Enrico Mazza ‘Translated by: Matthew J. O’Connell MYSTAGOGY A Theology of Liturgy in the Patristic Age PUEBLO PUBLISHING COMPANY ‘New York conc UNVERTEE GF AVERICA LORARER ‘msn, 00Desig: Frank Kacmarse Sapte quotations contained herein se from he Revised Stan dant Version Bibl, copyright 256,393, 3971 y the Dovsion of ‘Grsian Educnton ofthe National Coun ofthe Churches of ‘Ghast inthe USA, and ae used by pernision CCopyigtht © 3589Pucblo Publishing Company, In, New York, [New York Aight reserved. eee) Prine in he United States of Amin PAR A 4 999 Contents Itroducion_ x Tr The Priblen ie 1 ® 1 Spe Ln ofthe Pron Saly General Questions + Tr aning ofthe Term “Mtge” 2 Mycaggid Cute or Mtge They? 2 A. TheProtien 2 B Some Bamples 5 €. Condusion 6 TL Mysagogy and Bid Exegesis 7 A. The Use of Spture 7 B. Typology end Mystagoey 9 Typology and Allgney ‘Ambrose of Milan 24 1. The History of Slatin ands Vosbulay 14 A. Mystery (ijt 16 gure Figua) 16 Shadow (Lina) 28 “Appearnce Spe) 18 Image (nage) 19 Likeness (Sims) 20 Type (ya) 22 Seeament Sacumenton) 28 1. "The stagogy of St Ambroce_25 ‘A. Celebrating the Mystery of the Opening (peritioni clmts mmsterun) 25 3B. How Ancient This Mystery I (Quam ste mysterio et) 26. Hes a Mystery anda Sanciying Action (tri este sett) 27 . Consecrated by the Mystery of the Cros (Cras mysterio canst) 29) 1, This Is That Great Mystory (Hoe lad magna rsterian) 30 , Sacrament of Baptiso—Mystery of Rebirth (Baptamatis sioranention —Regenaatonsmsterium) 31 . They Handed Down This Mystery to Us (is nats mtr traterant) 3 HL Let Us Establish the Truth of the Mystery (Adsrucmis mysterveriatom) 32 L_Conctsion 33 ‘ML The Typo! Appiation or Scrametalty 34 ‘A. Correspondence, Superimpostion, Identiy 34 B. Jewish Sacraments and Christan Seceuments 99 © Condusion 43 ‘headore of Mopscsta_45 The Cathal Homo Take 45 T. Question of Vector 46 A. Rpue Sig, Mystery 46 The Use of yor and he Potiem of the Wont Siguhing Sscamentality 7 I The Pure of A Coch Homes 49 ‘8 Homy on the Lord's Payer 50 1B Homies onthe Mystenes 52 & Canceson iV. Mgeigy dot Allgory_55 ‘A The Vso of isa 36 3 Euchasste Communion 56 & Bevan 7 D. Baptismal Actions Te Rn Ste Savors n Natt Rati 59 VL Te Fuca Type of te Peon x ‘A The Passion in Relation fo te Angee Liturgy 6 BT Pn Ron he Bane "IL. The Encarta Type ofthe Resection ‘tue Communion tls typeof te Rearecton.€7 B Epidess Hay Spi Resutecton Jo € thetochrst we Renton of Sins Je VI The Hsmoenly Lterey 72 ‘A. The Concept of Redemption 73 B. Sacrament and Salvation 7 The Angelic Liturgy and the Smt 78 D. Life in the image of Heaven 81 E. The Actions of Jesus a8 Types. 82 1 Sacramental Rost 85) X. The Gap BetwuenSaenant and Content $5 A. Sacrament and Eschatology 93 B. Content or Frit? gy Md Contin aot John Chysostom 1 1 The Cadet Homi of Ciseom 6 4. The Chico fects ns The Doth Tes “tos 1 The Dsngusing Tro Caco pty 309 4 Te bln of the Mor Tena ey 8. The Peblem of te Euan Teme 14 1. “Moi” os Tas of natn so 1W, Teng ag V. The Sian he Ries 136 VE The ty VIL Grannon’sTtany a3p VL hese that Saou apn A. The ye of ah inte or Li of Se Fata yp The Eyes of Fath inthe Liga Rese . Thos of Regrston yp Gyn of ferusalem 150 1. The Eclat ast A The Structure ofthe Anaphora_ 353 B. Onis Mystagogy a5 1, Baptism and inition" 154 A. Symbal "135 B. Imitation “256 © Likeness 138 Di antityes 360 , Cyr’ Typology 361 WV. Conclusion 364Final Reflections 165 TL Mystgiay os Theology 165 1 Ita and Typology 367 I, A Catal and Paespicl Problem? x68 WV. Fal Quesion a7 'V. Concsion 374 Abbreviations 175 Select Bbogeaphy 176 Notes 281 Index 259 Introduction “The sacraments have not always been interpreted in the same ‘way thoughout the history ofthe Church rather there has been series of stcramental theologies. Each sucessive theology, how fever, has a it were been grafted on t its predecessor without any break in continuity as a result its quite dificult pine point the line of demarcation between them. ‘This becomes especially clesc when we lok a the vocabulary for ‘the sacraments. The terms proper toa given sacramental teal ‘ogy ae taken over by its successor, eventhough the underlying ‘das and type of thinking are in process of change. The pers fence of sacramental vocabulary creates the impression tat there 1s not only a strict continulty between these various theologies, Duta practical identity, altnough there has, infact, been a Shift in thinking. Another point that must be kept in mind is thatthe way of posing te problems to which an answer i sought hes also ‘hanged. lis precisely these changes, n my opinion that ‘hitly determine the lines along which the sit from one theo ‘ogy to another takes place. A change in vocabulary is simply a consequence ofa change in approach, but iis therefore, also a ‘valuable indieatr of the Iter. ‘Ammang the various seramentalthesloges, there sone in pa tical, knoen a “mystagogy,” that seeks to give a theological explanation not only ofthe sacramental fc, but ofeach nite mak- Ing up the tural celebration“The Church has alway hd explanations osreb ons Only tthe en of te fourth cetsy however the ‘pln tke onthe tly diinve orm of ysgol ‘Steck. The phenomenon san evenly interesting ne 1S het epesentane are Anton f Mle, Cys (or more fobay, Joho of Jenusle Join Chrsetom, and Theedore of Freon ‘The mysagogial hos of thes men re themsles ut fn nt ony becuse they are ome, Dut ao aed above i becase ofthe purpose, which sf expan the neo ‘iyo nly bpd he mening sn tr ofthe rg El ocon in which hey ave partpted:boptam andthe Sadat 1 i oy wy i ey nd ga pene Shoal ave speed pec st he end of the oth etary. Stic woo hr tt ths see fo have been he fo. is fre the! Bs for name ae le a rym spi, bat Ie provides no evden to sega regaar rice of tmstaggial eseches The vo he phenomenon a his Ft in sory shoul age however spo us when we cone ‘Ser tat ths wes prod of major inortons in erga frais Werned the only of thes the meomlinon of Fete te fia (pstnpnna) sncinting that was Become cur “catia, ate evelpment tesa croft Anchen pes on inthe mysooge omes Of Theor of Mops and Cy of eulen> Letie ofr a hypothe tat wold expan the eof myst fey at that hsreal point may have been Canon 46 fhe Erte Landen that gave ste ote interesting pe of Christin instracton tat we ac embod nthe ey gene own asthe nystagogial herd. Te cool i fc ordered tht the bapiaed were oud tho fath oro and “eit eck hero octal of th reed) on ai Tardy Fst £5 Canon oft cou gave oe othe ponthpial ant tng Conon gay ave piven fe othe eo yr tela rato cece If we accept this hypothess, fragile a iti, t would explain why somany eamples of mystagogcaleatechewes, very smalar ‘among themselves, eame into belng in such a short period of tune. This is especially tru if we tke into account the fact that 125 far asthe mystagogialctechese are concemed, ths magical period at the endef the fourth century has no paral inpreced- Ing periods, muuch less in those that followed. ‘Any piece of research must fist of al be a collection of data that {is then tobe interpreted. My Sst efort willbe, therefore, to present clearly our information regarding mystagogy, so thet a ‘omect interpretation of it will emerge from the data themselves and not be impose from ouside on the basi f preconceived thoi, This does not mesn ofcourse, that shall ignore the work a+ ready done by others. My interpretation of the texts of Ambrose, for ecmple, wil take as its point of departure the results achieved by G. Francesconi in a work © which I owe a great deals His study ofthe sacramental vocabulary of Ambrose is the foundation to which I refer as taken for granted in my Own researches. On the other hand, when I come to Theodore of Mopscestia, Tam obliged to undertake more direct analysis, since there are no studies by others on which I could ey and ‘hus save myself the labor This i tue especialy of Theodore’ ‘homies onthe Eucharist, inasmuch asthe problem arises here of reconstructing the twofold strcure ofthe anaphora in the Euchasistom which he is commenting. ‘Analysis ofthese texts and those of John Chiysostom and Cyril of Jerusalem shows that mystagogy isa way of theolgiang that these Fathers atthe end ofthe fourth century apply to instruc fion on the secraments of initiation. But another very import fact also emerges fom the inglry, namely, that when these Fax ‘thes of the Church are confronted with the problem ofsacra- ‘mental realism, they are no longer sled stick with biblical ‘typology. Thats, they regard biblical typology as inadequate to explain the realism that marks the secament. To ase a some:what riding expression, I would say that in this respect these Fathers antcpate their descendants. Does it follow from my analysis that there must have been a period when typology was regarded a a suficent criterion for {scerting the realm of the sacraments? No, I cannot say that i fellows, Tean indeed say that there ae clues pointing in that dlzection, but I must ad tha the clues may be interpreted dfer- ently; must therefore conclude that no sure answer is possible without a thorough study of mystagogy peor to the end ofthe fourth century. ‘When I dlaim that at certain points these Fathers anticipate their escendens, Tmean that certain moments, mytagogical theol- ‘gy already makes room for another way of viewing the sera ‘ens, a way faitly like oar own. The los of the typologcal dlmenson effects a distancing from the biblical dats and opens the way tothe “theology ofthe mysteries” which caims tobe a totic wey of deseribing sacramental reas, namely, a8 the presence” of the saving event inthe tural ite T may cite as one example how Theodore, as a direct consequence of the loss fib typology" asserts the nal Geath and ri resueec- ‘on of Chest as a way of saving sacramental reals. But the heaogy uf the uysteves, though nent in dhe one with which ‘hall be dealing, didnot formally emerge until alter time. | may sy in conclusion tat in these speiicaress, the theslogy ‘contained in the mystagopical catcheses already foreshadows the theology of later ages and has inks with our own in prtica- Tar For contemporary theology displays two characteristics dit culty i ecepting the bbl perspective and, in an attempt to ‘overcome this drawback, aretsieval ofthe theology of the myster- fee Both ofthese phenomena are deel due othe loss of MI fal typology, which was the method at work in mystagogy. Ths isastrons los was already beginning to play arle inthe ‘stagogical homes that I shall be studying her. I follows, — thatthe study ofthese homes can also help us better under- ‘stand the contemporary stustion in itugial theology. CHAPTER ONE General Questions Nowadays the term "mystagngy” signles catches instruc Sonn hares wh pc oe he mtn Chat nition ad othe dpe pul meaning othe Inu es. The broader ene of ytagogy es meaning sine Diy “explanation o Stree” date rom the bg the Byzantine perio. eis on the bat of this broader meaning that mystagogy is applied to every typeof ug cebaton, Incuding prety ordination and the soning ot the ‘The word mystagogy derives from the Greek verb mas which was avays sed in ¢ tal cone nd meat “to ach 2 dic 3 and therefore “to inst into the mysteries” Mslaggie was thus always dosely connected with myst, myst, and gs, as nas been well brought out in schemati form by. Fede Among the Greek Fathers, mystagogy has several meanings “In adation tothe general sense of ‘nition int the myster Jes two main meanings canbe distinguished: fit, “performance ‘ofa sacred action’ and in particular the celebration of the sacra- sents f ination, that pin and the Echt second, ‘onl or writen explanation’ ofthe mystery hidden in he seipe tures and exerted in the liturgy." 1m Opi of Alesana, Peeudo Dionysius the Areopage and Masamus the Confesor,myengogy means the performance of sacred aco; in Theodore of Stadio, ean the Hugi ele Beatin inthe wings of Origen and Chayeosom, it means {Gn nado in general in Epiphone, Gregory of Nazinaus, and Gregory of Nyse, lo meen nation f the‘Eucharist In both the Antiochene and the Alexandsian Fathers, itrmeans the orl or wten explanation ofthe mystery hidden in the Scriptures and cslebrated in the liturgy. In Cyl of Alexan- tia, Diodorus of Tarsus, ana Ongen fr example it means the ‘explanation ofthe eprtal sense ofthe Scripture; t can also have the broader meaning ofan explanation ofthe gues con- tained inthe Old Testament snd ffl in the New, or ofthe ‘othatologcl realities announced by the Chureh asin Eusebius, Gyr of Alewndia, and Maximus the Confessr).« A. The Poten History has passed mystagogy onto us in the form of homies ‘addressed to eatechumens of neophytes, or in cnmetaris on the iturgy with a strong emphasis onthe spiiual meaning. For this reson, we spontaneously tend to regard mystagogy a be- Ionging to the realm of either eatechesis or spiritually, Inthe fis interpretation, mystagogy ends up bving regarded as simply one ofthe many ways by which a hoist adapts himsel fan audience dat fb nt yet capable ofe deeper undertanding ofthe mystery and therefore requires avery Hive kind of Straction, one without mach theological meat int est this wse- fesly burden the hearers. Asa result, description ofthe biblical figures would playa large port and the narrative method would take precedence over doctrinal, systematic and more propery speculative considerations Inthe second interpretation, greater emphasis is placed on re- {quirements more specie to spirtuality; Lam referring to the ‘ed of symbols in order to give expression tothe taste for spire {ual things, which mast be represented inthe figurative made “To ths end, the homist has recourse to episodes from the Old ‘Testament these, being mare accessible, make it possible forthe ‘enperence of the divine and of spiritual reais (which in them felves ae inespressible to soquire a kindof material consistency ‘and thereby the concreteness of what i visible and tangible Inbsh interpretation, mystaggy les ts vm prope sats {nd ar ter ltd wit Specaland epee al Ann or rater spit sdertundng) at ove ter exes tthe pecan ofthe peup queso ster a the very at ofthe et eigenen the eg ‘al celebration. aed -Mystagogy would then have its oxgin not in the Church as such and be her understanding ign, thei) and explanation (ie tora ofthe mystery, but ater inthe special experince of lin ‘ted groupe (nities and contemplative) Ik woul, therefore, not be tie way of interpreting the tugs celebration, ut sit py one particular way arising from the limited situation of some Careful study ofthe mystagogical woitings that ave come dawn, tous shows that mystagogy has ls own special method of devel- ‘oping an understanding ofthe mystery. The method, which never changes is applied fo the entre fd or trgicl action, term that here inclades what we may cll he “ontslogial con. tent” ofthe sacraments. The mystagogicl method ie feen as i puble of bringing flight and explaining even contents that re Sheologin the tee and proper ese the method oes ot ‘have 60 be oie fone fr this perpoce IF ean succesflly rove this claim, I can conch that riystagogy isnot tobe regarded as belonging slely tothe sphere of eatechesis or spiritual theology, but is rather a true and proper theology: a tug theology. B. Some Examples (@) Nichols Cabasas fs known asthe author ofan important -mystagogy that was, and sili, intent in bl East and ‘West. J. Golan has compared him with some Father of the ‘Church who also authored mystagogies (Cyl of Jerusalem, Mane sus the Confessor, and others) and has conclude: “Our author hha predecessors, but he exipsed them al atthe se time his work cused the inspiration of his imitators to run dey." (Cabastas is evidently a man of lofty spictuaty; ls work fin ‘the fll and proper sense afithfled contemplation. For sine pl of his spitual riches, one need only read the pages he de-vote o sanetieation* Here is. Guild’ summary appeissl ofthe work: "The Commentary isnot the exercise of a pedantic theologian who stands remote from his objet its the spisitual feverdie of a devout man who is involved with his object."” ‘Bat Cabasls isnot only a epctual writer, for his interests are ‘theologian the fll sence of the term. For example, he dis plays outstanding theological competence when he als with {he problem of the eucharistic consecration and discourses on the relaon Between the epiclesis and the account of institution? ‘and. the nature ofthe eucharistic socice® This ast ease 8 ‘specially interesting, for in his leg and slid work on the ucharl, M, dela Tail, 5. formulates a theory ofthe excha- etic scree that is prataly identical wth that of Cabass,= ‘wheres H, Botess, O.P, i $0 convinced of the soundness of Cabal’ teaching that be compares it with the decrees of Trent ‘andi able to take it over and present it as consistent with Catho- Te teaching. “These responses were truly surprising ata time when Catholle theology was not displaying any great ecumenical openness. At ny a, the judgment of]. Goullard stands *Cabasia isthe ‘nly Byzantine theologian fo propose 2 epeculative analyse that ‘ean be called “Scholastic of the eucharistic saci." © In Ambrose, 09, we ind the same combination of theologi- fal competence with spinal riches. A exeful amination al lows me to lim that while this combination i due ulimstely to the authors faith it derives proximately irom the special char acter ofthe mystagogcal method, ‘Ambrose, to, develops a true and proper theslogy in his ‘ystagogial wekings and, lke Cabasls, deals a length with ‘the eucharistic conasration.» In order to explain the transforma tion of the bread and wine into the body and blod of Chit he pple to the creative omnipotence ofthe divine word and ‘then, Ihe Cabasias, goes on to personal elections that are not found in the sources sed by each ofthe two mon. “The only problem with Mustang the spstal dimension in Am ‘roses mystagogy is one of choice. Heres an example: means 4 ot ofa verse from the Song of Songs: Let him kiss me withthe ‘Kiss of his mouth” Do you wish to apply thie to Chit? Noth- ‘ng is more pleasing. Do you wish o apply i to your own soul? ‘Nothing i sweeter.” The theme of the kisi then continued {nto the intrpetation ofthe Eucharist: "Let him kis me," bbecnuse after baptism, the Believer clean ofall sin and i there- fore judged worthy ofthe heavenly eacramen and is invited to she heavenly banuee "Tet hin Hs mew the eso is | shall pont out here ony that tis the myrstagogical method Itself that allows the faith ofthe author ofa mystagogcal expla- nation to express itself fealy and thus bring out the spel and saving valu of the turgieal action. In order to show more lea how mystagogy with ts typologal method diretiy lds theology, i wil be appropiate to lok at one aspect among many of Ambrose bapdsma theology. He buds his ax _gument on the story of Naaman, which stdin det He {ies this story a typological interpretation tht lea oa theol- ‘gy of baptism understood as healing and regeneration. When he comes to the end ofthe Naaman story, Ambrose asks: What docs it mean?” Here he begins hls expat which based on the contrat between “what s seen” and “what not seen” (a characteristic theme of sacramental theology) He asks the meaning ofthe Old Testament incdent and answers by pointing tothe baptismal water the special properties of which he then lists. The method ents a kind of superposition and ‘dentifcation of two things that ae bing compared baptism and the eure of Naaman. It becomes dear thatthe water of baptism heals precisely because ofthe Naaman incident, but iti the gmce of Christ that makes that inident present and oper- tive in the water of baptism. The grace of Cs in tum is con nected with the descent ofthe Spint who consecrate the wate, “Ambrose goes on to speak ofthe Spiel and the istaton of baptism. Clery, ll these matters ae properly theological ‘The theme of the Spirit introduces a farther factor, which sexe planed on the basis of another biblical incident: the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan, In describing dhe baptism of Jesus, Ambrose 5says“. when out Lord Jesus Cis instituted the rte of bap- tin" lf then the ste of api was instituted for our sake, it {sto our faith tat the nite ls proposed.” The reason why the baptim of Christ s seen as an act of institution and the pare ‘gm for our bop i thatthe sacraments are thought of as ination ifthe Spirit descended on the Jordan in the form of a dove, then he will alo descend om the water of ous fonts to fonseate it and make i capable of healing = CGiring back, Ambrose retums tothe question that concerned ‘im atte begining of his discussion the healing efficacy of baptism. Inston by Chest, Tentarin presence, and gt of the Spit, who consecrees the water: these are the actors that Justify his concusion about the saving eeacy of baptism. ‘Now all hiss nothing but theology ts no longer pose to dlstingish teen a mystagoy of bop and a theca of feptiom The tnt of Abrone makes dear that ology realy produced by he conten ypologial applet of Od ‘Tesament pong the Chan samen Since i the cand proper meted of Ambon’ mystaggy, 008 ‘Retmysugegy sch holga obetar awey of ing, tneogy. . Contin Trem aware that no vali conclusion can be draen from a couple of examples. E must point out, owever, that these examples are ‘only some ofthe many that could be cite ‘They show how mystagogy, while remaining self, is capable of being developed alang propel eheologial lines. Anyone can continue the investigation and supply other eamples tht dem- fnstate this thesis. may, therfore, conclude that mysagogy i ot so much a form ofcatecheis or spstua theology ast tnay of doing theology in the true and proper sense of the term, ‘Consequently, we ought fo speak of as mystgoial halo. ‘And since theology takes the bturgialelbration as its point of ‘eportuce, it may be inferred that we are dealing with theology ofthe Lturgy. A. The Use of Seriptre Inthe patti age, there was no standard way of doing theal= ‘ogy, if for no other reason than that thology sprang not so much from a felt need of daveloping a weatse as from the ‘Church’ wital needs, whic called, depending on circumstances, fora homily or more through instruction (ctechess) or the rete tation of some heres! poston. I'seoms then that i was pasto- ‘al need that forced bishops to become theologians and this Fax thers ofthe Church ‘A the same time t must be recognized that throughout the piste priod, the use of Scipeure was exremely important both in theological discourse and in decisions allecing if. Serpe ture, Both the Old and New Testaments, was the native sting, in hich the Church of the first centuries Ived and worked. The (Cristian way of using the Old Testament was ft as probe fom the very beginning; the use itself is already visible in the New Testament, which in many passages uses the Old Testa- ‘ment in order to speak of Chust and provide a deeper under: standing ofthe mystery of his person. "thas been said thatthe history of dogma isthe history of exe- ‘ess, since the entire development of Chis doctrine ie baced fon certain murmber of scriptural texts that are interpreted inthe light of specific needs. The same can be sod, however, of every other aspect ofthe Church’ fe its organization, ite dicpine, its Worship, and soon." ‘The Christian use ofthe Old Testament “problem” because it ‘snot ell a simple matter to ake an Old Testament passage ‘and apply it dvecty to Chast or the Church, Infact, “the appl ‘ation ofthe sacred text o the various purposes of communal Iie required a deeper grasp ofits mearing and valu, 50 that it could then be adapted to neds and tasks which might well have po dizect or obvi connection with the given passage." ‘Wannout eis deeper grasp ofthe mening, is not possible to apply the Old Testament the realities ofthe Neve. It is here recsely thatthe typological method comes on the scene, is pur 7pose beng the understanding of the mystery. In Christianity, the problem of ow to interpret the Old Testament i especialy ‘Gea in the question of Chist’s person, sine the Old Testament ‘must be applicable to Crist and beable con his claims tnd accredit him. The station called for specal hermeneutical method, ‘We must bear in mind, however thatthe Jewish world ad ak ready fared the problem of Old Testament interpretation and had developed a number of intrpretationaltecriques inthe ‘rue and proper sense of the ter. Among these were hath, or ‘the praca application of the sacred text tothe activites of ‘everyday life; and hngade, sehich found its chief expression in fhe Homily and simed a he edition ofthe faith. There was the targim, which was a Kind of paraphrase, and the id= rash, which was a specs ind of interpretation that applied the Old Testament to te present by combining various passes. ‘Mention may be made, rally, ofthe pester (explanation), which served to actuaize a biblical text, usually ofthe prophetic type, by connecting i with the historical experiences of, for example, the Qumran sec or, more generally, of Palestine» “Theft Custis mene Js and well cqunined with thls ct sling use ofthe Old Testament. Ths is evident fom the Old ‘Teotament cations found throughout the New Testament. At times, these citations are in the frm of midrashes, a in the “Magical that i, they present new ideas by combining Old ‘Testament passages each of which suggests others kis, however, Paul and the Lette othe Hebrews that give spe il attention othe use of the Od Testament: ‘When Paul reflects onthe scriptures [= dhe Old Testament] in the light of Christ he sees hidden in them the mystery Rom 16625, 1 Cor 23) which only the lifeiving spt, and not the Tete hat kl, can reveal (2 Cor 3:5). When readin this perspec- tive, the old Law acquires a new dimension... The Law was ‘writen for us, says Paul apropos of Di 2534" Paul and Hebrews even rete theoszstion ofthe interpre tive method in thei use ofthe ides of (pos and ther interpret 8 tion of Old Testament igures-# Bat the gospel of John also wees ‘the same exegetical method when speaking of the brazen serpent and the Pesover lamb. ‘All these Pauline and Johannine figures ae the rel origin of _yystagogial interpretation ofthe liturgialelebration. The Old tnd New Testament texts on which mystagogical interpretations ae bul have thelr principal predecessor, snd therefore thet l= ftimation, in this Peline snd Johannine typology.» 2B, Typaogy and Mystaogy have shown how mystagogy ia “theology I must now ex plan its main aciviy: the use of Seipure and especally ofthe (id Testament. The problem faced in myagogy s how to apply the Scriptures tothe mystery being celebrated. Anyone famiat ith the history of bblal exegesis knows that the Alexandean and Antiochene schools used diferent methods the Alexandsian School went in for allegory, whereas the Aniochene school stressed the literal meaning, But things ae eal not that simple land the diference not that ear-cut, since both Schools practiced ‘the typological method and a this level ended up resembling ‘sch other more than scholars are deposed tallow. Both schools practiced mystagogy and the exegetical method characteristic of each was reflec in this practie sa result, the ditferences between the respective mystagogis are mach less considerable" than might appear ata fst eading ofthe ‘Typology is of great interest at this point, snce “the application ‘ofthis method tothe Scriptures elle spntusl exegesis, ‘whereas ts application tothe Iturgy i called mystagoey. By ‘way of eample, I may cite the opening of Origen’ ith homily ‘on Numbers, since “an analysis ofthe vocabulary ofthis pas- ‘ge shows infact that dhe tems he uses in speaking of rg inition are the same ashe uses in the explanation ofthe sxipures. "= 1 fellows thatthe problem of mystagogy must always be seen 38 closely connect withthe problem of biblical spology. Only asatisfactory answer to questions concerning bibl typology will make possible a correct approach to mystagosia theology. . Typolgy and Alegory “The hermeneutical procedure which Pau and the other New ‘Testament writers ut in thelr pltual interpretation of the Law isallegorial in kind, insomuch asi discovers another meaning beyond the immediate, teal meaning ofthe passage under con sideration. The usual word Paul uses in explaining the connec fon between the tro meanings i ys, thats, form, figure, symbol, prefguration (Rm sy; 1 Cor 1:4 et). Bt ia Gal ‘Sang 434, when speaking ofthe sons of Hagar and Sarah a prefigurasons of Jews and Chistine respectively, he sys: “These things aze sald allegoricaly (tins estinalegoroumena),’ showing that he garde typos as synonymous with algo. As ‘we shall se, this way of interpreting the Old Testament, which tras to have avery prosperous fature and become the authentic Chistian way of reading the Old Testament, is described by modem scholars 3s typology’ oF "typological interpretation’ in deference to Pauline teminelogy. The ancients themselves de- sevied ta the ‘spetual’ or ‘asta interpretation of seciptae."™* Jn this hermeneutal approach, ancient happenings speak of present day evens, since they have their ulllment in Cis Consequently, thee true interpretation eames from Christ and ‘therefore from the today of dhe New Testament. This method dos not give pioity 1 the New Testament ove the Old or to the Old over the Nev; i requires both to be continually refered tach tothe other, The interpretation ia very dynamic one and consists in keping the two Testaments constantly interrelated in Kind of continual superpoition ofeach onthe othe. 1s fom {his retionsip chat understanding ofthe mystery ows. “although the esny exegetes sometimes expres reservations sbout the use of allegory and its derivatives, they do not dstin- iis between allegory and typology and regard spiritual inter- Pretaton asa mode of llegorcalinerpretanon."” We modems, fon the other hand, distinguish carefully between allegory and i ‘typology. The distinction may be expressed inthe words of ‘Melt of Saris, who when posting the theoretical principle of the ron between the Old and Nev Testaments, diferentes between a corespondence of ters which occurs atthe level of meining, and a comespondence of cts, which cours a the level of historical saving relies: “What is aid Is parable, what ‘happens is prefiguion."" te writen fx ofthe Old Testament I interpreted as refering and corresponding to New Testament reales then the Old Tes tment eens likewise refer and corespond to the same realities by reason oftheir meaning. But the texts are not the events; the process by which the texts correspond can be called allegory, ‘whereas the procots by which the events comespond ca be ‘alld typology. I follows that allegory has to do withthe mean- Ing ofa text whereas typology has toda withthe realization or fulllment ofa saving event. The postage ced from Melito rakes the dstintion very accurately, since “parable is always used when speaking of the interpretation of a text and no of the sale meaning of Old Testament events; these corspond t9 tnd have their “truth” in New Testament events" “Ths dncton berwoen texs and event is extremely important, since it allows ws to recover typology while evoiding the serious problems attendant on the allegorical interpretation of Scripture. ‘Based as its on comparison and evocation, allegory quickly proves to be a procedure thats unconrolible Because it allows ro sure and objective criteria. Subjecvism s the only objective ciiterion at work in allegory. R. Bornert expresses himself in 3 terms such as {have just been using and, folowing |. Daidou, tres to dant as flows the dference between typology and allegory: ‘Bibtal and htugical typology explains the serptures or com rents on the nites in funtion ofthe objective comespondnce that exits between the several phases of salvation history. The » typology may be prophetic and announce the eschatological fi ‘tue, oF It may be commemorative a shove hove the pasts falfled, Allegory, onthe contrary, interprets the sriptares and the turgy without paying any attention to the real rations thatexist between the successive stages ofthe divine economy. “Typology has an objective historia basis. Allegory, on the other then, abstract from the analigy between the diferent phases of the one divine plan and sets up abizary innovations... In ‘pial exegests and in mystagogy that which depends on ‘ppology remains permanently valid; that which belongs to alle ‘Bry in raniory" “The stalement i a very accurate one and, a far as concepts are ‘oncemed, quite dear. On the other hand, itis extremely di ‘ult to distinguish in a patric passage between the elements that depend on an allegorical method and those that depend on 8 typological method. J. Daniiou was eomec in saying that "what i proper tothe Alexandeans is nat tology but alle- gory but it mst be added tat for the Alexandrian, alegori- ing was thelr way of pacing Wpology. This was due not so uch fo the specie exegetical method used by the Alexandrians {5 twas to the inherent closeness between typology and alle tory and tothe objective dificaly of practicing typology without falling into allegory. The problem Is especially clan those Fe- thers who were not Alexandsianst and yet prated typology in such a way that they ended up quite frequently in allegory. ‘The catechetical homilies of Theodore of Mopsuesi area splen- id example ofthe work ofthe Antiochene schoo. This school Iept its cstance from allegory and practiced a primarily Iteral cenegesis, This means that nis mystagogy, it deliberately ig- ‘ored the figures of the Old Testament In fact, regarded the Iiurgical celebration priya an image of the economy that reached its climax an fullment in Chest. The tes symbolize the main stages of this economy, and Theodore i thus the fst to propose a pazalleiam between the events ofthe pasion and theses ofthe Eucharist, turing the later into a kind of ramatzation.® In the inal anaiysis, this typology Uhewise ses allegory but ep- plies i to the liturgical ites; n hls way, i ifr from the Alex: Endiian, who applied the allegorical approach chiefly tothe Old Testament figures. Ifthe Anochene school was nonetheless suc: cesfl in maintaining a distinction between mystagogy and alle ory, this means only thatthe distinction made before between typology and allegory isnot so easly reduced to prac. ‘This entre problem of the diference between typology and ale. ory had a direct impact on the various mystagogicl tetises, a5 fan be sen in the work of so great a mystagugue as St. Mind sus the Confessor ‘The allegorical method would later be exensvely use inthe eplcatones Mise (explanations of the Mass) and the great com- ‘mentares om the itugy that saw the light in the Latin Middle ‘Ages. It would be applied either in drawing paalels betiveen the Old Testament figures and the liturgy or in viewing the lar sc tes as kind of dramatization of the events of Criss passlon. ‘The allogoy in these great commentaries often deteriorates and presents us with arbitrary and groundless interpretations, Our ejection of allegory prevents us, however, from sealing that these commentaries (for eample, the Lier ofl of Amalasius of Metz) are true and proper mystagogial treatises, even if the balance between typology and allegory is unfortinately often upset tothe great advantage ofthe ater. If we ask why _mystagopial catechesis and mystagoical enmentary ave for ‘practeal purposes disappeored from the contemporary Roman ‘Church, Wwe must reoogrize tha the reason is the excsive pact playa by allegory in the mecievalteatses and in the devor tional Books tht they inspsed in the modern era Allegory has Fistvially been the death of mystagoy. 2CHAPTER TWO Ambrose of Milan In order to speak corrcly of mystagogy, one must stat fom imyslagogy as realy exited, that, from a specif, concrete inslagogical work, Otherwise one risk building an arbitrary theory. [have chosen to begin my discussion of mystagogy with “Ambrose and hs wo works De stenonents and De mses, the former probably written abot 380-390 andthe latter between. 367 and 391. At Ue outset, I st cll he reader's attention to &Francescon's excellent study of dhe sacramental vocabulary of “Ambrose were it not for this book with its extensive docamenta- ‘bon and many stimulating insight would indeed be difficult to make one’s way inthis dif area In Ambrose’ view, God's salvation s mediated to us trough the history of the world, @ story whose various stages he dls- ‘overs in the Scriptures,» as, indeed, do Hilary, Origen, and ‘even Pils The final tage wil be eternity. In Vtg’ vision, story had a te goal the bulding ofthe Roman Empire; An ‘rose tansposes this conception ito a Christian setting, 0 that for him “the religious history ofthe world advances toward and tne the Chistian empire. But he concaves ef this progress in rather negative terms: it is Because each stage is a lure that it ‘ills fora next sage.” “The sucetsive stages are ordered toward a single gos: Jesus (Christ. But for Ambrose, “he historical evolution of the world remains secondary... He is loss intrested inthe stages ofthe story of elation than in the stages ofthe soul's journey to God." This explains why “he almost never looks atthe historia meaning of bibl evens and things, but sees them rater as 4 symbolic reminders of other, usually moral relies: dea, vit+ ‘es, and 60 on."” Since this s Ambrose's perspective, itis easy to understand why he is more interested inthe unity of God's saving work than in ts pharfority “This very history, then, isa mystery in Ambrose's eyes. Within {God isa work in maser. If then, we are to gasp his action, which the guiding thrend of events, we must more beyond figures, beyond external signs, and read the ‘deeper meaning /Ldden in events. Openness and docity to God at work in ysl is as we shall se, a characteristic of faith, Mean, very event of human history that is told in the scriptures can sel be, in Ambrose's eyes, @ mystery pregnant with the divine plan for the human ace" Inall his weltings, but especialy in his mystagogical works, Ant- brose emphasizes the cose connection between tree things: the (ld Testament, the New Testament and the iturgal ites of the Chureh. The means he uses fortis purpose are (2) his xe: {esl method, and (2) the meanings of certain nomber of ‘words: myslrum, sacrament, gua, uma for, ps, fag, ‘Secs, and simu. Noris any very clear distinction made Be ‘tween the two tools In fact, there i wally only a single pros dare, since even when used ina sacramental context, the words have listed retain the meanings they had in thei original sein, ‘bla interpretation. ‘A father point to be kept in mind is thatthe several words listed are not synoayis of one another, eventhough the mean- ing ofeach partially overaps that ofthe others. It would be 3 serious mistake to let this jective proximity of mesnings hl ‘nto thinking that the words ae simply interchangeable syn- ‘ony all expressing the idea of suremenaity» In the works of Ambrose thls entite vocabulery is epplied to thee Kinds of things. In the fst place, i signes the relation between Old Testament and New Testament reales ts pur. pose in this context i to ensure the unity ofthe history of salve tion through the two Testament, The vocabulay is used, next,to signify the relation of unity between the onder of creation and the onde of salvation. Most important, however, It is used to Inleate the nity and ident ofthe salvation tht comes to us inthe sacraments with the salvation thats made objctivly real in history. The function of the words is thos to establish a rae tion of unity and ident between two comeative tings while atthe same time ensuring that each of them retains its specie ‘ature and is not simply reduced tothe other. “The vocabulary thus desorbed Is identically the woesbulary ‘proper fo bibval typology. It consists of series of echeal terms that make posible the typological interpretation ofthe Scriptures. A. Mystery (Mysterio) "The typological method propery consis in shovrng the unity ‘ofthe divine plan by pointing cu the parallelism between ‘events... Typology urifies past, present, and fature."™ ‘Motrin, therefore, “is for Ambrose predominantly @ category ‘with which to res and interpret the scriptures; the search for the myserum ensuses thatthe scriptures ae not reduced toa simple isting of faci... Discovery of the myst brings ‘he realization that God has a single plan which shows itself as a istry of salvation." B, Figure igure) ‘An analogous chim must be made for fm: “A figure Is thene- fore not edule toa simple historia datum: tis not, for ea ple, the exodus ether as a brute factor in some Wdelized under- nding of it rather, the factual episode is grasped as an event in which a religious interpretation reveals a bering presence of God, a presence thats mysterious but nonetheless rel enough to play determining role in ahistry."9 Materia and gua are not synonyms, Infact, “Piura sts up a dynamic relationship between the Old Testa- sent andthe Neu, arelatlonship whichis fist of all ofa gen= fal kind. The ole of igus to provide key for understanding ‘these to histdcal stages and their mening. The concept of 6 gua secks to prevent each of the two being taken in folaton fad show each a requiring the othe... Figure points toa his torial precedent that only today ean be fll understood." For ths very reason figura canbe combined with mystoram “The expressions msteriun, i gure o gure master, which oc cureften in Ambrose, emphasize the mediation and revelatory function ofa figura. Fgura refers to historical relies, but insofar 5 they cary a salve meaning, It designates historia realities to the extent that they pay patina movement of revelation fand emt an echo that lok beyond them and eats history forward toward its fllimen."s _Masterum and fgwa are, therefore, not completely overlapping terms, since mtr signifies that historical rates are infact _marifstations of the salvation given by God, while gual ‘rings out the connection of the various mysteries among then solves and with thei limateflfliment. Figur calls fr, and already contains within isla complementary term, namely ‘vis (truth, without which would be incomplete and even Unintligble In eter words figure cals attention othe tevolutive and dynamie character ofthe history of salvation: “it locas bistoical events within 2 movement fom the les othe smore complete” In conclusion: “Figura makes it possible to see history as seaicing for and teaching its own meaning... A gure directs the mind for- ‘ward. Given this perspective i is understandable that gars ould express the totality of story in relation to is definitive ‘meaning its fulllment) and, atthe same time movement of the ‘storia process toward its completion. The movement i less a ‘movement of the gure than a movement within tn other ‘words, a constitutive element in the very idea of igure is that it {is cuight up ina movement toward fullment and comple- tion...» Consequenty, the fgune-rerts relation cannot be u- derstood asa elation between a prior anda posterior the ‘eull’ oes not come after the figure; a figure isnot something fase. Rather we are dealing with two levels of trath."# 7C. Shao (Umbra) ‘Whereas ior can alo be appliod to New Testament resities in relation to their exchatlogial faliliment, nbn applies only t0 (Od Testament reales “unr ecentilly deseribes the Old Testament phase ints rel tion othe Nev Testament and the Church and tothe eschato- logical age... The present] casts is shadow before it inthe past 20 that the post acquired meaning and vale precisely from the fac that twas not self-contained but was to have a flile Consequently, “history, begining withthe pas, ia shadow that promises a reality... Una is therefore technical term ‘everthing the Old Testament past nif relation to Chast and the Church."= D. Apparnce Gpecies) This term fs elated to the preceding: can also desigate the same rates that are described as fg, ago, and sii, but the connotation here is quite diferent “Spies descibes a ‘realty in ters of what t shows externally, by ts appearance. Tie lath of the seality depends therefore on th content behind the spies" “External aspect” is by fa the most common mean ing of speci,» eventhough “pn also occurs in Ambrose With «8 precoe technical meuning, since i used inthe sense of ‘preiguation to designate reales in the history of salvation." “The “appearance” or “external spect” ofa thing isa way of paripating in the thing's trath, although it doesnot exhaust that truth, Therefore, the contrat of sees and verias snot to be understood asthe antithesis between false and tue, but it be interpreted dileccally the present in relation tothe fare is provisional and relative. “spe Isa histrico-typologicl category; thats, it expreses a relation between a pat and a present (the Church, a ration bse eseontaly on external aspects that are alice and therfore suggest one another.”» This phenomenon allows Ambrose to cite large number of passages from the Bible, solely because a cer- 8 tain extemal simiaty ests. He is able to make a hesvly all _govcal use of typology preiey because ofthe “extemal aspect” ‘ening ofthe term spe that bolongs in the area of typology fan serves alco to indicate the relation between the Old Test ‘ment and th rallies ofthe New. In this case the biblical pas sages speak no longer of events but of Ideas. All dis has a direct fmmpact on mystagogy, since seis deskgnates the sacraments te fumuch os they are vsbleand tangible Image ago) Inall of Ambrose’s thinking, the term imag implies revelation; ‘dyough images, human beings have acess to what would cther- wise be inaecesible. In this prspecive, imag is fst and fore- most a chrstological concept, since in Chris, the invisible God reveals himeel tows But ifthe term igo is to function inthis way, it must have an ‘ditional meaning that makes it ireduibleto species. Ingo sig- nifes the ontological elation between the image andthe ime aged, Itean be sald to have ths signification in Ambrose, since rom the iea of the Son as inmgo he not idrequenty deduces and asserts the equality between Father and Son as, for example, in Exam 1 9." Nor i io, used in this way, an isolated cone capt rather it is careflly stated theological datum that perhaps reflects Platonic influences, since i his view, an “image” dos in fact participate in the reality it images “Ambrose is not the only one to understand “mage” in thin way, for the concept is widespread among the Greek Fathers: “he description given of Chust in Colossians x25—‘image of the invisible God"—may seem contradictory in modem logs: How can what is invisible have an image? As a matter of fact, the thought in Colossians 135 becomes ineligible only when connected with the conception the ancients had ofthe word. In this conception, an image isnot simply a Funesona representa tion ofan object and understood as such by the human mind. It ‘in also be a radiation or visible manifestation ofthe essence of 2 thing, as such, ean involve a particpaon (tc) in the sub- Stance of that object. Consequently, far from being a mere datum 9‘of consciousness and asi were tora away from the rai, an {nago participate in the real and is even tly the reality tel ‘Therefore the term etn does not mean only a weak reflection cof a it were, a deformed copy of an object, but athe the pro- jection into visit ofthe objec’ innermost esence."# For Ambrose, the way in which one thing becomes “Ike a Inaginn) another is imitation. Ths trae of Chustin hfe as @ ‘whole but its true above al of the sscramental celebration,» sine i is baptism that forms the image of God in Chistian ‘Any further Glscusson of the pint requres that we turn now to ‘he term situ, which i complementary to imo. F.Litens (Sito) Perhaps becaase of Genesis 126, go and sito are r= garded as complementary terma-*In Ambrose, ago carries onto- Toglal implications, whereas sudo i the Very definition of secramendalty, both for bps and forthe Eucharist. The on ‘apt of situ e completely traditional. suse the Anaph- ‘ors of Serapion> shows thatthe original meaning of the tem is the baptismal “ukeness” found in Romans 65; ths was then ap- pled tothe Eucharist, since the Fuchart s “Ikeness of his Seath.” Ambrose se of the term in the De sacrnemtis and the De gee flly ional with this, at fr a8 vocabulary goes. “Likeness” as well 8 “imege,” fs connected with imitation and {s used by Ambrose ina comparable way express Chass equality with God: “We may therefore maintain that Ambrose makes cvistlogcal use ofthe concept of sito in his effort o understand tnd give human expresion tothe mystery of Chast is ‘onsubstantlity withthe Father and, simultaneously, hls hu- ‘man dimension, whereby he i a sign of the presence of God in {he word of human beings. In that context then, Teosider the concept to be ‘sacramental. ‘The meaning is that Christ possesses equality with God because he tthe image of God, and he is the imago Because he is the sina? | may therefore conch tha siiitado fs very cose fn meaning to imo but not intial wit tI asked what “Ikeness” adds to “image,” I can only answer: concreteness. In giving this or- ‘wer, am fling back onthe nderying Greek tem homo, ‘which inthe Scriptures has a very precise technical meaning that, ‘continues to make its presence felt in the Fathers. I would say, then, that in th semantic asa covered by the paled concep, fnago and silt, the ater more desry points to scramen- tality ap such, Ina “sacrament,” Ambrose distinguishes between, what i accesible to sense perception and what i invisible. Its het that sacramental is located, and itis this that he calls simitudo—something that cannot be seen but can only be Teammed fom the Sexiptares.© Type crypus) Tn keeping with the logic at workin Ambros’s vocabulary, fpus |S naver use ofa suramentin nor in Francscon’ judgment) axe there any passages in which fpus i wed direct of prefigurations ofthe Eucharist According to the use most ‘widely found in his ertngs, pus signifies figurative reales in the history of salvation; but heals uses the term in lleory “Asa category inthe history of slvation fpus i wed ofthe negative frm [of some realy] a8 contrasted with ts postive form, that I fall frm or fulllment. A fps i not fle, however, bu simply provisional it designates a figural reality in ‘elation to is fllment. thas real historical existence (the ‘ypus i an event or a person), but beyond it deeper meaning canbe glimpsed. Understanding iin this way, regard it as 8 storia sacramental concept it points to historical elites inso- faras they are carers of the mystery." For practical purposes, tyus is ental with fom and forma (eo Latin words sed to translate the Pauline 7). 1, Scoament Sacraments) ‘Strmentum is objecively close to mst, inasmuch as both tare categories fr interpreting the history of salvation and Both fare used in dealing withthe sacraments and in mystagogialteaching. “Ambrose nds many serameta in bial history; that is to say, God's pln ie mediated through many sensible reais (person and events) which, precisely Beeuse they are 5 ‘isle, bucome ‘sigs’ ofa deeper reality. Tn these conte scr ‘mento foal point forthe tension ofthe past toward Che Despite what the words ast cited might suggest a “sacrament” is not the same asa “fgure,” fort also applies #9 New Testa- ‘ment reaites and even to Christ and his redeeming cross *The ees of Chit, then, i the sacanonton of our salvation. ‘Various prefigurations are here full ke Joseph with his brothers, Chit ‘has delivered ws from shame by the sacament ‘ ‘ofthe Lords cos’ Jonah was a pale figure of Chris, ‘who fale E ‘led that igure by the sacrament of his dealh; the three hue dred chosen by Gideon to do bet agains the enemy (Js 76) foretell in figure that ‘by the sacrament of the eros the world is to be delivered from the attack of far greater enemies’ inthe ‘peaims the Savior bens to revel increasingly the sacraments ‘fis pasion’ since what is prophetcally announced thee is {alles inthe gospel. The eross of Christ gives meaning to that ‘ene hstry; mee it was aeedy dguraively signed by the ‘wood which Moses threw into the biter water (Ex 1522-23)" But if we inquire more closely Into whats specif to sr mentum, we are compelled to say that its primary meaning is “ign.” tat i, the realty aesigrated such by human beings, but understood a the locas and medium of God's sting econ. “This description already gives usa glimpse ofthe elrnent that most completely distinguishes sommeton from mysterium, Here fs the conclsion Francescon! reaches in his study: "Both desig- rate prophetic signs in anclent history. But in light of my brief survey I think t mast be sald that sacrament emphasizes more the extemal element that manifests the interior mst. “This diference fs suggested bythe ocasonal use ofthe two word in combination (mte sueramentum)." ‘The diference emerges very dearly in Ambrose’ mystagogical catecheses: i Cecumstances nov urge me to peak ofthe mysteries and explain the mesning tone) ofthe sacraments Thad de- ded to refer to them before baptism, when you were not yet {niated, I would righty have been judged a tater (ois) rather than a transmiter (ras), Furthermore, the ight of the ‘yeris makes te way ito persone more elcctvely they are not expecting I than iFaninstucton has preceded "+ | B. Bote pinpoints the diference very esly when he writes: “gtr are here distinguished from strane. The ater sre the sacred tes the former the deeper meaning of the sesptres."¢ In discussing the sacramental vocabulry of Ambrose, reserved ‘he term sazamentun tothe end Beeuse i allows me to mave let into a theological examination of his mystagcey. “The passage Ite a couple of paragraphs bok tn. 46 from the Beginning ofthe De myst. In, Ambrose says that he fntend to explain the mysteries and the ration ofthe sacra: ‘mens. Why does he say “ati ofthe sacraments” and not jst “eocramenta” (as he does “nyatesies"? I the adler be tween “sacraments” and “meaning ofthe sacraments”? Yes, there i ‘The mysterio s salvation, thats, the deeper content of history Insofar as history is a series of saving events; and this content i ‘ow made evalable to human beings through the smoamentun Ot Iiuegical celebration. The ratio sacraentorut isthe meaning of ‘the sacramento or Iaurgical ite, namely, the connection ofthe facament withthe mysterio, in & word, ts sacramental Insame passages, Ambrose uses a special word to signify tis connection: sniudo (withthe mearing the word has when be ‘uses forthe Eucharie. “But peshaps you wil say‘ do not see the appearance of blood!’ Butt the wine 5 the likeness fr symbal] of the blood Just as you have recelved the keness for symbol] of the death, $0 too you drink the likeness or symbol ofthe blood, in order 3that there may be no disgust provoked by owing Hood and yet the price of redemption may have is effet. You know (it, ‘therefore, that what you receives the body of Christ." ‘The “Ikenes isnot the visible clement ofthe sacrament the ‘word forthe extemal or visible element ssi, to which, fact, “ikenes" is opposed. The “Ukeness is rather the invisible ‘lement of the sacrament and can be known only through struction (idiot. ‘The phzase rai sacramentoram, which isthe abject of mytagogy, has an interesting paral in Origen, in whom, asin Ambrose, wwe find an identy between exegetical method and mystagogicl ‘method. As for Ambrose, who must “expsin the ratio sar ‘mentaran,” 50 for Origen “targa ceremonies contain a rio which canbe revealed (po tare), explained (epliare, and reached by the understanding (dso). probable thot in his Latin version inns wans- Inte logs as ratio. Among ts many meanings, the word ages, when applied to the mystery, signifies the inteigbilty of the Inter.» We may infer by snalogy that the reo of erga ceremonies expestes the intl’ ofthe mystery which they Contain.» Origen’ sacramental and urgial mystagoay is, ‘erefoe, not so mach an ison into the mystery ofthe Me tngy a itis an introicton tothe one mystery withthe huey ts point of departure." St. Maximus the Confessor inherits dhe same conception and ‘makes tthe basis of his mystagogy » Pseudo-Dionysis, to, in- bert the same perspective from Oxigen; in the Areopagite, this perspective can in fact be formulated in 2 way’ ery ke tht Thich we ind in Ambrose. "era, whichis @ means of non ‘With God, has two points of departure: “The wo points of departure are seripture and the sacramental rites, We contemplate the mysteries in the septues through sensible symbols, and we reach the divine archetypes ofthe soc ‘aments though their visible manifestations... In Pseudo- Dionysia in Origen, sacramental iia and serptual dria are dosly connected with one another." Ps ‘eoncude, therfore, thatthe thinking of Origen and Maximus can help us understand Ambrose's distinction asa ey element In his mystagopical thought. Given this objective eimantybe- tween the three writes, Iacept the hypothesis that Maximus definition of mystagogy i valid for Ambrose as well: the pure pose of mysagogy i fo introduce the Chetan to knowledge (nis) ofthe mystery Such is my hypothesis, It remains ony to see whether Ambrose oes infact understand mystagogy a an iluation, via the lt- rg nto the mystery of salvation that as taken plac in hse tory, o, to put itin other words, as an ination into the Ltugl- cal sites understood as themeelves embodying the mystery. ‘A. Ceerating the Mystery ofthe Opening CApertioniscelebrantes, ‘mysterium) Ambrose speaks tothe neophytes ofthe nit of “opening _ (epeitio” hich he had eelbrated wth them; i even reminds them ofthe lrpcl formula he had used. In this conte, he refers tothe rite both as scranentum and as myserion. Ate the fovo words simply synonyms, oF do they sill elec he distine- fon that he has made only afew lines etn? ‘The answer i to be found in what immediately follows. Con tinuing his explanation of the sacrament, Ambrose cles the episode ofthe deat-mute healed by Jesus and speaks of it as a metriam and, infact, the incidents an event in the history of salvation as reported in the Scripture, Isto be noted that he stables an ontological identity between the rite ofthe Church and the action that Jesus performs on the deat-mute. This asset ton of Kent justified by bbe ypology, thats, by the ‘hermeneutical method used in the Scriptures and expressed in the technical terms that we saw a bit erie. ‘A study ofthis vocabulary shows thatthe events comprising the Ilstery of salvation are objectively bound together t form a co Iherent whole there movement fom the lesser othe greater, ‘fom sketch ofall reality, terminating finally in the revelation proper tothe eschaton. As aesult the Various stages in the story of salvation refer to one anoter and are mirored each in 3the others in a kind of ontological correspondence. This makes it posse to take the characterises and attrbuts of one reality or ‘vent and predicate them of another that corresponds to it ‘Thus, the characteristics ofthe tl scion ean be predicated of the historia even, and the characteristics ofthe latter can in tum be applied to the liturgical celebration. The two evens that sre thus brought into reciprocal elation by means of biblical typology end up constitating a single reality in which each merges with the other ina Kind of commit itiomatu. ‘Thies the Kind of operation that Ambroee performs when he eseribs the gospel epeode as a “celebration” (eyplaly eur fl term) and speaks of what Christ did at “this mystery," a, {nother word, asthe very thing tha the Church is celebrating. [i there ls no objection to saying thatthe reality and character tis ofthe sacramental te project ther shadow back upon the soepel episode, then thre ean be no dificty in predating of the Chutes te the term mye, which desorbes events in the history of salvation. Just asthe former procedure does not do away with the difference between the rte ofthe Eppa nd the cure ofthe deaf-mute, neither does the application of Ingle tothe sacramental rte do away withthe distinction ‘Ambrose has made at the begining of his reas. 2B. How Anion This Mastery Is (Quam vetus mystesum est) ‘When Ambrose comes to speak ofthe Holy Spit effectively ct {ng in baptism, he appeals for comobortion tothe effectiveness with which the Holy Spit acted inthe Old Testament. In Gene fn 3, he finds the Spt hovering over the water; with the aid of this typology, he concludes to the presence and action ofthe Spin baptism. We must bear in mand thatthe chief character istic of typology isthe superposition of one datum on another— in this cite, the Old Testament event and the sacramental sction—s0 tht one may pass from one to the oer in either ‘reton what holds forthe first has forthe second as wel, and vie versa As a result, Ambrose sable to locate the mys: tery of baptism at the beginning ofthe world: “Consider, how- ever, how ancient tis mystery Is that was prfgured atthe Very beginning ofthe wor."* 6 “Here the baptismal ite i cealy described as a mystery and not asa sacrament. The choice of words is easly explained by the {act that baptism, even if eny in is prefigued stage, realy be- longs tothe Old Testament and, more specically othe event that is the creation ofthe world. Is because baptism belongs there that Ambrose can argue tothe presence ofthe Spr, ‘Which he asserts very resolutely ad realistically. The argument fends with a hetorcal question: “You se the water, you see the ‘wood, you perceive the dove: can you doubt the mystery?" If the presence and elective ation ofthe Spit in the bapsmal site are the deer manning of the event in Genesis It becomes necessary to dese the sacrament of baptism asa seria: all the moreso since its not something pela to our tes, but is ‘of immense antiguly, being pat ofthe event thal occured et the beginning of word history. C1150 Mastery and a Soncifiying Action Mystrium est et site at Milan even though Rome followed a diferent practice, ‘was challengod by some who saw in the gesture a manifestation ‘thay sn oepalty anc lime hat than plac in the liturgy of bapusm: It should not be pat ofthe mystru, of baptism of rebut." ‘The paalelism ofthe three words makes it lear that mysteriem Js the ite of baptism: this beng the case, we might have ex pected strumention to be used instead of mtr. In his ap- Daisal ofthe washing of fet, Ambrose contrasts humiliation (gesture of humility) with sanctification (sanetifying action) In ‘order to prove thatthe washing ofthe fet sancife, he does rot analyze the rte of the Church, But turns instead tothe epi sode in the gospel of John (1:4) that isthe foundation ofthe ‘Church’ practice, Then, withthe sanctifying power ofthe ges- ture established, he argues tht iit sancti, it is a mysterio land therefore has every right tobe part of baptism: “Hex, then, the proof that it isa mystery and a sancifying action: fT do nat ‘wash your fet, you have no part in me’ Jn 38)"‘The cation from John refers not only to @ manifestation of hue rity, but alo to an action that sanctlfis,* fr “to have part” in Jesu ito bein communion with him. Ambrose can therfore ‘conclude that in the gospel, dhe washing ofthe feet sa sanctify fing action, as such it wil als be a myst, since he as inked these to concepts ‘The pall pasage inthe De mysterlaxgues even more dealy, since afer studying the acon of Jesus, it descrbes tas a stern "Peer didnot grasp the mystery and dhereforexe- fused the service." Ambrose goes on then to explain in what ‘the myperiam const: since the serpent bt the foot of human ‘beings, ther fet must be washed in baptism in order to remove Snherted sins. The washing is therefore absolutly necesarys and possesses a sacamentaity ofits own, just as baptism proper does ‘The wlimate justification ofthe nef found ina passage inthe goepel: when Peter objects, Jesus answers “He whois washed ‘eed only wash his feet and he i completely ean" We see here once again how Ambrose’s thought moves from the Ltugy to the gospel and back again without any breakin the words inthe gospel are applied tothe Hiri ie, and the sscramentality ofthe bupismal te is eppied to the New Testa ‘ment episode. Hei following the exegetical method of typology {in which two elements are interelated and reduced to ny. Conclusion: the application ofthe term mystrium to the gospel episode ofthe washing of fete completely consistent. Aibrose ‘eds to prove only one point that Inthe gospel, the washing of feet sancifes, This element ofthe historia aon reported in Scripture caries over tots liturgical celebration; no further proof Ss needed that thsi 0, Ambrose does not need to prove thatthe washing of fet sane ‘ies wien performed inthe tury. The typologies nterpret- tion of what i sid in Scripture enables him to develop a theol- ‘gy tat, if valid forthe archetype, wil ls be valid for every ‘rural reaetualzation ofthat action, . Consecratl bythe Mystery of he Cross (Crucis mysterio ceomscersta) Under this rubric, I am tothe episode ofthe biter water that bbrame meet when Moses threve apiece of wood int it (Ex sgs2a-25) With the aid of typology, the water of Marah is. seen tical with the ater of bape that becomes ifegiving. has is act of throwing the ‘Moses is regarded as acting pro- phetically, a a result the Old Testament episode becomes afi ture ofthe fact that in baptism, the water becomes sancifying ‘only when joined tothe erss. Te action of Moses isa baptism In the tre and proper senee, though only in te figural stage. ‘The realism of the typology i such that Ambrose can base an ¢ stro! argument on it "Therefore ithe power of baptism was ‘0 great even inthe gurl stage (in ura), how much greater is ‘the power of baptism in ts tru self (inverter Inthe Section ofthe De sueamentis rom which this ctaon is taken, Ambrose ses the term searrnn wheres in the par allel section ofthe De mst, he speaks rather of mtr. But the paallism fs not complet, since the “mystery ofthe “ros that consecrate the vntr may well Bethe historical event ofthe cross of Christ, forthe phrase “mention ofthe Lord's ‘ros ("preeicatio dominieae crucs), which occurs before and again afer the words about the "mystery ofthe eros,” refers to the situa of baptism. The meaning would be: the mystery ofthe ‘ross conserates the water Deca the later receives the “men- tion ofthe Lord's cross,” which sa part ofthe rite. Te pale passage inthe De stoumentis an be interpreted in ike manner, ‘eventhough it contains a clearer emphasis onthe sacrament, ‘whichis placed in parallel to the cos of Christ by having the ‘ame verb govern Both object: when the water receives the “peaveny sacrament,” it also receives the cos of Chis ("sed ‘bi erucem Chris, ubi accepertcalstesacamentum, inciit cst dul") 1 do not claim that Ambrose is bent on respecting at eny cost the Alstnction between “mystory” and “sacrament” it is nonetheless interesting to note that in his mystagogy, this distinction is more 2Important than it might at frst seem, even ifthe De scents scoms les carefully written in hi espe than the De ysteris. “The dsincton remains firmly set in Ambrose's mind and, even tf not aways respected at the level of terminology, t continues to inlacnce al his writings indeed, ican even be used as a hermeneutical criterion of texts. This Is That Gest Mystery (Ho es lad magnum mystexium) Tn constuding his explanation of the episode of Naaman the Sy tan, wich had been reed that day (2 Kgs 5-14), Ambrose ‘again introduces a pont tha is especially inportant in his tstagogy the opposition between seen and unseen. Heat. bute to the newiy baptized the doubts and questions of Naa- ‘man and concludes thatthe water i elcacous solely due tothe Spin. The efficacy that Naaman experienced ls a guarantee that the baptismal water ie ikewis efficacious. He explains thatthe ‘theme of the opposition between the seen and the unscen had ‘been introduce eater inorder to keep the neophytes frm be- leving, as Naaman di only in what they can see™ In other words, Ambrose wishes to prevent “what is seen” fom ‘elng confused with “that great mystery follows fom this ‘that te mystrum consists preclyin what is user. Ik the ‘clebatin ofthe sacrament, the mysterium isthe invisible aspect that is brought to pass by the Spire» an is opposed tothe sgn ‘of water, which has “been seen daily,” then we can draw the folowing conclusion: Ambrose is here setting forth theology in ‘whlch the distinon between strane and mysterio i a ne ‘esi, even if ths neceesity isnot immediately evident tthe level of terminology. isi a typological theology that earres ws beyond the visible data of the bapisma i. ‘Modem iturgial theology ikewise develops its thought by start {ng frm the “visible” datum of gesture and prayer inorder to reach the “invsle” element ofthe sacrament. This, however, is not the same procedure as is used by Ambrose, since today the “visible” element i located in the sacramental ite itself, whereas ‘Armbrove Wenties i with the Old Testament figures that he be Ihind the sacrament. In fot, Ambrose accomplishes this oper » on by using not the prayer and ses ofthe sacrament he has ceboated, but th seprel verses esrb the Naan pode [eis les that these ar ta cifernt ways f conceiving acre ‘mental theology even ia we shal Sein a moment they are ot far apart a they may som, Although the sxptzal ‘verses recounting the Naaman episode ae not part of Ambros's {opomal ie they complement tu © spalgy Int they tong to the sacrament when the ater aes om another made beng the dur which thas nthe Ob Testament epee to which reference is made” F, Sucroment of Banton —Mystry of Rebirth (Baptismats sacamentum—Regenentonis mysteram) ‘As fr as vocabulary is concerned, te words “if you remove one ofthese [water blood, Spin, there i no sicrament of bapis fe perfecty parallel to “Likewise, without water thee is no my tery of rebirth {think nonetheless that the distinction between scamention and mterium spar ofthe theology Ambrose i ‘expounding, He say that in baptom thers ar three witnecec: water, bleed, ‘and the Spin in bap, these three are one. To begin with, ‘we must observe thee levels of testimony: fue ater an ele- ‘ment in the visible site the blood stands forthe event. of the ‘cross the Spats Christ's invisible git. The thre levels are t= Trent one situa, one historical, and one spisiual. Ambrose continues his commentary by arsrting that f any one of three is lacking there s no longer the sacrament of baptism. This gen- eral principle then given two concrete applications. Without the cross of Chis, the water is only the everday element and luck steramental value "sine ull sacrament valore) without the water and with only the cross of Chest t hand, human be- {ng ae stil eatechumens, that I, they have not received the mystery of salvation Mystrim, therefore, refers to the ivi ‘le content that isthe fut of the sazamental action. This pas- sage once again manifests the distinction made atthe begining ofthe De mystris cs6G. They Hancot Doan Tis Mystery to Us (Hoe nobis mysteium teadiderant) “Ambrose compares the prophet Elijah with the pists who cle tate the Iturgy ofthe Church. If he ses, we esteem Fah, then we ough to esteem at least as much the apostles Peter and Paul who have handed down these mysteles 1 us. A few lines Inter ("uh eceia est, ubi mystera sunt"), we have the same sacramental meaning, Myseriom heres cerainly a synonym of ‘scramentum in the sense of itu elebration, 1H Let Us Estab the Truth of he Misery (Adstruamus mystert veriatem) ‘The subject ofthis passage isthe transformation ofthe bread and wine into the body ad blood of Chast. After presenting a ‘theology of consecration based on the omnipotence af God's ‘word, Ambrose develops an approach of his own, based on the parllim between Bachar snd Incarnation: “But why do we [ppl to arguments? Let us use his eamples and by means ofthe mysteries ofthe incarnation establish the th of the nysteny"™ “The “mysteries of the incarnation” are the events that occurred nvconnection withthe bith of Chet, evens that spay charac- teristics that surpass the powers of nature. In tis context, “ms teres ofthe incarnation” refers not so much to the mystery of the incamation as a saving event, i does to the overall myste- FHousness ofthe Incarnation “Trt ofthe mystery” here means ‘ot the fullmentof past events in their eactualzation today, but zther the wuth in the modern sense of the word, of the ‘eucharistic mystery “Mystery” here cores perfelyt9 In this final text on eucharistic doctrine, we have Ambros’s ‘thinking not simply insofar a it represents the taition, but alo Insofar asi contains his personal contribution. Iti @ kind of ‘thinking that postdates him, soto speak, and already points ahead 10 medieval realism {have offered sulcient evidence that the distinction between ‘mystery and sacrament is important in Ambrose’ theology, even = tough the teminology fluctuates, In the final ext justi ‘assed, its possibe to see that he can ignore the distinction at ‘the Key point inthe argument; here he uses “mystery” and “sac- rament” with the meanings they wil have alter him. While the De mysteris uses both exon and mysterio,” the parallel pas- sage Inthe De scant doesnot use mysterim but only ‘romp; we may, Shereore, suppose that this is the Key con ‘pin Ambrose’s mind. 1. Conusion Tn this analysis of Ambrosian texts, we have seen how he care fay formulates a distinction between mysteriam and scent ‘and how this distinction remains present and inuences his the- ‘logy even when itis not clearly made at the fevel of vocabulary. But in the last tox that I ted, we saw tha when he wants to ‘exphin the eucharistic consecration in a more relevant and pro- {end way, he departs from the typological method and as 2 result understands mycterim in a way that e incompatible with the distinction between mystrum and sramentum with wich he began ‘Ambrose isa man of tation, Tradition i valuable to himy he accepts it, makes it his own, becomes imbued with i and fit fully preserves i. The dstintion between mpteriam and sic ment is therefore truly a part of his theology and his deeper thought, even if itis pehaps already historically outmoded. deed, Ambrose himself even helps t speed up the process ‘whereby it becomes outmoded in fact the new thinking lle 0 ‘be found in Scholastic is eleeady present in hts, Nonethe- Jess, even if he isnot completely consistent with himsel, he ‘males conscious and deliberate use ofthe distinction. Let me conclude by stating my acceptance of the hypathesis that ‘formulated a he beginning of his section: 9 for Origen and ‘Maximus the Confessor, 30 for Ambrose, the purpose of _mystagoay sto lead the Believer to «knowledge of the mystery {inthe sense already explained). Mystagoay isan inition, vin the Murgial celebration, nto the saving mystery that wok place inhistry »“The point can be made with greater presion: Ambrose doesnot ‘constrict biblical theclogy ofthe sterament; rather he con- ‘ucts a biblical theology ofthe event recorded in Seiptare that Hes behind the celebration andi its objective foundation and. archetype, In short: Ambrose mystagogy theology ofthe archetype and only by derivation a theology ofthe sotament. This Gaim is ‘amply supported bythe data analyzed before, even if have had to acknowledge that in the final tex ced, there i also present a theology that focuses dec on the sacrament without pass- ing through the theology of the archetype» “The conclusion ofthis setion confems what emerged cari, in Section I from an ana ofthe sacramental vocabulary of Am bros. just as the ssramental vocabulary isthe vocabulary of biblical typology applied tothe sacraments, so the teaching on. the sacraments simply the bien teaching on the archetype that is contained in Serpture and applied, and typologialy ldentifed with, the Church’ celebration. ‘A. Gorspondees, Supeinpston, ently ‘Typology is a hermeneutieal method tha Is essential for the Christin reading of the Sexiptures, fork ensures the unity of the ‘eco Testaments. By means of typology, the two become a single discourse anda single drama in which Chit is the protagonist: “The pecalaity ofthe typological method consists precsey in this, that through the parallelism of evens it brings to light the uni of the divine plan... . Typology unites pest, present, and feture ‘As Chis belongs also to the period preceding the New Testa ‘ment, so he belongs also tothe time after the New Testament. In the fist ease, the problem that arises is solved by means of typology; the same hols forthe second cae and explains dis- course on the sacraments and more generally on the iurgy. Ie ‘becomes clear that the Rermenestcal method sf the service of Ey the doctrinal issue: the presence of Che inthe events ofthe (Old Testament 1 must now study some passages inthe De sacraments and the Demysteris in order to show mare deatiy how typology brings to light the unity between Chus’s presence inthe Serptues and bis presence in the celebrations ofthe Church, Tn Ambrosian typology, we are dealing with a procedure that makes use of superimpostons. On the high priest of the Old Testament is superimposed the “priest” who once each year leads the candidates for baptism into the baplistery. The bapts- tery sels superimposed on the “second [innermos!] tent” {have used the word “superimposition” becuse i reflects Am bros’ literary procedure; lf, however, we ask what the precise point of the method i, oF what relation is being assrtd be- {ween Old Testament event and New Testament event, we must speak no longer of “superimposition” but of “ideniaton.” “ire fs one example: the rod of Aaron is pu in elation to the ‘ptized: just a8 the withered rod flowered again, 9 the bap- teed, who were withered, have begun tower again inthe water of baptism. Now, the rod of Aaron belngs to the Old ‘Testament tent, noto the baptstery; nonetheless, In Ambros’ ‘eyes, the rod of Aaron Hower in the bapistry: “What i the point ofthis? I is hat you may realize that ts into the second tent thatthe priest as Ted youth tent into which the high ‘rest was accustomed to enter once a Year that the bapls- {ery in which the rod of Aaron flowered." In he pla of typology, i is posible to superimpose the Old ‘Testament datum on the New Testament datum, because the former i dentifed with the latter the former lives on and nds ‘ew expression inthe later. The New Testament datum be- comes a hermeneutial eterion fr eaing the Old Testament it also reactuaizes the latter ata higher level of efectveness; it ‘becomes its nerits. The passage Lam analyzing ends by eng Psalm 3 "pnted by steams of water’) in explanation ofthe fact thatthe bapezed ae no longer “dry sticks,” but have Begun to bear fatAnother passage shows us the same typological procedure being applied to baptism, which s explained in light ofthe Naaman episode, this Being toi at length. Atthe end ofthe story, Am ‘owe asks “Wit then does this mean?” He then begins his ‘explanation, which s based onthe opposition between seen and ‘unseen. He asks what the meaning ofthe Old Testament ince ‘dent sand answers by pointing othe water of bapim, whose “specific properties he lists, The method used implies superin- position and even a kind of identifction of the to things that have been brought together: baptism and the cure of Naaman: “You saw the water, but not ll water heals only that waler heals which contains the grace of Chris." It follows thatthe episode of Naaman is the reason why the water of baptism 5 seen tobe healing. ‘The incident takes eet in the water of baptism because ofthe sgace of Christ and the ater in turn is connected with the de- Scent ofthe Spit who consecrate this water. This further factor ‘is explained in tems ofthe baptism of Jesus in the Jordan, ‘which is described by saying: “When out Lord Jess Chit insti- tuted the rte of baptism...“ "If den the rite of baptism was instituted for our sk, isto our faith that the tee pro- posed." This view must have been traditional since Ambrose tees the same expressions elsewhere ® Since the sacraments aro ‘thought ofan “imitations,” the baptism of Christ is seen as the Jnsttution and paradigm of our baptism ifthe Spt descended ‘on the Jordan inthe form of a dove, he wil also descend upon the water of our fonts in order to consecrate i and make ft pa ble of healing” Ambrose formally raises the problem ofthe corespondence of these two ses: the baptism of Jesus inthe Jordan and the bap tiom celebrated in the Church, He aske why Chait descended {nwo the Jordan fst and the Spat second, whereas in the nite tnd practice of bapusm, the water Is fst consecrated by the de- Scent of the Splat and only dhen does the candidate dascend into the font His concer with this problem makes ie lat thatthe octine of sinitudo is applied to the sacraments in an exremely realte way and also thatthe smi isnot external of ital “The simliudo exits even where the two nites der. Siiituds i 6 ‘an ontological category that apple not tothe vse elements of the sacramental sito, but to whats invisle, ‘Alter dscussing Naaman, Ambrose cotinues his bapa die ‘course by taking a point fom the reading ofthe previous day the episode ofthe pool ito which the angel descended inorder to sr the water so that the rst person to enter it would be ‘uted of every indumiy.» In Ambrose’s eyes, the angel who de conde into the water a figure of Chit. The anwer to his ‘hetorcal question about the reason for this Mentifction is ‘based on a conception from the very east chistology: “Why ‘an angel? Because he s the ‘angel of great counsel” ls 93:6 boy ‘More importantly, Ambrose supposes thatthe neophytes ae a= tonished and ask themselves why the water isnot moved now! 2 "Wy is the water not moved now?’ Here isthe explanation: ‘Signs ae for unbeiovers, faith for boivers"™ ‘The two cases ae seen a identical, so much so that the neo- phyes are surprised not to see the water ofthe baptismal font bing moved as the water ofthe pool of Bethzatha had been. This parallelism or, beter, this identity does ot refer to the or- der of extemal deta for itis based Ona tic ypological inter pretation: the angel, a igure of Crist, descended into the poo: the objective content of baptism isthe passion of Chris, in which man beings ae saved, From thst follows that due tothe pay of typology, thor Isa ‘rue and proper identification between the elements ofthe ira and ofthe revs. The question about the normovement ofthe ‘baptismal water presupposes an ideniliation fr al intents and parposes or wat we would call an identity at the ontological level The argument ends with Ambrose pointing ut the preem!- rence ofthe Church over the Old Testament becuse inthe ease ofthe pool, only the fist person to enter was cured, whereas in baptism, all who go down into the font are saved. ‘Asa reslt of this dentiiation that typology extablises be- ‘oven parallel episodes the elements ofthe Old Testaments ‘event can be predicated of the Church’ celebration, and vice‘vere, Here i an example the efficacy proper to baptism i also predicate of is wa, forthe bitter water becomes sweet be- ‘Cause Moses throws apiece of wood into i this wood is effe- tive, however, because iin tur sa feof Chit’ passion. I ‘can, therefore, be si thatthe biter water becomes sweet bee ‘cause of Che's passion, In Ambrose’ eyes, the ira sa true and proper baptism, even ‘though the varias is mach more effective: “Biter then, ithe ‘water, but when it receives the cross of Crist, the heavenly sae ramen, i gins tobe sweet and pleasant. And righty sweet Decne the offense is cast cut If, then the power of baptisms fs 0 gratin the figure, how much grester must be the power of tpt in rath?" At one point, therefore, when Ambrose is summing wp the various figures he has been explaining. he calls all of them "boptism’: “There, then, you have one baptism and {nthe flood another. You have a third kind of baptism when our fathers were baptize in the Red Sea. You have a fourth inthe pool when the water was stirred."™ ‘may conde, then, that typology, and therefore mystapoay, ‘ings out the connection betwen the saving event ofthe Old ‘Testament the New Tetament, and the Chores ie; thi eon ection isa relationship of trae and proper identity. The events ‘correspond, are superimpose, and ae sen as dentcl, even ‘though it must immediatly be added that the eras surpasses the fg in perfection, without, however, rendering it out rmoded and tsslse * ‘The explanation ofthe figures concerns also the content proper to baptcm, namely, the grace of the sacrament. In rder that the baptized may realize the importance ofthe grace they have re- culved, Ambrose makes use of figures and argues onthe basis of ‘ypalogy: “The holy prophet David say this grace in gure and desired it. Do you wish to know what he desire? Listen to him ‘once again: ‘Sprinkle me with hyssop and I shall be cleansed. ‘You wil wash me and I shall become whiter than snow?" The clement of gure allows the psalm to speak of baptismal grace If David a6 a prophet saw this baptismal grace thats now being celebrated in the Church and if Psalm 5(52)9is speaking of his 2 grace, then we must say thatthe permanent value ofthe Old Testament i due to its being a prophecy or, bette, a figura to ‘use Ambrose's term here) of the New Testament ellos that ‘when read by Christians, the OM Testament ends up being tipped of ls own autonomous coherence by the New Tests: ‘ment. Consequently, when the present-day realty of salvation Is describe by citations from the Old Testament, the reading does ‘ot accommodate the Old Testament text, bat gives It its tue tnd proper meaning. 2B, fish Sacraments and Chistian Saoaments Wie have already son that the possly of superimposition and oniologicalidentfation is due to the correspondence between fhe events ofthe Old Testament, those ofthe Nevr, and those of the Church. All this might suggest thatthe proces is based on ‘an excessive llegorism, but this snot the case with Ambrose. In making this claim, must appeal to anew consideration tht Amore expresses by saying thatthe Chiistan sacraments are ‘older than the Jewish sacranents # He proves this by locating the institution ofthe Chistian sacraments in the OM! Testament Such a statement shows us how realistic his typological concep- fon of things ih analysis of Siguses i situated in the world not of allegory but of fact, fort possesses an ontlogieal density 0 great that he can set is argument inthe sphere of history and thus prove the temporal pioty of one people over anther “At hat time God rained down manna from heaven onthe coat plaining Jews. For you, however, the igure came eal, In the fime of Abraham, when he assembled thre hundred and eigh- teen servants, went in pursuit of his enemies, and rescued his nephew from captivity. For, when he returned victosous, Me chizedek the priest came to meet him and offered bread and ‘wine. Who had the bread snd wine? Not Abraham. Who, then, had them? Melcizedek. He then isthe author ofthe ‘The figural element, by reason of which the sacraments of the [New Testament ae present inthe Old Testament, causes the (id Testament episode that prefiguses them fo be regarded a8 »the action by which the sacraments themselves are instituted ‘We have already seen Ambrose’ conclusion: the Christian sacra- ‘ments are older than the Jevishstcraments. From this, iis but a step to saying thatthe Cistan peopl solder than the Jew Ish peopl: “Know thatthe Chratisn people began before the Jewish people dd; we were there, however, through predestina- tin, they in mame." ‘We saw, afew lines aver that Melhizedek was the “author of the sacraments." This evidently creates a problem with regard to the role of Christin the institution of the scamens. Ambrose answers the dificuly by appealing to Hebrews 73 and establish {nga figural parallel between Chast and Melchizedoke “Melehizedek was, he says, “without fatber, without mother, without genealogy, having no begining of days or end of Ife. ike tothe Son of God’ The Son of God is born without mother in his heavenly beth, beause he is born of God the Father alone. On the other hand he was bor without a father wien he was bor ofthe virgin... Like inal things tothe Son ‘fF God, Melchiedek was alo pret, for Chit too is a priest to whom itis sud: "You area pest forever, according tothe ‘order of Melehiaedsl* [Pe 1054 Heb pl. Ambrose takes the word sii ("ike in all things...) om the ‘Letter tothe Hebrers, bathe gives it an ontoogsat density that ‘appears tobe lacking in hs source. He use this “likeness” as ‘the basis for enguing a certain Kdenty of the two persons, ‘Chuist and Melchizedek; infact, he is able to draw the folowing, ‘conclusion: “Who, then, i the author of the sacraments, but the ‘Lord Jesus? Is from heaven that these sacraments came, fr the plan at work in them is eniey from heaven. Its trly a great Snd divine miracle thet God should rain down manna from Iheaven for the people and thatthe people should et without teling. = ‘The “likeness” that binds Melchizedek and Jesus to each other emits Ambrose to call both the “autor ofthe secraments.” oris there any dieulty in his doing so since these two pet- sons are not relly two but one, The bond between them f “ike » ess" thats set of relations that in typology nepresents deny. ‘The realiem of “figure” becomes very dear in Ambrose's discus sion of Mechizedek. “gure” and “truth” inerpenctte, so that ‘the “Bgure” canbe sid tobe present inthe “eth” and the “truth i the “igure.” In order avoid the concept of “pres- cence,” which can be equivocal I shall say thatthe “gue” par- ‘icipates inthe “truth,” or that the “igure” is one way in which ‘the “truth” ets, even if this way be diferent in form and en body lower degree of being. Therefore: Because of the partlpa- Aion, there Is a eal dent of essence between “gure” and "truth; at the same tne, however, the two are diferent be- ‘nase the “truth” is superior the “Ggure.” Here is how Am- rose puts i “Where are those who say that the Son of God isa temporal being? Melehizedck is said to have had nether bepining nor end of days. If Melchizedek: had no beginning of days, an (Cust have had one? But the figure cannot be grester than the truth. You se, therelore, that he [Chest] is “rst and ls’ [Rt "tay fit berause he isthe author ofall things, lst not becnase the il corto to an end bat baceuse he completoe everything = ‘We modems have difcuty wth this figural identification of Mel- chizedek and Chest infact, the identification may even seem Aoctinaly suspect becauce ofthe uniqueness ofthe divine Sonship and the redemptive ineamation. We would be unjust to ‘Ambrose if we thought he was fllowinga suspect path. How then are the data tobe interpreted? Must we reduce the fig- tural of Melclzedek to simple external reminder and evoce- tion of Che? Cetanly not. The concep of “figure,” while lev Ing, and therfore displaying, a cctan difernce, expresses a real, ontological identification between the two realities that are tele as gure and truth Ambrose is thoroughly aware of al this, Thus, we find him cay= Ing the argument a stp further, Justa the right moment, he sacks who and what Melchizedsk i. After looking athe dat, he tums to Revelation 1:17 and 2213, applies the expression “fist and lst to him, and concludes that he cannot have been a mere *‘naman being. Theze could be no better way of banging of the alam of “figures”: «human being i a gure of Chit, then Ihe orshe cannot be a mere human being, but rather must be sai in some way 1 have nether begining nor end, any more ‘than Christ does. From all thi, flows that Nelchizedek achieves his fll identity only in Christ: “Do you not recognize ‘what he i? Can a human bring be king of justice when he barely jut? Can he be King of peace when he is barely at peace?"™ For this reason, there f no dificult in predating “thor of the stcraments” indifferently of Melchzedek or of Chis because ofthe figural relationship between these two, there but asin tle author. Ambrose can therefore say that Citas today e- five a sacrament that belongs to Molchzedek: “The sacameat you have received fs not a human Buta divine gi, brought by im who blessed Abraham, our father in faith, whose grace and ‘actions you adi." In this context, there is another passage that may appropriately be cited.» Speaking of Psim 23(3), Ambrose supposes thst Dae vid wrote i asthe fut of his gural experience ofthe Eucharist ts that this o why the Church san interpret typological and ‘apply tothe Eucharist. He gives expression to this conception when he comments on Chrstians approaching the ala for eu- chars communion: "You drew nest, then, tthe ala, you raeived the body of Christ. sen once more what sacraments You received. Listen to what ly David says. For in the apt he Toresaw these mysteries and replced and sid that nothing was lacking to him. Why so? Because those who have received the body of Chris il ever hunger again." In Ambrose’ ees, no dificult is erated by the fac that David preceded Crist fort was “in the spit” that David "foresve” the celebration of these mycteries. He regard this participation ‘in the spirit” as uttery rel; anyone who had sucha sacamen- tal experience was notin any way deprived by comparison with the fathfl who come ater Ci. IE David wrote the pln with his eye onthe Buchart, we must ‘conclude thatthe typological perspective ofthe text part ofthe a authors expt intention. I we adopt this viewpoint, then typology doesnot simply supply us with the “fuller meaning” (Gesus plow) ofthe passage; rather it gives us the meaning of {he text a6 such that the "only" meaning intone by the futhor or what we would cll the “teal sense,” In other words because David foresaw the Eucharist “inthe spn" he decided to write palin that would speak ofthe Eucharist. On the buss ofthis passage, we must say that Ambrose includes in eu- churlstc typology not only the extemal agpects—lable and cup— Dat also the theological content ofthe body passion and eternal divinity of Cit hich he eads asthe themes of redemption land creation, To pu it dferenly the ene passage cited fom ‘Palm 22 desabes the Euchalt If David wanted for nothing, the reason is that those who are nourished by the bey of Christ will not hunger forever. Davi, therefore, had the opportunity to communicate sacramental in the body of Christ, even if only “in the spints but the restriction “in the spin” in no way diminishes the realism of David's “com- ‘munion.” This follows from the very “sacramental” nature ofthe eucharistic commurion of Christians; Ambrose can therefore pro- ‘ose David asa model forthe behavior of Chstans who ape prooch the sacrament. . Contin IE flows from tis lengthy discussion thatthe bibl! typology ‘sed in commenting on rpc actions provides an exlanation land a “sficient reason” for a doctrine of the sacraments as both “realistic” and “ffacous.” But typology applied to the lturgy ‘is simply mystagogy, as I explained eater. hytagogy I, there fore, simply a form of sacramental theology or, more accurately, ‘of liturgical theology and sable fuly to explain and ensure the elcacy oflturgial actions since this efficacy i denial with Uthat ofthe evento inthe history ofalvation, This efficacy is comm bined with exteme realism since the rellm of the acaments fs the same as hat which the events themselves had when they ceaured in the history of salvation. (Our theologies today are exposed toa danger unknown to istagogy: the danger thatthe sacramental ecbration may end 8‘up being a duplicate of the historia saving event Since _mstagosial theology is based on the archetypal event a nar- rated in Scripture, i will never end up as an altemativesacra- ‘mental theology or sacramental theoogy that isin competion ‘wih the theology of salvation history. entity and versity this the essence of typological compari ‘One point let unexplained, atleast in Ambrose, is how and why this “igual” dent exts between the archetype and is cle- bration. Peshaps the explanation isto be found inthe singleness ofthe divine plon of salvation, ingsmuch as “revelation ofthe ‘nyteri is i eal an event that ie being accomplished ‘youghout the history razated by the srptures."™ [suggest as 1 hypothesis thatthe theology ofthe sacraments a “ikenesses" {s present in Ambrose as something that he has inherited from {he tradion but has not flly understood Another undeniable excellence of mystagogy and the typological ‘method s the dase connection between word and sacrament, for between Scripture and celebration, and therefore between faith (hich grows) and ste, Such a theological system lostes the sacraments inthe history of salvation which remains infact {nits histor dimension withoat being dupiatd. Ie remains tobe seen whether the theologies an spiritual riches {nthe typology of Ambrose are due to hss particle typological method, which makes euch abundant ase ofthe Old Testament, ‘or are aso possible when other hermeneutical methods are sed. CHAPTER THREE ‘Theodore of Mopsuestia isnot eaey to date with any accuracy the calechetical Homes ‘of Theodore of Mopsuesta ttf shall be discuesing inthis chap- ter. They were probably delivered after 385 and before 352. The current view is that they wore delivered at Asoc," bit it Is sore likly that they wore delivered at Tarsus or Mopsuestia since the liturgy on which they comment is mot the one which ‘Theodore’s contemporary, John Chrysostom, shows being cle brated at Antioch." ‘Thor are seventeon homies in ms. Mingana sy. 56) which has been edited by Raymond M. Tonneau and Robert Devas. ‘The manuscript itself leary divides them into te blocks, for thre i this note atthe end of te tenth homy “End of the ‘writing down ofthe tn homilies om the explanation of the reed by His Excelency Mar Theodore, fiend of Chit, bishop, and {nterpreter of the divine waltings." Immediately after, the elev nth homily bears this tie: “By your power our Lard Jesus ‘Cust, we begin to write down the explanation ofthe mysteries bythe same blessed Mar Theodore. Lord, help me and enable sme to each the end." Thistle i followed by one homily om the Our Father, three on bapismy and two on the Mas In the Syriac tradition, these two sets of homes are two distinct \woHls. Distinct does no, of couse, mean unseated, since atthe beginning of Homily 11 (on the Our Father, Theodare himself refers tothe preceding homies onthe Creed. The ancient wit ‘sees fo this work of Theodore give the same division into two ‘erie in A. Mingana’s opinion the Syriac tanalation mast have been made by two diferent individuals at two diferent 6