You are on page 1of 24
Enrico Mazza ‘Translated by: Matthew J. O’Connell MYSTAGOGY A Theology of Liturgy in the Patristic Age PUEBLO PUBLISHING COMPANY New York GF AvERCA UBRARER einai, 20 ely speaking, when typology i used in interpreting the lkargy and the sacraments, it is called “mystagogy,” but in order to avoid confusion, have not used this werd, ‘At the end of my discussion of Ambros, I said that at tines “Ambrose postdates himself I must now add that Theodore, who is from the same period, postdates Ambrose by fi. CHAPTER FOUR John Chrysostom ‘Chrysostom was a close frend of Theodore. Like the latter, he ‘was a native of Antioch; like him, too, he was @ pupil ofthe ‘Pagan Sophist, Libanius, and subsequently of Diodore, who be- ‘ume bishop of Tarsus in Clic in 378. ‘When john Chrysostom was eighteen, Blessed Moles, bishop ‘of Antioch, was #0 taken by the young man’s falens that he ‘lowed lm to be his constant companion. John was accepted for baptiam, the bath of regeneration, and, after tree years in the bishop's service was promoted tthe ofe of lor. This formation comes to us fom the fe of Chrysostom that Palladas, bishop of Helenapols, wrote blore 415° “Thcodore and Cheysoctom thus ved in the same ay, Antioch, at the same period; they had the sume kind of formation and ‘Shared the same enthasim for monaslsm. Both became press in Antioch and both preached tothe candidates for bap- fiom. Theodore was ordained a priest in 383. Chrysostom was ‘ordained deacon by Moletas in 381 and a pest by Bavian in 5386: Hlsondination took place atthe beginning of Let, and he immediately began to preach. Theodore, for fis pat, preached his mystagogal homilies duzing th period from 38: © 383, ‘ccordng to the opinion of his editor; we must bear in mind, Ihowover that itis questionable whether these homilies were reached at Antioch. Theodore later became bishop of Mopsoestis; Chrysostom was ‘neha end freed to Become bishop of Constantinople. The rla- tionship between these wo great natives of Antec dd not, however, end when they became bishops, and Theodore was to show an ungualfled solidarity with Chrysostom inthe lates 95 ramatc exes Because oftheir common Antiochene origin and thelr continued fellowship, itis impossible to stady Theodore without aso taking into acount the Baptismal instructions of John Cheysostom ‘Theodore’s homies are well constructed on the bass of typology in ation, they are of great importance theologically ‘beause ofthe way in which eschatology i constantly related 0 the doctine of sacramentality. The hones of Jon Chrysostom, ‘on the other hand, are mare concerned with dinely pastoral specs ofthe sacrament and therefore allow grste scope for moral exhortation. What of typology? This, to, is constantly present in Chrysostom, even Iftis ot always in the fore ‘round. I fact. the get Chrysostom often loves contol of his iscourse: under the influence of pastoral concer, he allows hi self extensive digression fll of moral exhortation, Even here, however, we cannot say that he shorichanges typology. We ‘must beatin mind that in the as analysis, dhe moral dimension is one aspect of typolosy that is, ane of the “four sense" that Serpture has when ead spinal. tis cer, then, that Theodore and Chrysostom are closer than they might zoom. A. The Chic of Texts Itisa simple mater to enti the mystagogical texts of such authors as Cyl of Jerusalem, Ambrose, Theodore of Mop- suestia, Maximus the Confestor, or Cabasas, The matters less simple when we tur to an author such as Chrysostom, as, clear because unt quite recently, he was not recognized as hav ing preached any series of mystagogical homies, although bis ‘writings do conan various holes addressed tothe candidates for baptisa. Among the later are two homilies, entitled “ist Instruction” and “Second Instruction” by thet editor, Montfaucon.? Four other homilies, the fs of which ha te coun ‘erpat inthe edition of Fronton du Duc, were found and pub- lshed by A. Papadopoulos Kerameus; the second, thir, and ‘our had not been published previouly.* Un 1955, however, 106 ro complete series was known that embraced the whole of “Chistian ination.” (On October 5, 1955, Inthe library ofthe monastery of Stavro- ‘kta on Mount Athos, Father Antoine Wenger found a codex ‘containing homilies of Chrysostom (Stavronikita ms. 6) Eight of these had never been published and formed a complet series of ‘bapesmal instructions that we may describe as mystagogical. Fa ther Wenger published them in 1957 and, in a second edition, in agp At Antioch, John Chrysostom had been appointed official ‘reocher by Bishop Flavian, and he filled this office for twelve {eas, from 386 to 357.» We may, therefor, take it as certain that several times he developed the entie eye of instructions that in part were an element in the preparation of extechumens for baptism and in part were addressed to the newly baptize in the week immediatly fllowing the sacrament, that, the week after Easter. The discovery ofthe Stavronita homilies shows ‘what a complete eye of mystagogial instructions wes ike, Asa result itis now possible to lock for taces of eter eyes in other texts of Chrysostom; this Father Wenger has done ‘The existence ofthis series of homies has shed new light on other, previously known texts, such as Montiaucon’s Fist, tnd Send Instrcton and the homilies published by A, Papadopoulos-Kerameus. Wenger’ conclusions have been fur ther coniamed by Paul Hacking! to the laters name, we cin ad those ofA. Ceresa-Gataldo® and D. Sartore" -f we accept the subdivision proposed by Wenger, we can say that the eatchotical homilies of Cheyscstom belong to three i= ferent cycles of baptismal instructors. Here is how Wenger dis- tingushes the three series: (the frst cycle, made up ofthe {our homilies of the Papadopoulos Kerameus seis (2) the sec- ‘ond cyee, comprising Montiaucon’s Second Intraction (he only ‘surviving hom ofthis series) and ) the third eee, comprs- ing the eight homilies ofthe Stvzonikita sere. Since these are ‘thre poll eyes, I must make a choice; for my purpose in analyzing the fxs, [must choose the most complete series, the 7 Stavroniita, while keeping an eye aa times onthe other to B. The Date of the Texts (On tis important question, Iam oblige to accept the carefully reasoned postion of A. Wenge. John Chrysostom began his preaching in 386. The eight Stavrox ‘kita ores cannot date from that yenr because it was then that he preached the eight sermons on Genesis, and these dlisplay a style much diferent from that ofthe Lapdsmal homilies. ‘The year 387 brought the homies onthe statues, with thelr ‘heavy emphasis onthe theme of oaths; this emphunis explains why Montauicon assigned his Homily 1t that seme ye, But Pepadopolous-Kerameus later discovered thre homes (is homies two, three, and four that belong tote same seis as Moniaucon’s Homily 3. The four form a eomplete series, which ‘cannot have been preached in 37. Infact, these four homies sare completely silent about (1) the tribe evens of March, when the emperor threatened to take vengeance onthe ety for {inl feed othe pv sn a abt) 7 return of Bishop Favian with the emperor’ pation (et Easter, 987) In 387, Chrysostom did preach a series of mystagogical homilies, all but one of which ae lost, namely, Homily 21 onthe statues, ‘hich was pretched on Easter Sunday. This homily, the only survivor ofthe ene eatecetical cycle of thet year, siden With Montiaucon’s Homily 2.” This sa further reason for maine taining tat the series of homies published by Papedopoulow. ‘Kerameus cannot have been delivered in 387. Acording to ‘Wenger, this seven tre of the Stavronikita homilies 388, Chrysostom preached the customary cyl of instructions addressed fo the candidates fr baptism. This cycle comprises the fist three homilies of Papadopoulos Kerameus, followed by homilies 1-4 on the Acts ofthe Apostles» snd by hih homy now lost. 8 Wenger therefor, also excludes 388 asthe yese when the Stavrnikita series was preached, But becate of inguiste sl Taries with the thsty-two homes on Genesis, which were preached in 388, he maintaine that the Stavronsta series must have been preached not ong etter” Perhaps in 3902 Perhaps. All the catechetcl homilies listed are mystagogicl and belong to the petod of Chrysostom’s ministry in Antioch A. The Probl of the Mom! Thmaticr In is eatechetcl homies, Chrysostom aims st preparing the catechumens for baptism in soch a way thatthe sacrament will ‘be fruitful. Therefore, when commenting onthe bapusmal It- urgy andthe various ital elements in t,he lys heavy empha- sls on the moral oblgrtions feng fom them Tiss 39) that his mystagogy stents an element not present like anything to the same extent inthe mystogoay of the ther Fathers ofthe ‘Church the continual emphasis en Chistian moral behavior. In Coston wring, Chitin ination is een a osly oonetd wih two ngs a cy ortodox fh and the con trl of one's own behavior He makes an expt, forma ate ‘ment about ts tof conecton: Such thesis we ‘rsh yout show in regard tothe dogmas of the Church, and Ire dante you to kep them fat ven your minds. 1 also ‘ing tha hose who marest such fh shine fort by heir fond conduct. Hence must alo iso hts mater hose ‘tho are about to recive the royal git" This ely enuncated ‘lok expanse emphists on the moral consequence of ep tam in Chrysostom’ homies. ‘A hte reflection shows, of course, that Chrysostom’ attitude is ‘ota complete novelty, for every mystagoy alos some 002 forthe poben of mon thar Ben Teodor of Mapes regards proper Christin behavior as paying an extremely impor tant part in the atsinment ofthe eral blessings #0 the pint that he even develops "theology of Chistian living” inthe tue 109 and proper sense ofthe trm. In thls view, is by tel ves that belleers develop the “esis” and “sede” recived in baptism, making them grow and come to matuiy it a8 a = sult ofthis activity tht bolevers are able to aan tothe gift of the etemal blessings. Bu, perhaps, I ought to explain Theo- dore's thinking more uly. In Theodore’s view, the frit of baptism, thats, what ows fom the sacrament, cannot be defined simply a “the beginning of eternal blessings.” For analogous reasons, Ife not simply an interval between baptism and the etal blessings, The frat of baptism becomes par of le and takes up residence therein ke the seed ofa plant. This seed i assimilated and Brought to mata= tity by Chestian living, o thatthe invisible component ofthe boptsmal ste is tansformed ino experiential life, To explin this situation, Theodore uses the eample of the human seed that plays part in procreation. Hee is his fine description, “ought not surprise us that we receive a fyfold bith and that we proceed from the one to the other for even in our bly development we have a twofld birth, one from a man and then another froma woman. Fist we are bor, ina seminal tate, {roma man. withoot having he lant resemblance to a human being everyone knows, ofcourse, tha the eed has resea- bance to a human being, But when the seed has been conceived and molded in accordance with the laws God has established and imposed on nature, and when i has auld «form and is ‘bom of « woman, then it acquire its likeness to human nature In tke manner we have a double spstual] bth, Fist ofall, ‘we are bor in a seminal stat in baptism; a this point we are not yet bor into the insnortal nature to which we expec to pass through the resurrection in fat we have not even acquired the eness. But when, through faith and through hope of those (Btessings) that are to come, we form and mold ourselves second ing to Christan ways of acing, and (when we have) remained stendast until th tie ofthe resurrection, thes, in accordance with the divine decree, we who have Been dus wil equi the second birth and take on that mortal and incorruptible nature, when ‘Christ our Lord wil transform out lowly bodies as ‘Blesed Paul says, ‘and these will become ike his glorious body’ hit 5:29." ‘The same lpia pattem supplies the framework within which ‘Theodore dscuses the Eucharist, forthe Eucharist is essentially food, and food precisely fr a Cristian life conceived in the way just described, Hee sa passage onthe subject “For yoo, then, who have been began by grace and the com ing ofthe Holy Spot in bpm and have reeived this snc ‘ato, is iting tat there bea food which you resive {trough gos andthe coming ofthe Holy Spt and which of ke Kind, so tat it stenghena and develop the sactieston already given to you and lade you tothe aainment of the {ated Bssngs ‘The thought heres completed in another patag: “The body and Dood of our Lad and te grace ofthe Hay Spit thats sien fous thereby [that i, by “reevng the mysteries") will ‘win ws help fo do good works and wil strengthen ox (00d) ‘poatons endor gver a re nd oper gf iin ow, the conneton between He and itugy tn reduce to the question of whether or not we are worly to approach he ‘acumen, Hs emphasis eather ona thelogy of ring 8 a “fe made rafal by te rs ofthe sacrament that wi ead us tothe atainment ofthe eshte Bessigs. Te sacranent Is tnked tothe eschatoogilbssings, not drecly and mmeci- stey (8 “bepnning” and “consummation, ut ony though the mediation ofthe Ie we ve ‘There is a principle in Cheysostom’s theology that must guide ‘ur interpretation of his thinking on moeai: the pnciple that God saves human beings without any meet on thee pa Chrysostom constantly repeats this principle as a premise of his discussion; next, he shows that God's mercy is manifested in saving human beings when they are stil siness only in third place does he stress the importance of behavior that iin accord ‘with God's will and to which God then responds by granting stl father graces. On these basic principles, Chrysostom builds an foi argumentf God shows metey when human beings are sil sinners, much more does he show it when they respond positively toi. ‘The human response is thus very important. Chrysostom de- soubes it as “contributing your lai share," Human beings are ‘ot purely pasive in rectving the work of redemptions they col- labore through thee asetcal efforts, which are not reducible to “doing nothing,” but rather present “thee fie shae.” We can say that in Chrysostom, this formulation ofthe idea i al ‘masta technical term and recurs quite fequenty. In onder to bring out more cea the theologil importance of the Chuistlan’s manner of lie (and thus the sinianiy between Chrysostom and Theodore), I shal cite some passages in which CCheysosom expreses his theology of Chistian ling. Christians ‘must take ther “contribution” to the work that God accom plished in them in thei bsptism: “Our Master is Kind; when He sees your gratitude fr what He has already given, and that you are very cael fo guard His great gifts, He bestows His grace ‘pon you in abundance. Even four contbutlon is small He lavishes His great gifts upon we" ‘The human response, however, consists nt simply of gratitude, but also a certain behavior: my oft “Eventhough you had never done anything goed, even though you had the burden of your sins ying heavy upon you, He ime fated his own goodness and judged you worthy ofthese great Bits. For He not only delivered you fom your sis and gave you justification by His grace, but He asp shovwed you forth as holy and made you His sons by adoption I He has taken the lead in giving you such gifs, if you ae eager, after receiving £0 ‘much, to contribute your fait share, Ifyou wil show care in szutding and managing the gifts that have aleady been given, how can He fal Judge you worthy again of till greter ‘ir Speaking of St. Paul asa witness who “contributed his fir share Chrysostom tells us sill more clay in what this “contre ‘bution” consis: “Did you see how he reaped the benefit of God's iberalry and then sbundanilycontebuted his own share mean his zeal, his fervor, is fh, hs courage, his po- tienes, his lofty mind, andl his undated wil? This is why he de- served a larger measure of help from above.” Dxpite rome similares between the wo, ts not possible, in my opinion, to dim that Chrysostom is here proposing the doc- tine of merit as understood and formulated inthe West. sug- ‘gest ather that Chrysottomy’s thinking here i ose to Theo- ‘ore’ “theology of Christian living” The eesl is avery great ‘emphasis on Christian living, and this precisely within the _mytagogial approach and predsey because ofits sacramental ‘aring point, fr, at we saw in the fst of these passages from ‘Chrysostom, his argument Is based on his theology ofthe sare ment and is saving efccy John Chrysostom and Theodore both were priests and preachers inthe same oy and at the same period. Its not surpeing, ‘therefore, eatin their mystagopical instructions, both should ‘ernphasize the same theme: Chustian living. What, then, i the ‘ference between the two? Whereas Theodore highlights the Importance of actual ving by accontuating the ron between sicrament and eschatology, Chrysostom speaks directly, and with great fever, ofthe several forms of moral behavior that ll {or censure o praise | think it can be sald thatthe two men adopt the same perspee- ‘ve, Bu also that they approsc iin two que efferent ways eis very likely that Chaysostom’s outlook is de to his having kept loser ies with a monastic formation that had been marked ‘by rural split. I justification of this interpretation, I all tenon tothe theme of “the angelic fe,” which Chrysostom ‘0s before the faithful asa model or their behavior. In Theo- dore, the same theme s emphatically eschatological: ‘Chrysostom, however, “the angelic fe” isthe monastic ie. ‘Monks, he sys, “imate the angele’ way of ie" inasmuch a8, ike the angels, “they devote [dhemseles] to hyrans and prayers." According to him, monks alone imitate the angels 13 0 that when the phrase “angelic fe” occurs without further specification, we must think that he is refering t0 the monastic way. ‘The connection between ascetiam and eschatology is quite clear Ihre.» Conversely, the eschatological vision becomes the theme fof monastic ascetiam. At the same tine, John Chrysostom has a ‘rogram of Christian life that is inspned by the monastic dea He proposes this progrem to al even the newly “enlightened,” for in his view, this isthe surest way of bringing Christian to heed the Lord. “IE the sou isto ve according tothe Spit it ‘must be slily established in temperance and in spiritual watch- falness,” these being the estetial conditions Chrysostom re- quires for any progress in virtue." We are far removed here from the eschatological theme exc ‘Pounded with such breadth and depth by Theodore. It is this liference in emphsis that chiefly iflerentates the to weiter feven though thelr ideas on the “theology of Chistian fving” are ‘very smal In light ofall dose considerations think I can conc that John Cheysostom’s mystagogy cll fora very cael and mae ‘anced judgments certainly not to be described simplistic ‘as "meralisn.” In his toptsmalinstractions, there is never any neglect of mystagogy in the proper and specif sense ofthe term, although it i admittedly handled in a quite particular way, ‘namely, witha strong exnphasis on moral behavior. Ths is not surprising fortis emphasis is one that Cheysostom found more congenial. B, The Pobem of the Facharitic Thematic. team be sald in general thatthe several known authors of _mystagogical homilies deal wth baptism and, immediately after- ‘wards, withthe Eucharist Cheysostoms eatechetcl holies, however, dala length ony with baptism and its immediate ‘mora consequences; they do not dvely tackle the Buchads, hich indeed is present only tough allusions, We must, there fore inquire ino the resons that led John Chrysostom thas fo reduce the traditional place ofthe Eucharist in his instructions ry In onder to ind the explanation, I shall proceed by stages, 491 bring together the various avalable factors and elements. (@ Instructions on initiation and therefore on tops and the Eucharist fal into tv categories (2) those delivered before the celebration of baptism, and (2) those delivered after the oeebra- ‘on of the sacraments of iniation. tis the homilies in the se ‘ond category that are usualy described as "mystagogial {instructions ” ‘Thus, Ambrose tells us that is mystagogcal homilies, which were delivered after the listeners had rectved the sacraments, ‘were preceded by a lengthy catechesis that had fori purpose 10 form the candidates so that thelr eception of baptism would be frutfal. The baptismal homies of Cyril of Jerusalem were in- tended asa preparation for baptism, whereas those of Theodore fof Mopauesia were delivered in two stages: before bupaism, the bles onthe Creed and the Our Father and the three on Bap tismy and ater baptism the two on the Eucharist. CChrysostoms ctechetiat homies were ikewise delivered in {ovo stages those dealing with baptinm were delivered prior to baptism, during the period of preparation that began tty days before Easter and those dealing with the moral behavior of CChastians were delivered during the week afer Ease. The fist homuly in the Starovikta series was delivered (can be ‘alnlained) Ut days before Easter” Te second sas delivered afew days before Easter, whereas the eecond inthe Papadopoulos Keramens series was delivered on Holy Thursday. The tied Stavronta homily, whichis the same asthe fourth in the Papadopoulos Kerameus sees, is assigned to Easter morn- ing» The rereaining ve were delivered during Easter week > {he ast of them on Easter Saturday. (&) The practice of explaining the secaments only ater Christan, Fniation has been completed seem to stem from the disc pline of secrecy (the arcanum) this isthe ease with John. Chrysostom At the same tie, however, according to CCaysostom, the discipline of secrecy also explicitly applies to ‘he homilies delivered in preparation for baptism; for this rex sen, T donot think it quite accurate to make the discipline of us secrecy the explanation of why the homes explaining the scr ‘ments were deivered only afer these stcraments had been re- ceived. But, atthe present time, we have no better explanations land, therefore, have no choice but to attibute the phenomenon to the discipline of secre. Since the sacraments of nttion were celebrated at Easter and the mystagogicel explanation was given ony after this clera- tion, we can understand why the mystagogial explanation came during Easter week. (© The homilies that Chysostom preached during Easter week deal predominantly with questions of ora. They xr he ew “enlightened olive as thy were taught and as they in fact ved during the time of thr repeat for apts, They mas continue to Ive a peopl who ave been enlightened end to abstain from sin a though they were ving ina new pernae nent ent. Cryostom can ise tl nage cre, in hs vw and that of othr Father, the esental Lenten paces the fast from sin The ith nstrction has forts purpose prc to inspire nthe newly baptized a specie calook, namely, that lie Lent and Easter week, the ites and observanss connected with beim don love ther meaning ter a eran sgn Pid, but become a school of Cust Iving fer the ffl» Infact the tao baptism in Cusine shoul be that they reach the pint of constant doing Go's wil. The need ofthis [ind of eoraton as ot pressing during Lent, because the fas already suggested Iie ater now tht the problem of perseverance becomes urgent [kis possible at this point to daw a conclusion that every impor: fant for propely assessing the emphasis on morality in the post Esser instructions: Chrysostom bases the moral content of his ‘reaching on the sacramental tes and observances of Chistian ination his purpose being tha the effect ofthese ites and observances should carry over into Chistian life. His preaching, thas as the same futon asthe hturgial observances of the postbapismal period ‘ean be said that what we have ere i a properly sacramental ‘conception of preaching, rather than a predominantly mora con- “ ‘ception of Christian ination In fact if we think ofthe Lenten fast as an inage ofa “as from sin,” we are taking a completely theological (and nota moralistic) approach to the liturgy of Chis than nation © ‘Cauysostom is very conscious ofthe problem Christan feof persevering Inthe bapism they have rcsved so that they wil reanain “enlightened fora ltime an not as fora week. This {sin fact a problem not ony for those recently baptized, bat for all the fat, regardless of how long ago they were baptized. ‘Consequently, Chrysostom’ postepssmal homilies ace directed tol the faithful and no simply to the neophytes “the postboptsmal instructions are not myptagopial instructions ae the manner of Cyl and Ambrose, bat are addressed tall the ‘aihéa."#| (@) We can take one further stp in our attempt at better under- ‘Standing of Chrysostom poston. According to Chrysostom, baptism takes sin away, ges the oly Spint, and makes us the body of Christ. Thi 6 avery ich ‘hecogy of tps, and he expound ty lengthy develop- ments of numerous moi, including orginal n° The theology of Chistian iitaton that Chrysostom represents allows plenty of room forthe discussion of taps. ln bapesm, bolievers receive the grace of rebirth an the gilt ofthe Splat, and are thereby aeady committed to God. All condions have ben met and they have nove become worthy of approaching the royal banquet table, that i, the Eucharist. In Chrysostom’ bap- tismal theology, the primary purpose ofthe Eucharist sw su tain and augment the strength needed forthe struggle against the demon and his manifestations (his “pomps)- A farther func- tim isto show frth the magnificence af the baptismal ealing. “The theme ofthe struggle aginst the demon has Christin nae tion as its proper setting the exorcsms and renunciation of Se- tan are heavy emphasized. Chrysostom regards the renunca- tion of Satan as extremely important and he even seems to 100k ‘upon it sacramental in the strict sense. Tn fat the entre Interpretation of baptism is based on an analogy witha stugsle 17 Srmone uve 6 Auezca Usa ‘aoe, 0 against an adversary; the adversary inthis casei evidently the evi, ‘Since the Eucharist is part of Christan ination, we shall not be ‘surprised to find that to, is interpreted ancl described in terns of this special theology’ of ination; that is, even the Ea chars is interpreted a a factor inthe spinal strugele against Satan. God has not only prepared the weapons that baptism pro- Vides for this confit, “he has also prepared a food wich ‘ore powerful than any armoe.”» The explanation given in the passage here cited makes it very dear how Chaysostom looks at ‘the Eucharist insofar a the Eucharist spat of Christan in tion. For here the Eucharist is not connected withthe events of (Chis redemptive work, but s looked upon simply a= some- ‘thing endowed with inherent power and, therefore, as wef 0 ‘the person who reoeivs i. The purpose ofthe Buchu as ‘seen inthis perspective, is to nepulse the demon: “If the devil ‘merely ses you returning from the Master's banquet, he fees faster than any wind, as if he had seen eon breathing forth, flames fom his mouth "= ‘This description ofthe Buchars i not simpy one tossed of in passing for Cheysvtom expresoce hime in sina ters lee ‘where, thus showing tat the perspective imposed by Chiltan Initaton is constantly maintained and is pat of his euchanstie theology as such. Ths, he says in another passage: "Let us ‘come away from that table ike fire-breathing Hons of whom the devi is alia" ‘There is indeed certain progression in Chrysostom’ thinking. From the idea thatthe devil es on seeing those who have = ceived the body and blood of Cust, the homist advance to. the ides thatthe eucharstic blood in its physical really has this effect on Satan: “If you show him tongue stained with the pre- ‘ous blood, he will not be able to make a stand you show him your mouth all eimsoned and raddy, cowardly beast thet hes he will run aay." John Cheysostom approsches the theology ofthe Buchavis in this way, not because he advocates a superstitious use ofthe Eucharist, but Because he takes his les from the main themes of ‘Casta nation. Since he takes ination as his guide, he ‘wants his entire explanation tobe msmediatly reducible and p- pliable to Christan life, more specially, 10 Christan life ier. preted oso combs. Given the thematic of Christan inition as Chrysostom see it, the Eucharist does not play a major ole because itis simply the fod for the fe bora in baptism Theodore, to, emphasizes the food aspect ofthe Eucharist. By doing so he is able to combine baptism and Eucharist ina single ‘system tat can be formulated in this way: the food by which ‘he faithfl are nourished mast be consistent with thee birt in bpssm This kind of eucharistic theology was probly not one ‘Theodore had developed for hmsel, but was ather characters tic ofthe Antiochene wadition. And, i fact, this very specialized theme i alo to be found in Chrysostom: “Have you seen how (Ct unites to Hiself His bride? Have you seen with what food He nourishes us all? I by the same food that we have ‘ben formed and are fed Just a a woman rurtures her ofping wither own Blood and milk 9 also Chris continously nour IShes with His own blood those whom He has begotten." ‘The mystagogial homilies ofthe other Fathers ofthe Church ‘low plenty of room for explanation ofthe guture and texts ‘that make up the euchaise nite. Not so with Chrysostom. Ia ‘his baptismal intrctions, the Eucharist s described in tems of its effects and is seen as part of the fe that originates in baptison rather than as part ofthe ritual of ination a such. This pee liar approach is easly explained by the fact tat the rely impor tant thing in Chrysostom eyes sth direct connection betwen, baptism and the mora ie, ‘The eucharistic thematic hen, no less than the theme of moral behavior, belongs among the things that are explained tothe faithful generally rather than among the specie points that the newly baptized need to have explained to them. Se, for exam ple, how Chrysostom ends his discussion ofthe Eucharist: “I Speak both 1 you, the neophytes, and to you who have long, since been instruted—even many years ago" 9 tion of Chrysostom are few and terse. The reas for ths in| ny opinion is that Chrysostom chooses ony themes that cnteb- ‘ute to the main point of hs theaogy of nation, namely, that the frat of baptism is the git of jastiiation and that this gift must find adequate expression in everyday fe as a struggle ‘agains Satan, Becatse ofthis doctrinal approach the horalst must tum directly to practice. He emphases the truth that bap tis and its fruits are iconcale with certain orm of behav foe, suchas swearing, drunkenness, the shows in the hippo- ‘drome and stadiums, and the preference for amusements over tugial gatherings. According to the logic fllowed by Chrysostom, i is important ‘that newly enlightened Christians lve Ina manner consistent with the bint they have received and “contribute thei fir share.” They will eceive from the Eucharist all the srengih they reed to vein this way and to win out in thee srupete against the demon. If this isthe primary function ofthe Eucharist then ‘we must say that Chrysostom expresses himself with sulicent laity on the subject and that after his explanation, the newly opted nes only pat into pace the message they have We saw eater that in his sacramental theology, Theodore of Mopsuestia lays great eres on eschatology, tothe point even that eschatological relies become the very content of the sacri ‘ment. Tls emphasis raises no small problems in connection ‘with sacramental realism, since this, by definition, remains una ‘erably eschatological and doesnot allow nitalanipations Hire some further clarification Is needed. Ifthe reales to be achieved a the end of time include the resuarecton ofthe body, ‘immutability, and impassbity, then evidently there can be no sual antipation ofthese nor even 2 itu approsch to them, Anyone maintaining this conception ofthe eichaton mast mses savy regard the theology of Cretan ving, which | explained before, as extremely important. Furthermore, es Ihave already In conchsion: references to the Eucharist in the baptismal nstruc- pointed ost, Theodor also assigns the estchatologial theme a ‘oral function: we humans must become lik the invsble pow- crs, those heavenly power that constantly lony God John Chrysostom never loses sight ofthe importance ofthe gifs to be given atthe end. Consequently, then he has to describe redemption, he presents it precisely asthe gift of immortality "He showed the devi hove folsh were his atempts; He showed man the great cre He manifested in his regard, for through death He gave man everlasting ife."® The eschaton thas remins fly presen in the form of a tension and aba made for living, but tis completly eliminsted asthe conten of the At the same time, however, thre must continue tobe some con- nection between eschatology and sacament since the fe of be- Tievers springs from the sacrament and is ordered tothe gis of the eechaton. Chrysostom, therefore, ain a degree of connes- tion betwoen secrament and eschatology, forthe stalning 1- ‘ward the ultimate Blesings, whichis proper to Christian ie, ‘originates directly inthe content of nition. The passage that Shall now ctf Very dear on this point. After speaking out ‘ronal against the xcosive desire for clegancs and external fembelishmens and after cing + Timothy 29 in support of hs tis, Chrysostom concludes: “Do deeds worthy of your pro- fession he [the Apostle] says, and adcen yourself with good deeds. Let the good deeds you do imitate your profession: you profes godliness, 90 do what pleasing to Hi, that, good Aeeds."# ‘According to Chrysostom, the Imitation of Chit theough Ches- tan living has a Very specie connection wit baptism, for it ine volves an “imitation” ofthe profession of faith made in baptism, Ii we are to grap the precise meaning ofthe term “instation” in Chrysostom, we must tur toa quite special phase that he uses with a prese technical meaning: When he speaks of God acing With mercy and kindness toward his creatures, he usually says, {at God “lnlates Fils own goodness" when he so acts. In ‘other words the interior, essential goodness of God is the basis land source of his action toward his creatures his essen go0d- ess isthe basic model for al of his activites; nal is actions, hae erates his essential goodness af extra. “nitation” and “imitate” retain this same meaning when ‘Chrysostom says that the Behavior ofthe baptized should be an ‘imitation’ of tel profesion of faith. The althul must reproduce outwardly, i their behavior, the baptismal “goliness" ‘hat consists in thelr covenant with God; from ths follows that the good works done by Christians are an offshoot oftheir bape tism, These good works include “yeaming forthe wor to “come” and “beeping our gaze ever straining upward, 30 that we fare ever anaious forthe things of heaven and deste the glory herent." CCuistians are able to actin this way only Bese in baptism they acquire the eyes offal that allow them tose things that the eyes ofthe body cannot. tis very important to note thatthe theme of spiritual eyes also has an eschatological dimension, ine fasmuch as because ofthe great hope given to them, the newly Deptized must henceforth Keep their eyes fxed on heaven, in accordance with Pauls exhortation (Col 32). When Chsians think ofthe things that are above, they “change thle thoughts fmm enth to hesven fom visa thing o thoes that ree seon” but that their spiritual eyes can nee more eealy than the yes ofthe body can see sensible things ‘Here we have the principle undelying the moral approach to the he of the baptized; the principle arses from the content of the sacrament end from faith. Among the fruits of baptism, CChnysostom incudes one eschatological gift. Using a very elec: tive lterary device ‘not only fee, But also holy not only Ily "he ames ten effects that he ananges in a progres: sive onder. Human beings were formerly captives of in but now they are free, holy, just sons and daughter, heirs, broth- es and sisters of Chis joint heirs, member, temples, and in struments of the Spit In this boul list, the only eschato logical effect is expressed inthe word “heirs” which implies the [Kingdom of heaven, ass clea fom parallel passages: usifice tion, sanctity, purity of soul, fal adopson, and the kingdom of heaven" ‘The fatal must therefor, be ever mindful ofthe ulumate things and always lve in the eschatological dimension: thet We 4s no longer earthly, but heavenly. Chrysostom draws all these ‘conclusions in an instruction given during Easter week, ashe ‘comments on the life of the martyrs: “They abandoned all things tupon earth and gazed with the eyes of faith on the King of Iheaven and the host of angels standing before Him they ple- ‘ued in thelr minds heaven and is inetable blessings." The atstude ofthe martyrs i offered to the fil as a model, 50 that they may do Ukewise “When the soul gets an understanding of the ineffable goods of heaven, it, a5 t were, loosed fom the bonds ofthe Nesh and ted on high- ach day it pctres to self the enjoyment af these goods and can take no thought for the things of earth. It sweeps past mundane affairs, asf they were dreams and shad- ‘ws, and keeps the mind constany staining toward heaven. With the eyes of faith it considers that it al ut ses the good things from on high and each moment tis alert enjoy them." ‘This shift in outlook is made posible by the intesior activity of doe describes at length. Chrysostom regards this as a means of ‘obianing the needed staining toward heaven. But the "pictur ing” not simpy an exercze of fantasy, for baptiam has given the faithful areal enrollment in heaven. They ate, therefore, ple- turing things that are zeal Pheaven”) an translating the vison {no historical behavior, that is, everyday experince: It is poss ble fora man sho is tl in the embrace of his body t have ‘nothing in common with the earth, but to set before his eyes all the joys of heaven and to contemplate them uncesingly."™ This eschatological theme i inked tothe words of Paul “Mind the things that are above"; Chrysostom then further species the “above” in a chistlogial sense: “where Chit is seated at the right hand of God." wish you to mind,” he says, “those things which cin cary your thoughts to heaven, the things ‘which seithdraw you from the busines of the wor. For your ‘tzenship is nha" Adession to heaven isnot, a8 might my stom, an automatic result of the content ofthe sacrament, Chis tans must live their lives here below in order to attain tothe heavenly gis: “lasten he [Pau] say, to bring your whole ‘ind o that country where you ate envlled a czens, and -eslve todo the things which cn show that you deserve your clizenship in heaven.”» ‘The ultimate bass fr this radial eschatological tension, which should be characteristic ofall the faithful i Yo be found In Paul's theology of baptism, which he conceives as a death, Chrysostom “ASter he [Paul sid, Mind the things tat re l,m th things that are on earth, he went onto add: Fr you haw did. . Your Ife ie no lnger seen, fori i hidden. Therefore, donot be a- tive in the things ofthis ie as if you were living, but be asf you had died and wer corpses. For tell me this Ist posable for ‘one win has ded as fara this fe is concemed, tobe active thereafter in the afar of his ie? .. «For our od sel he says Fins be crucial trough Epis. °> ‘This key passage has a close parle in Ambrose we can think, ‘therfore, that it was characteristic of my sagogy. ‘Although Chrysostom’ eschatological teching is diferent fom ‘that of his fellow great Anochene in whose view salvation ss sch was something essentially eschatological), we may nonethe- less concude that eschatology isnot completely absent frm his baptismal theology, inasmuch as Chistian life hasan esthatolog cal character, ‘An eschatological thematic includes the part played by heaven ‘nd the heavenly powers. In this area, Chrysostom ie more open tothe eschatological dimension forthe very Sst stops that ca namely, thatthe catechumenate signify a capt fay. “The Kg ls Songueved i the bate nd he ake cap tives, And captives go naked and unshod."» The symbolism of the exorcisms is heavily emphasized and seems to have been re- girded as extremely important: "The show of bare fet and the ‘utstretched hand are gestures pointing toa csptvity; they gry the situation of human beings as slaves ofthe de Three gestares expres this state of enslavement “See ere again the external attitude of eptvty The priests bring you in ‘They bid you to pray, on bent knees, with your hands out stretched to heaven." In the second homily of the Papadopoulas-Kerames series the cepiivity theme alo serves to interpret the period following "upon baptism, forthe baptized are now captives of Christ. The ‘rious secondary meanings ofthe captivity theme are unimpor tant the important thing i thatthe ite avy sige «capi lay of one o other kind. The condition of captivity from which Thaman beings are delivered is flowed by a new situation that Py 1s dst as heaveny The des ofthe newly bape tended tbe representative of hs new ler This pty Sits one ort fm frig sel and len hm oa hoe inn, he bevel Jensen. Ts one ends you ee er above, fr Palsy Yu ae she This te, is thereon why on apne ad uF ‘The action of kneeling also has a meaning ofits own, and this ‘meaning, too is twofold: tcan express enslavement fo the devi, ‘uti can also be regarded as a profession of faith inthe lod ship of Christ “Sacred exstom= bids you to remain on your snes, 50a to acknowledge His absolute rule even by jour pos ture, fr to bend the knee is a mark to those who acknowledge their servitude. Hear what St. Pal ays Toh ecery Ine sll er of tose ihc, ot earth, ud rte earth ‘The “signing” is also given an interpretation tke that of Theor ore.» Both howls interpret the anointing in relation to the evi, who must le atthe mere sight ofthis sign (ancnting in the form of cross) onthe foreheads ofthe newly baptized. The symbolism of stripping and donning new clothing is no longer greatly stressed its menioned enly in connection with passages in Fa “We put off the old garment, which has been ade filthy withthe abundance of our sins; we put on the mew ‘one, sehich fe fom every stain *» The symbulism here simply combines Colossians 310 and Galstans 327, which (Chryscetom expresly cts, ‘The emergence from the bapismsl pool, which symbolizes the resumecton doesnot seem to be regarded es very important, since its mentioned only in passing and in a subordinate ‘dnuse. Chrysostom’s rel interest finds expression a the end of the sentence: «ask Him tobe your ally, 0 that you may guard well the gifts that He has given you, and that you may ot be conquered by the deoats of the wicked one,"=> ‘The realy important thing in Chrysostom’ eyes is the preserva- ton ofthe garment received in baptism. Operative her ae the ‘tstolgial theme and the theme of grace as iage of Christ. ‘The topicis always discussed in an interplay of allusions based 8 ‘on the fact thatthe baptized don resplendent garments that di tinguish them from others. For Chrysostom, these baptismal at ‘ments become a sign ofa relationship with Chast that must be ‘maintained through moral behavior. We must now tum to this theme of "garments." (Chrysostom takes up this theme in the fourth Strona hom ly, which A. Wenger thinks was delvered on Easter Monday or pethaps on Easter Sunday itsall. The newly haplzed put on the ress proper to them: a white garment that oth Theodore and ‘Chrysostom describe as “pleaming.” Chrysostom tums immed ately from the dress to that of which it ia sig: “Now the robe you wear and your gleaming garments attract the eyes fal f ‘you should wilt do so, by keeping your royal robe shining ‘even more brightly than it now does, by your godly conduct and {yur strict discipline, you wil aways be abl o daw all who ‘eld you to show the same 2eal and praise fr the Master." ‘The royal robe signifies the fut of baptism, namely, our relation ship with Christ There isa passage in which Chrysostom takes the taptismal garment a his farting point and then moves on to the christolopcal theme as the deciive conlason of his exhor- tsclon:"Expecally yo ho have recently been fuged Worthy of divine initiation, who have put off the burden of your sins and put on the shining robe—and what do [mean by the shining robe?—do you, who have pat on Christ Himself and have re- ‘ceived the Master ofall things to dvell within you, show frtha ‘conduct worthy of Him who dwells within yous => ‘This movement from the baptismal garment theme tothe tusological theme is Pauline. Chrysostom loved Paul's writings land could not have been unaware ofthe direction shown him hereby his “universal teacher.” In fat, the fourth Stavronita homily sa commentary on 2 Corinthians 5:7 “I, ery any san i in Chit, he is. new centre the former things have passed aay Behold all hings are made new." Chrysostom, ‘works out the meaning of this text with the help of another: “All you who have been baptized into Christ have pt on Chris" Heres how he combines the two: “All ou who lave ban bpd into Christ hae pu on Crist. 50 exhort you to do your every cy eed and action just asf you had Chit, the Crestor of all things andthe Master of our nature, dwelling within yo." ‘Seen in this ight the theme of grace isthe theme of Chit ‘within us: the bapismal garment fa sign ofthis grace and there {ore a sign of Christ as such "How shal I say if He has thrown “limself around us as a garment: For ll ou iho haw bce btn Into Chest hase pu on Cir" Chrysostom ths takes the “pat ting on” of Galatians 527 ina most realistic rence: “putting On Chis” speans “begin Christ" ehich in tum ilies an onto- logical relationship, “There is only a hint ofthis point here, but itis sulficiet, since ‘Chuysostom elswhere explains the ontological consequences of ‘our inenrporation into Crist. These are stated in his commen tary on Galatians 3:27 (°G 6655 “Since you have the Son of God in yoursel, you have become like to Him and you have been brought into one rlaonship and into one form with Him.” Chrysostom always draws the same conchasion regarding sora behavior: If we have Chit within us, we mus think and {act in away worthy of this quest.» From the indwelling of ‘Christ inthe baptized, Chaysastom condludes to the indwling ofthe entre Try: "When Lay Clute Ue Fae and the Holy Spint. For di is what Christ Himself promised ‘when He said If angone lan mea wl ep my commandments, the Father end Iwill come and male ou bad within" ‘From all the data now ln our hand, we can concade that for CCaysostom, the symbolism of dhe baptimal nite ie not a matter Of simple allegory Intended forthe instruction and education of, the catechumens. In hs eyes, the symbolism speaks of rates and not simpy of meanings, and is intended t give an expe tence of the mystical content present in every site. Her ea ‘unique passage that fully reveals this “scramenal” reais “For all you wha hace ee bpd into Ort ut om Chri. * ‘See how he has become your clothing. Do you wish to know how He has also become your food? Ae |e rug the Fate, ‘Chis ays 9 eho ets me, he aio Salle ees of me Ane He also becomes your house: He who eats my fl abies in mead Tin him And He shows that He s our oot and foundation x0 when He saps am he eine, ou a he Banc. To show that Hes your brother, fiend, and bridegroom, He says: No log oI call you eran, for you rey feds Again, St Pal sys: Terk you tone Spoise, at Tag preset you a chaste virgin to Christ And again: that He ould Be the Frt-born among may ‘yet. No only do we Become His bothers but even His stuldren, for He says: Bol al ey cir, whom Gol th foo 10 me." Not only do we become His children bat His mem bers end His Body. As ifthe things already mentioned were sot enough to prove the love and Kindness which He shows towards us, He set down another thing, greater and more int- mate than these, when He spoke of Himself s our Heed. “Since you know all those things, beloved, make answer to your Benefactor by the excellence of your conduct." 1In the perspective provided by typology, Chast is rly dothing, food, ous, root, bother, fend, bridegroom, and head. ‘Since all hese tiles or descriptions canbe given areas inter pretation only in typology and in no other sytem, we can legit ‘mately ask whether Chrysostom ie tay using typology. I bei, we can interpret ll the descriptions typological: If he isnot Uf the answer i yes, then all the symbolism ofthe sacramental, sites that Chrysostom describes will be truly realistic etherwise, these symbolems willl be simply Beautiful images whose ‘value will be purely Iiterary: they will ever enter into the realty ofthe "mystery." John Chrysostom uses the term “mystery” almost exusvely of ‘the Eucharist. However, he does also use ito signi the bap- tismal rite or even a part of it: “Now lt me speak to you ofthe mysteries themselves and ofthe contract which will be made be- foween yourselves and the Master." We must be cael to note that he i nt speaking of what we today cal simply the “sac iment.” That, "mystery" refers not only to the at of baptizing, but to all the situal elements that make up the eelbration, 3 ‘The “contract which wile mado” becomes a reaity inthe re ‘nuneaton of Satan and the at of cleaving to Chit. This particu: Tart, then, amounts to the making of» contact between the Soul end Chist and is descubed as a "mystery." This mystery has its own “ffieacy” and, consequent, ts ow “socraen tality.” The contact i entered into in “fith,” aterm and cone ‘op that has “tellznce upon” or “the entrusting of enezel 9" as ‘one ofits meanings: “A contract now exists between the person ho entrust himself or herself andthe depositary ofthis trast, and this contracts called “ith "= ‘We have already met with an analogs station in Ambrose. Bat we are far removed here from the position of Ambrose, who sil reagnizs the dstincon between the Ristori eevng act, {and its ecrametal celebration. This distinction doesnot ex in the present passage. And yet, in typologal context, we do find ‘Chrysostom using the tenn “mystery” in speaking of evens in the history of sation. Consider, fo example, how he explains the blood and water dat ow from the side of Christ. The water and blod are net a “mystery” but rather a “symbot” of bsptism and the mysteries. On the other had, the coming forth ofthe blood and water is deserbed as a “mystery: “Beloved. do ct ‘ass this mystery by without a thought. For {have stl another -nysteal explanation to give." ‘Another theological use ofthe term “mystery” occurs when Chrysostom speaks ofthe “mystical” (tis) meaning of cer ‘ain things. his Malin translation of Chzysostom’sbapsal homies, A. Cersn-Gastalda customarily translates mys os “mysterious.” Not always, however: in fat inthe passage jst ‘ted, e has “mystical [explanation,” ae does A. Wenger: The ‘emphatically thelogial content suggests the appropriateness of this wanslation| Inmy opinion, ano less theological context suggests the same translation in two other passages in which Chrysostom ls speck ing ofthe tne or season chosen forthe liturgical celsbeation. He feels obliged to explain why the sacraments of nation ae cole- brated at Easter and why the renunciation of Satan is made on Friday atthe ninth hour. In both case, he answers that the a choice of time has a mystios meaning in his ensuing explana- tion, he then connect this meaning with the “mystery” being, ‘eiebrated. This kind of explanation is possible, of couse, only ‘because the iturpcl season participates in the “mystery” char acter ofthe ite being celebrate. Here the fst ofthe two pasages “Las seeking to tell you why ou fathers passed by all the ‘other seasons of the year and ordned that your souls be init ated curing this season, and I sie that observance ofthe time ‘was not a snp or random thing, Fr tis aways the same sgice and it snot hindered by the season, forthe graces from God. Bt the observance of the proper season does have some ‘connection with the mystery of ition" ‘The season, then, for choosing tis particular season i that iis the season ofthe Lord's victory: “Now He has destroyed si, ‘now Fie has put down death end has subjected the devil, He hes taken His captives“ Chryscstom concludes by connecting the remembrance of the pat event with the salve ecacy that it xcs today inthe ties of ination: “Our fathers ordsined the Clebation of this season fist inorder 0 remind You ofthe Mas {er by the season of His victory. This was not their only reason Our fathers also ordsined this celebration inorder that you might also be the Maste’s partner throughout the season." eres the sacond passage: “Tomorrow, on Fay a he ninth hour you must ave certain questions asked of you and you must present your contrat othe Master. Noe do T make men Hon 10 you of thet day and that hour without some purpose. A rst lesson can be lemme from them.” Here Chysostom ‘makes it clear that he regards even the determination of the dy land hour for the sacraments as something “mystical” thats Delonging tothe sacramental sphere He also els us more specifically in what the sacrament of ‘the tne fr this lturgel action consis: “On Friday af the ninth hour the thief entered paradise; the darknes, owhich lasted faom the sth othe ninth hour, as dissolved; an the Light, perceived by both Body and mind, wa taken up asa sacrifice for Bo the whole woe. For at that hour Cs sat ater, hy ‘nds I command my spr." The “sscred” action that ected at the ninth hour and that has now been explained isthe salvation ofthe good this. ‘But how, fn all his, he salvation ofthe faithful accomplished? ‘They renounce Satan and profess their adherence to Chit these ae thel “contrac” with the Master, And then: “When you are about tobe le (into the church athe ninth hou, do You aso real to mind the gest numberof your vituous deeds {nd count those git which ait you you wll no longer be on arth, but your sal wil se tll up and lay old of heaven tel" ‘As we saw eater in connection with Strona 2, 17, the ste fof renunciation of Satan and adherence to Christ poseéses 8 8c zamentlty of ts own and i therefore a “mystery” in is own right. And, In fat, here is how Chrysostom ends hie discston: "The words which you utler here ae rpstered in heaven, and the agreement you make by your tongue abides indelsly with the Master» ‘All this makes very clear the mystical character ofthe time for tne mcs. A. Ceret-Gaitaldo’s tansaton “mysterious” as is ‘ally. For even ifthe translation “mystical” (nthe sense of “participating inthe reality ofthe mystery") is given precedence, tmust absorb and retain the ides of “mysterio,” since this ls sways latent in every usage ofthe term “mystery,” whether it be applied fo worship ort salvation history ‘From al that has been sid here, we can conchae that John ‘Chrysostom has the abiity to think typlogicaly, even if his pre- ‘ccupation with moral behavior completely absorbs his alten, 1 shall, therefore, turn now to a more disc study of he ‘ypology. [pointed out easier thet Chryscstom’s mystagogy is etn. {ulshed fom all ther by is strong emphasis on moray. 1 Ihave attempted to explain why this isso and have offered some ‘explanations that seem 0 the point. Ihave noted in particlar 4 ‘how Chrysostom’s moral perspective is connected with the very theology of baptism, since he looks upon this a the beginning of anew ie, ‘A further question must nonetheless be asked: Are Chysostom’s instructions mystagogical simpy in that they accompany the course of Christan ination, or do they also display the themes and methodology ofthe major patristic mystagoges? As we saw at the beginning of this book, mystagogy i simpy typology ap- plied to the sacraments. The question, therefore, becomes this: Does John Chrysostom use typology? My ansover is that he does in developing his theology ofthe sacrament, he has recouse 9 ‘ppology and uses the same method as is found in the myste- ‘egies of the Fathers. ‘The development of mystagopal discourse can be described schematcaly as follows. Fast of al, the preacher asserts the value or power ofthe sacrament and reminds the fall of by brief allusons, He then has recourse to Sexpturein order to ex. pin why the sacrament possesses this value and power. In ‘typology, recourse is had tothe Old Testament because there the preacher finds fires ofthe sacramental event. A comet thea gy of the earamont i dovloped by explaining the ing power ofthese figures. The reason is that the figures particpated lathe realty ofthe tath (eri), since they existed in relation toi and «8s partcipations in it, even though it was stil inthe future. Once the Old Testament has explained the value and power of the Church's sacraments, typology pases on to the New Testa- ‘ment, It brings before the istner the events that show how (Grist an be the agent and executor (rt) ofthe aati ‘hat was prefigured in the Old Testament and is now celebrated by the Church —Suc is mystagogical theology. It follows that what i called “turical theology” must necessary be a tbl theology. CChaysostom belongs tothe Antochene schoo and therefore does not seem mach inlined to an allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures. And yet he sees no problem about developing a Spo- logical interpretation ofthe Eucharist that uses among other 35 ‘hings an allegorical interpretation ofthe Od Testament. Ev dently, as Ihave suid several times, typlogy is something that transcends the limitations ofthe various systematic approaches tothe interpretation ofthe Srptures. ‘Chrysostom intrduces the theme witha rhetorical question: “Do you wish to know the power inherent in ths blood? The ques- ion is meant to introduce the thelogy of the Eucharist tht he ‘wants to pass on othe baptized. Knowledge ofthe source and method ofthis theology is part ofthe contents of mystagoy. He, therefore, explicitly ells is steners that he wll have re- course to the Old Testament, which he wll ntrpret by the yp logical method: “Let us go back to what prefigued itt the ancient stories in Egypt."" And then: “Lean the power ofthe type, that you may Tear the strength ofthe truth" The _yylagogical approach is very evident here: fone wishes to speak of sacrament, one must speak ofits Old Testament wes (ype) apt and ts consequence for moral behavior are aleo die: cussed typologsally. Those who have associated themselves ath Chast by contract must not be unfit to their com- amltment: they must not sin. In addressing the baptized. CCuysostom applies the biblical images ofthe Exodus to them, ‘These newly enlightened Christan, he say, have truly come forth from Fgypt and must not look back othe past with eget “You came forth from Fgypt. Never again seek Egypt nor the cel of Egypt: Never think of the mud and brickaaking. The things ofthe present fe are mid and brickmaking, since gold ‘self before i is converted into gold, is nthing more than earth ‘The typeof the Eucharist comprises the events in Exodus 2:t~ stand 131-20, These ae Passover text that when read fypolog cally show how the old Jewish Passover has ts “uth” inthe Eucharist ofthe Church. ‘Chrysostom begins his explanation by refering to the tenth plague that God was about to inflict on the Egyptians and imme ately introducing the ietonal lamb as a type of Chit 36 ‘The plague sent by God was about to sweep down from above, and the destroying engel was assiing one house ater another, What, then, did Moses do? Stcrife or unblemished lim, he sid, td anear your dors thts Bo. °0 What do you mean? Can the Dood of an iational animal save man who as reason? Yes’ he ‘says. Not because itis blood, but because it prefigures the Mas- ters blood’ 4 ‘The thought is perfectly clear the Old Testament reales have value through their elation to Christ thats, by reason of their character a types otherwise they are nothing In this interpreta ‘onal approsch, an author cn find i seal fo point ou the deficiencies ofthe Old Testament rates, for these make i all the more evident that thee power doesnot come from thes selves, but from ther character as types, which connects them ‘with Chuistthele power resides notin themselves But else- where. ‘To cay this idea, Chrysostom gives an example: “Although statues ofthe emperor have neither Iie nor percep- ton, they can save the men endovted with pereeption and ie ‘who le to them fr refuge, not because they ae bronze, but Decause they are mages ofthe emperor. 0,0, that Bod. Which licked fe and perception saved the men who hx lie, not because it was Blood, but because it was a ype of the Mase ters blood"6 Tm other words, the blood ofthe lamb sable to save, not by -eason of what it i" but by eason of that in which i "partie ates" thet, by reason ofthat of which i a type, namely, the blood of Chit. "On that day in Egypt, the destroying angel sa the blood smeared on the doors and didnot dare to bus in. Today, wil ‘the devil not check himself all the more fhe sees, ot the blood ‘ofthe type smeared onthe doors, but the blood ofthe truth ‘smeared onthe mouths ofthe faithful sine these mouths have become doors ofa temple which olds Chis? Ifthe angel stood In awe when he aw the type, much moe likely ist thst the evi wile when he sees the truth "# “7 In this passage Chrysostom argues on the basis of "ype" and “uth” and asserts the ful valu ofthe type, a value that d= ives fom the “truth.” ll this i sid of Old Testament figures generally. When we tum to de doctrine ofthe sacraments, we find a very interesting phenomenon: the sacraments are the “truth” without qualiscation in other words, there is no gap, n0 break to he observed between the sacraments and the events of which they aze the sacraments. In Chrysostom’ eyes the sacra ‘ments are not simply types of the saving events in wih they artcipate; they are identical with the events themselves. ‘Alter finishing what he hast say shout Old Testament types, the homiist tums to what the New Testament tls usin John 1433-34 about the power ofthe blood: ‘Do you wish to lear fom another source as well the strength ‘ofthis blood? Look from where i frst flowed and where it had its source It wed dovwn rom the eos, from the Masters side. St.John says that when Christ was dead bat still onthe cross, the soldier came and pierced His side witha lance, and straightay there came out weter and Blood, The one was 83) bol of baptism, and the eter of the mysteries." ‘We must note here the deliberate version of the wo words “water” and “blood.” A. Wenger say the inversion probably rape resents “diferent reading,” even though Chrysortorn “les the text comely elsewhere." I this be the tre explanation, T ust at least add that Chiysostom’s choice of this “ferent reading” 's very opposite since the sequence “water and blood” is called for by the development of his argument. ‘is purpose isto show the significance of Christin ination as the bith ofthe Church. His argument ea follows: the Church was bom ofthe crucified Lord because from his crucified body owed water and blood, that, baptism and the Eucharist, Which are the means by which bivers become members ofthe ‘Church, Since the sacanients are celebrated inthis order—fist baptism and then the Eucharst—the succession shouldbe the same in the Bible, Otherwise the “connection of likeness be- tween the event naratod in the New Testament and the sac 138 ‘ments would be lacking and therefore, the typology would be ‘removed and Chrysostom’ argument would Become invalid Lise {ent his expt statement: “Therefore, he didnot say: Thee ‘ame out Bd ad water, ut st water came forth and then ‘ood, since fist comes baptism and then the mysteries. 1 was the soldier, then, who opened Chris’ side and dug though the rampart of the haly temple, but Tam the one who has found the ‘reasare and gotten the wealth" ‘One characteristic of the typological approach is that allows for {esving several diferent meanings from the seme passage ‘Thus, we fad Chrysostom offering another interpretation ofthe ‘wate and Blood that flowed from Chri’ sid, The water and blood are here connected withthe slep of Adam andthe c= aon ofthe fst woman. Here are the paral: during the re- faton of woman, Adam was aslep; on the cross, Christ was Sunk in the sleep of death, From the side of Adam, the frst ‘woman, Eve, was bor; from the side of Ct, the Church was tbo. ve was the bride of Adam the Church isthe bride of (Cust Eve was formed from ab; the Church was formed by {he sng forth of water and blood from Chia’ sie, for ‘hese two elements represent, and in that order, the sacraments by which human beings become members ofthe Church. ‘Ave these slply chance paalels and products of obvious ‘analogies, 0: do they represent a tly typological ottok? (Chrysostom himsel gives the answer when he ends his discus Son by saying: “And so Moss, to, in his acount ofthe frst ‘man, has Adam say: Bone of my Bone an Rls of my ls, hit ing to us ofthe Master's side." Here we have a superimpost tion ofthe frst and second Adams the experience ofthe fet in {he story of creation hols forthe second a the moment of re demption. Therefore, te real meaning and nature ofthe events in which the fist Adam was volved consists precisely inthis, ‘hat they apply also to Chis in other words, it onsss in their typological character In these instructions that accompany baptism, Chrysostom is thus certainly praccing typology, not only does he use the typo- loglal method, but he even forlly states that he is doing so 139 and explains the theory of. Furthermore, when the bibl text ute dificules in the way of the typology, he even alter the text ofthe New Testament, as we saw in his reading of “water sd blood” instead of “blood and water” ‘This willingness to change th text can ite be explained in the Aight of typology. Chrysostom never shows any exceive con cer withthe meaning ofthe txt precy a received text. This boing the case, iis possible forthe interpretative method to force itself on the tox being interpreted and sometimes even 10 ruperimpoce itself. Not only is t posible for this to happen, in the case of Chrysostom, we have an example ofits actually hap- pening. Te important thing for typology is thatthe typology be sucessful, as was abundantly cleat in Ambrose. There can be no ‘eter proof of the extent o which Chrysostom was commited to typology ‘After making clea the power and strength of Christ's blood by ‘means of typology bated onthe Old Testament, Chrysostom fam tothe New Testament passage that we have ust seen Here, again, he explains his method. According to his explicit siaterent, this is another way of gaining an understanding of the Lord's Hood, but its nt an stemative way: rather t mst be compatible with the preceding, Old Testament typology. Here Show the homilist brings the two themes into harmony: "50 was with the lamb, Te Jews sacrifice the vitim, but [eaped the reward of salvation which came from their sacrifice." ‘The two themes are here harmonized by means of typology: and, infact, the realities (which are united by a certain connec: tion between them) cal fr one another, are superimposed on ‘one another, and Interchange even thelr most specially proper ‘els. In the short text just cited, Chrysostom speaks of the vle- tim ofthe Jewish saci te and the redemption that comes| from the oss of Chit. “Lamb” applies to both the two ae therefore superimposed on each other and exchange thelr espec- tive characteristics so as fo become a single reality: the types brought to flfillment init tri has ceased to exist in ts own, storia realty, but it continues to live on because it hasbeen absorbed and transfigued in the splendor ofthe Truth. wo ‘Ina mystagogical explanation ofthe Euchavst, the manna fan Indispensable theme, and, infact, Chrysostom deals with i at the end ofa lengthy typolgial comparison of Jewish and Chis thn event in which he has emphaseed the excellence ofthe, latter, The manna is both compared with and opposed tothe Euchtists “tn those days Moses stretched forth his hands to heaven and brought down the bread of angels, manna. This other Moses stretches forth His hands to heaven and brings down the food of ‘steral le, Moses struck the rock and made steams of water ‘ow this other Moses touches the tbl, stakes the spinal board, and makes the fountains of the Sprit gush fot." ‘What we seein operation here isthe principle according t2 Which there is «superimposition and identification of the action ‘ofthe pres atthe altar and the work of Chis that fulls the figure Of Moses. Chrysostom thus appies a theological principle ‘hat, in hie syste of sacramental thelogy, brings him closest ‘the typological approach to sacramental doctrine. All his shows how flly used Tam in concluding that in these passages, typology is being used accurately and in accor dance with a deliberate plan. These eatechetcal homes ar, therefore, to be regarded as mystagogial in the fllest sense of this term, despite the strong emphasis on morlity that pervades then. Mystagogy tea way of doing thootogy. I mast a, therfore, that since these homilies are indeed mystagogical, they must con ‘in a tue and proper sacramental thebogy, as do the homies ‘ofthe Fathers, This is what we shall now see. “The celebration ofthe mysteries consis of ritual actions that are ‘composed of gestures and words and, therefore, are obviously ‘sensible Chrysostom’s explanations start with the val elements that are present in the iturgy; he even speaks of "what i seen,” thas giving sight precedence over hearing, It may be that a the fend ofthe fourth century, the visual ment inthe liturgy was regarded as more important than the auditory for Theodore oa ses the sume language; a the ste time, however, the prioty| of sight overhearing snot as clear in Theodore a it isin Chrysostom. ‘Asin Ambrose and Theodore, 0 in Chrysostom “what is sen” in the liturgy is contrasted with “what isnot seen.” Believers, therefore, ae endowed with two Kinds of eyes: bodily eyes and ‘the eyes of faith, Infact, the thing that distinguishes Chistans {is precisely the fact that they also have the eyes ffi, which ‘enable them o see those things tat thelx body eyes are unable to se. In Chrysostom’ view, this isthe basic situation ofthe faithful: by the fact of being baptize, they ae able to se be- yond the data of the senses, and tugial actions are only one area in which they exercise this kind of activity. ‘This way of looking at Chistian le emerges when Chrysostom xpi the ite “the faithful.” Who are “the aithul"? Chrysostom’ answer is that they are those who are endowed with the eyes of faith. Here he is, enuncating the general pring ple and then immoditely applying it to baptism: Why, then, are we called his "he fatal"? We faith have ‘eleven things which our bodily eyes cannot see, These things are great and frightening and go beyond our nature, ‘Only the teaching of faith understands them wel. Therefore God has made for us two kinds of eyes: those ofthe flesh and those ‘of faith. When you come tothe sacred ination, the eyes ofthe Ash see water; the eyes of faith behold the Spirit" Inthe celebration ofthe mysteries, the faithfal tart. with what ‘heir bodily eyes see, bat they go on to picture and make pres. tent to themselves God who i acting they can even be sald to see God ating, This i impossible without the eyes of faith. The pssage fom what is seen to what ie unecen i efected by the Interior activity of the baptized (guded by fat), which consists in “eting before themselves" of “picturing to themselves" the reality contained in the rite In modern parlance, allthis is aed active patcpation.” Faith s the essential and constitutive element in the ene proces: wa “What takes place here equles fl and the eye of the sou 0 ‘that you pay heed not only to whats seen, but chat you make ‘the unseen visible from the seen. Thi ls what the eyes of ath ‘an do. The eyes ofthe body can sce only thse things which ‘came under thelr perception, but the eyes of faith are quite the ‘opposite. For they see nothing ofvisble things, but the invisible {Hangs they oe a if they were ying before thee eye," ‘Tiss classical theme thats also tobe found in Ambrose and ‘Theudore. lis the theme that relates dzely to the nature of the scaments for sacramentalty consists in what is unseen, and faith alone can give acess tit. As easly a6 Stavronikita 1,33, (Chrysostom has said that fat gives us “ferent eyes” that ere capable of secing what eludes the senses The theme i very ich one and ean have two applications, which I shall now di ‘uss to the moral ie ofthe falhfl and tothe doctine of the A. Tre Eyes of Fit inthe Mora Lif ofthe Fiat ‘The theme ofthe eyes ofthe spin” tansfrms morally into ‘ecchatology, Because ofthe great hope that has been given t0 them, the newly enlightened must henceforth have tel gaze {xed on heaven, In acordance withthe exhortation of blessed Paul (Cal 33) Contemplation ofthe things tht are above entails 4 passage fom the visible to the invisible, which, however, the ‘yes ofthe epi see even more cleatiy than our body eyes see ‘enable things Hite we have the start ofa moral approsch to the life ofthe baptized, an approach on the content af the ocr ‘ment and ona “fruitful” partipation int, which in tur rests, ‘on the contrast between vse and invisible and requires the faithfl to “ret” the invisble “Before them" or “picture” to theneelves” B, The Eyes of Fath in the Lturgia Rits In this application oft the theme ulmately has is place inthe theology ofthe sacraments and, more spell, Jn the ont ‘ogy ofthe sacraments. A passage already le from the third homnly n the Papadopoulos Kerameus series can help us to get Pe better grasp ofthe mate, since ere the theme of “seeing” Ikads int the theme ofthe deeper “reality” ofthe sacraments: “Therefore, God has made for us two kinds of eyes those ofthe flesh and those of faith... Our bodily eyes ste the pres as, from above, he lays his ight hand on the head and touches [him ‘who i being baptize ove spiritual eyes see ee great High Prieta He stetches forth His invisible hand to touch is head." In ether words, not wht the eyes of the body see, but ‘only what the eyes of fit se forms the ral content ofthe ‘serament. We must conclude that in speaking ths, Chrysostom takes us into the theology ofthe “Image” and consequenly into. the theology of “initation.” But this short passage calls for further reflection. Iis necessary, 4n fc, to read ths entire section ofthe hemi in order to ac. ‘quire a more accurate grasp of this theology that io perfstly ‘tuned tothe liturgy and Yet, unfortunately, so emote fom US. “The Iturglcaltheclogy that Chrysostom represent is suicientiy ‘dear and les open before us every urgcal ac is an image of ‘saving reales. In the world of typology, the action thats the {nage realy participates in the realty of which it isthe age uch the Ldcn of sanmndlily that native to thi cha sicramental theology. It mast be noted that for Chaysostom, all the elements ina celebration havea sacramental of thee own, ‘since each isan nage ofa particular saving realy “When you come tothe sacred inlation, th eye of the esh see water the eyes of faith behold the Spit. Those eyes se the body being bepized: these se the old man being buried. The eyes ofthe Hesh se the fish beng washed the ees of the pir ee the soul being cleansed. The eyes ofthe body see the body emerging from the water the eyes of falth ee the new man come forh righty shining from that puication. Our body eyes soe the priest a, from above, he ays his right hand fon the head and touches [am who ls being baptized}: our spe tual eyes Se the great High Priest as He stetches forth Hs n- visible hand to touch his head. For at that moment, the one who Daptizes i not aman but the only-begotten Son of God." us ‘Let me interupt my reading of the homily to pose a problem. I Seid before thatthe theology ofthe image is connected withthe ‘theology of iain, since the image san image because it Intts. IFwe ask why itis that inthe Baptisoalnurgy, the (Géisible) actions described by Chrysostom have an invisible cor- Telative or referent, his answer is quite clear and tothe point ‘because our bapusin isan ination ofthe Lord's baptism in the Jordan. Listen ashe continues his discourse and explains acm evil in tems ofthe theology of ttt “And what happened inthe case of our Master’ body alo hap- pens in the cage of your ot, Although John appeared to be holding His body by the head, it was the divine Word which led His body dovn int the streams ofthe Jordan and baptized ‘im. The Master's body was baptized by the Word and by the ‘yoice of His Father frem heaven which sid: Thi is my flo ‘Son and by the manifestation of the Holy Spict which de- scended upon Him. This also happens in the ese of your body. The baptism is given inthe name ofthe Father and of the son’ and ofthe Holy Spirit. Therefore, John th Baptist told us, for ‘ur instruction, that man does no bapie us, but God: Tere comes fer me ome woh mightier han Ian Ln not worthy lee the sp of His sandal. He lpi you with the Holy Spr and sth fre “Fortis reason, when the priests baptizing he doesnot say, ‘1 bupsze so-and-so, but, So-and-so is baptized inthe name ofthe Father and ofthe Son and of tho Fly Spirit’ In this way he shows that ts not he who baptize But those whose names hhave been invoked, the Father, the Sn, andthe Holy Spit. “Therefore my sermon today is called th’ "7 ‘There can be no doubt about the sacramental reilism ofthis the: cology of imige and ition, for inthis passage, Chrysostom of- fers usa true and proper ontlogy of baptism as is clear fom his categorical concusion: “Our spinitual eyes see the great High Priest as He stretches forth His invisible hand to touch his head. For t that moment, the one who baptize snot a man but the conly-begtten Son of God Another instruction provides the us ‘same teaching though in slightly diferent form that com- Dines the several factors at work What is this Tam saying and why ddI say to pay no heed to sible things, But to have the eyes of he spirit? I say itn order ‘that when you se the kath of water and the hand ofthe priest touching your head, you may not think that this is merely water, ‘or that only the hand ofthe bishop les upon your head, For i {sot a man who does what is done, but tis the grace ofthe Spit which sancifes the nature of the water and touches your bad together with the hand ofthe pees" There is a slight diference between the two passages jus ted whet was attbuted inthe fist to Christi atibated inthe sox ‘nd tothe Holy Spin. Bat this causes no difcuy in the view ofthe markedly Tiniaren evolution of Chrysostom’s theology: “When I say Chit, I mean alo the Father and the Holy Spink. For this what Christ Himself promised ws when He sai If tgone oe me nd wl Lgp my oman, the Father an come an ake Our bade thi." A saoument an action of Ottis theological formulation brings together in a profoand way the three cassia points to be retained in every sacramental theology: sacramental efcay, the presence of Chit and the presence of Christ's saving actions Sacramental efficacy is ensured ecause the “sacrament” isan ‘tom of Crt and not simply of human being, This emerges {uit larly from Chrysostom’ explanation ofthe scrament formula he used, which, as everyone knows, is passive in struc- ture, Here is is commentary onthe formula: “hen the priest says: ‘So-andt-o is baptized in the name ofthe Father, and ofthe Son, and ofthe Holy Spit,’ he puts your Ihe down int the water three times and twee times he i it "up agai, preparing you by this mystic niet resive the descent of the Spit. For its ot only the priest who touches the hesd, ‘but also the righthand of Christ, and this ls shown by the very words ofthe one baptizing. He does not say: baptize son 50/ but, Sounds-s0 is baptize." 6 ‘The sacraments derive thei efficacy and content fom the fact tha they ae actions of Chris inthe mast literal sense ofthe phrase In fac, as seen in typology, the concrete, visible minister Is.an image of Christ; consequent, i 4 not the minister, but ‘Chast who acts. We can sy that in this approach based on imitae tion, the scraments are essentially and alway’ chestocentsc . Traces of Regression ‘The passage that Ihave just cited contains a farther interesting point. I displays a movement that must be described asa reres- ‘Son rather than a development. Coneretel: the doctrine of the “image” and “imitation” isin process of being transformed along ‘Teint ines, The period of history in which Chrysostom lived was one in ‘which the great criss of the cristlogcal and Trinitarian dis: putes was barely over. The crisis had ended withthe victory of fhe orthodoxy represented by the great Fathers ofthe fourth en tury. Trinitarian formulas made a decisive entrance ino geal texts, even where there vas no need of them, Far proof ofthis statement, we need ony think of the eucharisi araphoras into ‘which the Tenitarian forms were inrotced inthe form of the Patsancte prayer) a an embolism forthe Santa, thus = Ing the latter an interpretation of which it snot susceptible. ‘The very structure ofthe anaphora lends itself oa Trinitarian reading, eventhough this is historically unfounded.” Inthe homily of Chrysostom, which I wasting’ moment ago, ‘we se him introducing a Trinitarian modification ofthe doctrine ‘of sacramental efficacy and thus ofthe entre doctrine of imita- tion” In the period in which he led, sucha medication was perfectly logeal, given the intense commitment ofthe Chuzch fo the defense of Tinittian onthodony. At the same time, however by making this alteration, Chrysos- tom shows that he no longer grasps the doctrine of the image and imation, since by its nature this can be applied only to the ction of Chit Here i how Chrysostom mois the doctrine of sacramental efficacy it snot only the high priest (= Chris) in heaven who “7 ‘extends his hand and acs inthe scrament, but the ene Trine lity "The one falling all things i the Father and the Son and the Holy Spit the unlivided Trinity. Its fail in this Tinity which gives the grace of remission from sn itis this confession Which gives tous the gi offal adoption" Tis evoton in a ‘Trinitarian direction is undeniable, even floated within a ‘nooder perspective, that is, within the theology of Chrysostom, ‘who says: "When Tsay Christ, mean alo the Father and the ‘oly Spit For this is what Christ Himself promised ws when He said If ayine lo me an wil xp my conan he Fier and [ol come a uke rae ith i" John Chrysostom isa determined proponent ofthe teaching in ‘question, but two new factors have alo played pat inthe evolution Fhave been desebing:() the evolution of Liturgical Interpretation along Trnartan ines; and () the connecting of sacramental efficacy, not 0 much with the saving actions of (Cis (of which thet she sacrament as wit the acre tal tes considered in themselves as having a power oftheir ‘ven. Think, for example of what Chrysostom says about Sefan Aeeing atthe mere sight ofthe moathe ofthe falta reddened with the blood from the eucharistic chalice as they retum from prtiapaing in the mystenes. The doce of mio has noth Ing to do with this way of interpreting the power ofthe Ln’ Supper. (On the one hand, Chrysostom i fitful hee to the tradional dctrine thatthe sacraments are actions of Chit, Oa the ether, he is already open to new perspectives, such as, fr example, the evolution along Tinitarian lines, One point emerges cle: the doctine ofthe image and ination, which sa the basis of sacramental theology and therefore of myetagogy, i gredally abandoned as two other doctrines become neessingly impor- tant: the doctrine ofthe Trinity and the doctrine ofthe efency cf the sacaments, which are henceforth looked at more in them- salves than inthe ight ofthe saving historia events in which they pattpate. The doctrine ofthe inge does no, however, Asappear, we find it being broadly used, but in a spits sense (es buss fora tue elevation ofthe soul) ater than ina sacra ‘mental sense.» ua Sacramental teaching thereby zass tobe typological and in- ‘stead adopts new procedures and new perspectives that seem to ‘offer a superior guarantee ofthe ontological value ofthe sacra- ‘ments, We must recognize that in this respect, John Chrysostom, too, heady postdateshlasel

You might also like