Church history

[MementoMori3283]

One thing at a time. Are you looking for bread recipes?

Or are you looking at the evolution of the anaphora?

I did not know the word anaphora. As I look at the presentation on Catholic Encyclopedia, I would say, yes, that is, in essence, what I desire: the evolution of the consecration. However, I find the presentation at Catholic Encyclopedia to be lacking a succinct answer.

 

[rpp]

I did not know the word anaphora. As I look at the presentation on Catholic Encyclopedia, I would say, yes, that is, in essence, what I desire: the evolution of the consecration. However, I find the presentation at Catholic Encyclopedia to be lacking a succinct answer.

How succinct can a two-thousand year history of 10+ different liturgies (Western and Eastern Churches) be? I mean, there is a bit of material there.

 

[MementoMori3283]

I mean, there is a bit of material there.

Exactly, and it’s all over the place - not succinct no offense

 

[mercygate]

How succinct can a two-thousand year history of 10+ different liturgies (Western and Eastern Churches) be? I mean, there is a bit of material there.

Some things do not lend themselves to the sound byte.

 

[palmas85]

ok - now we’re cooking - anyone gonna tackle the consecration - who and when, the rubric{if any} of the early Church and moving forward to today?

From everything I have read the Consecration is still just about the same as it was in the early Church. No real changes or if any very very minor ones. Lets remember also that prior to about the fourth century sources are sketchy and usually represent what happened in one particular Church and not necessarily what happened at all of them. There were great variations in form and practices until the Roman Church pulled everything together.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Just something to think about. The “evolution” of the “bread” has not changed. The understanding for most of the people has changed in learning what happens with the consecration. Almost all of the people did not have the philosophical, or theological depth of knowledge to make the distinctions we make when we say the substance is changed, but the accidents remain. I don’t even know if some of the apostles knew of the philosophical differences. **But they did know that it was bread no longer **and was in fact Jesus present among them.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[mercygate]

From everything I have read the Consecration is still just about the same as it was in the early Church. No real changes or if any very very minor ones. Lets remember also that prior to about the fourth century sources are sketchy and usually represent what happened in one particular Church and not necessarily what happened at all of them. There were great variations in form and practices until the Roman Church pulled everything together.

The Roman canon was pretty much as it now stands by the 8th Century. It was “tweaked” even up into the mid 20th Century. Here is a quick history of the Mass of Vatican II that gives some background on the four canons now in use.

 

[MementoMori3283]

Just something to think about. The “evolution” of the “bread” has not changed. The understanding for most of the people has changed in learning what happens with the consecration. Almost all of the people did not have the philosophical, or theological depth of knowledge to make the distinctions we make when we say the substance is changed, but the accidents remain. I don’t even know if some of the apostles knew of the philosophical differences. **But they did know that it was bread no longer **and was in fact Jesus present among them.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Again, Deacon Ed, you miss the mark. When discussing the “evolution” of the bread, it is the FORM of the bread which I am writing of. From a host as a loaf, to a host as a 1" disc as presented by palmas85.

As to transubstantiation, I would be happy to hear the development of the reality that Jesus is the substance after consecration while the accidents of bread and wine remain. St. John, St Augustine, St Thomas???

I realize that the apostles and the disciples understood that Jesus meant that This was His Body and His Blood. However, the epiclesis, for example, has it been so since the first Liturgy?

 

[mercygate]

Again, Deacon Ed, you miss the mark. When discussing the “evolution” of the bread, it is the FORM of the bread which I am writing of. From a host as a loaf, to a host as a 1" disc as presented by palmas85.

As to transubstantiation, I would be happy to hear the development of the reality that Jesus is the substance after consecration while the accidents of bread and wine remain. St. John, St Augustine, St Thomas???

I realize that the apostles and the disciples understood that Jesus meant that This was His Body and His Blood. However, the epiclesis, for example, has it been so since the first Liturgy?

Although you ask for concision in our responses, there is no concise answer to your questions. The answers require massive research into the history of the liturgies of both East and West. Is your question:

WHERE CAN I FIND THE HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LITURGY OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST?

Two thirds of finding an answer to a question is asking the right question.

 

[MementoMori3283]

Although you ask for concision in our responses, there is no concise answer to your questions. The answers require massive research into the history of the liturgies of both East and West. Is your question:

WHERE CAN I FIND THE HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LITURGY OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST?

Two thirds of finding an answer to a question is asking the right question.

I’m sorry if you felt that I was looking for an encyclopedia type response, I am not. I respond to Deacon Ed because it appears to me that he thinks I am confused about the nature of the Body and Blood while I am concerned with the form of the bread before consecration as described by palmas. I thoght the response there to be excellent. Simple responses from simple folk, detailed responses from, no offense as it is self implied, geeks such as rpp!

Basically, I’m just looking for conversation about our faith. I don’t want to debate or win an argument. Honest replies from honest people seeking to enrich their walk with Christ on this earth. Our ways are not God’s ways. It is painfully apparent that we humans have lacked understanding from the beginning.

mercygate:

Is your question:

WHERE CAN I FIND THE HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LITURGY OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST?

NO, and yes. Moreso, what I was attempting to show by the responses, is that the Church is organic in nature. I know that this is no revelation to most in these fora, but sometimes it just has to be said. The apostles thought Jesus was coming right back. I don’t believe they envisioned two thousand plus years! The Body of Christ we share today “looks” different than the Body shared then. By the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we have grown in wisdom and understanding, something our beloved apostles seemed not to have whilst walking with the Man.

This same Holy Spirit, promised to us by Christ, inspired the bride of Christ throughout Her history to the present day. Men and women who belong to her have corrupted themselves with their abuses of God’s children and the Liturgy. We can never deny the decrees and dogmas of Her, lest we deny Christ and the Paraclete sent to us.

So, I return to the question, or the QBQ, how have we grown in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and maybe what are we going to do with this knowledge?