental realise. ‘This development depended lesson the Fathers themselves than on the wider history of Platonic and Aristotelian thought. In ft, ‘he meaning of the "second voyage” was forgotten as ealy 28. Speusippus, Plato's frst successor as head of the Academy; in Speusipus’ thinking, the gret Ptoni dacovery of the su pasensibe was already radically compromised and had almost entirely lot its decper meen” Speusippus was suceeded by Xenocates, who continued the movement ofthe Academy away from the metaphysical approach ofits founder, tothe point ‘where ¢ mast be acknowledged that Aristotle was Plates true hee» But even Aristotle had no better fate, inasmuch as the ‘rulial period ofthe Perpatse School didnot lst much beyond the death ofits founder» Not unt Philo and, subsequent, ‘Mide Pltonism was there a fll ecoveryof the eneept of the Incorporeal and wih a return to the authente spit of Pato nism." Plo “reversed the perspective shared by all the Hellnis- te schools and refused to allow the corporeal any ontological ‘autonomy, that i, any ability to acount for ell” G, Reale ‘concludes that inthis way, the metaphysical advances made by ‘Pato were fulyreweved. ‘Against this background, we mus ak ourselves whether the Fa- thers whom we have been studying could fave bridged the text poral and cultural distance separating them from Plato. Could they have reached back beyond the succesive interpretations and schools and recovered the benefits ofthe Platonic "second voyage"? Could they have become awaze ofthe “urate tach Ings” 0 a to have a good grap ofthe ontological signleance of Patone tought? Te answer evident tat they could not. ‘The Fathers ware men oftheir times and share the culture and philosophical horizons oftheir age; they were not primary pro fessional philosophers. Theirs was a general kind of Pltonism, ‘unorganized and uneystemati, tat allowed them only 1 derive from the works ofthe grat master what was useful fr thelr theological and pastoral neds. The fact ie that they were pastors ™ whos interests were not primarllysystemaucor speculative, as fs very clear fom thelr mystagogial homies, In conclusion, can sy that when we read passages of ytagogial thought that have some touch of Patonc phasec- ‘gy, we must be ave that Platonic thought has a preise onto- logical dimension that was nt fully taken over nto the typology ofthe Fathers. (On the one hand, then, we must grant thatthe Fathers were conscious of sme ontological implications when they applied typology. Among the many examples we have eeen inthis study, lean cite the prothesis as Gesebed by Theodore: the rothass seems to posess a sacramentalty ofits own insofar as {isa type of the death of Chis. ‘On the other hand, we must also gran thatthe Fathers were not fully conscious ofthis ontological dimension. For the fact i that ‘they frequently tet “imitation” as the basis not ofthe inner ‘most structure ofthe realty with which they are dealing but of the ual action insofar as thsi extemally vibe and pecept- ble, The situa action thus becomes an extemal representation, & kindof staging, ofthe deoth and resurecton of Chet. Even ‘Ambrose, who has a precisely defined ontological concept of “akenes (in the context ofthe Eucharist), ceases to appeal to this genre of typological categories when he is obliged to give a ‘more cogent explanation of ssramental realism in the Eucharist. ‘The Fathers Thave been studying show that they have dia ties in sing biblical typology, 20 much so that they even aban dont precisely at the point where it mst serve as vehicle for the onlologial dimension of sacramental. Inthe typological perspective, the “event” remains too much separated from the fcleration that ought to conan tthe event remains “tanscen- dent” in relation tthe ite. The kind of question being asked land the Kind of suation being faced are more in tune with the ‘yplcl approach of Ptoniam than with that of Middle Platonian. “This imperfect awareness ofthe ontological value ofthe catego: es being used had two consequences, even in the patistic Pe- csriod and even inthe very authors Ihave studied. On the one hhand,secamtental realism (required by hth) ceased to find its Dest expression in the categories of typology and began to be sensed in everyday language. The Ite paced full emphasis ‘ona true and proper sseramentl “physic” that ended in s+ ‘sertions of “new” death and "new" resurrection of Chis ia ‘the liurical action. This situation T would describe as “naive seals” or even “exaggerated reais” (On the other hand, the ancient mystagoicl eancepton of (hings continued #9 inflence the interpretation ofthe scr sments, both by is voeabulary and by its speci theology and specific method (biblical typology). But, since the ontological per- spective proper to typology had beer lat this entre hermencut- ‘al method came to be regarded as inadequate for expressing sacramental realism, As result it eme to have a purely formal, symbolic, and exeral representational vale ofthe alloted "ype; it was sulted now for developing the role of cidacic sgn that could bring out some ofthe content ofthe Hay. In offering these reflections of Ptonism, 1am not suggesting that iney explain al the doctrines and problems that have ‘emerged from the analysis ofthe mystagogial homes. Were I te suggest this, I myself would be succumbing tothe dangerous tempation of eying o produce a general theory of mystagogy. ‘These reflections are offered, then, purely with a view of method: cology, thats, to keep us minal of some factors inthe culture ‘ofthe patistic age thst could not but influence the Fathers of the late fousth century, al of them men inthe pubic eye all of them important figures and leaders of thought ™ Abbreviations CCL Corpus Chrstisnorum, Series Laine CSEL Corpus Seriptorum Beceslastcorum Latinorum EL EphemeridesLitergine Greg Gregoremure (OCP Orientals Christow Prion PG Patrologia Grae, ed. JP. Migne Riot Risa Ltwrgion RSR Recherches de coe reise SC Sources erétiennes ST Studie Test TONT —Thesligal Dictionary ofthe Naw Testoment, ed G. Bromiley ao