Reconsidering the Word–Sacrament and Scripture–Liturgy Debate: A Patristic Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is very well written and follows the thread it sets out at the beginning, developing it over several chapters based on patristic and liturgical sources. The connection between the chapters is well established. The secondary literature used shows that the author is well versed in the subject.

Author Response

Comments 1: The study is very well written and follows the thread it sets out at the beginning, developing it over several chapters based on patristic and liturgical sources. The connection between the chapters is well established. The secondary literature used shows that the author is well versed in the subject.

Response: Thank you very much for your kind words and especially for taking the time to read my article.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors This paper aims to offer a patristic perspective on the much-debated topic of the relationship between Scripture and Liturgy, or between Word and Sacrament. In the author's opinion, the artificial separation between these terms, which appeared during the Protestant Reformation and the Counter-Reformation, is absent in Eastern patristic thought, where Scripture and Liturgy, Word and Sacrament belong to the unique life of the Church, being complementary ways of sharing Christ. The first part of the study aims to present Tradition as the life of the Church and the genuine matrix of Scripture and the Sacraments, so that the Word and the Eucharist can then be presented as ways in which believers can share in one and the same Christ. The last part of the study discusses the actual relationship between the Bible and the Liturgy, between the Word and the Sacrament, and demonstrates their complementarity and unity from a threefold perspective: historical, liturgical, and mystagogical.       The present study is well documented, clearly structured, and uses an interdisciplinary approach, drawing on both patristic and specialized theological studies. The emphasis on Eastern patristic tradition offers a valuable correction to Western theological debates that have often understood Scripture and Tradition, or Word and Sacrament, as opposing terms. The article's emphasis on Tradition as “the life of the Church” and its Christological and ecclesiological foundation are particularly convincing, making it a significant contribution to liturgical theology and ecumenical dialogue.       The central axis of this study's argument is Prosper of Aquitaine's assertion that lex orandi has always been lex credendi in the Church. We recommend that the author integrate into his study the opinion of Father Alexander Schmemann on overcoming the current liturgical crisis, marked by formalism and secularism, through the rediscovery and updating of the relationship between lex orandi and lex credendi, by placing the Liturgy back at the center of the life of the Church.   Recommendation: Accept for publication with this minor revisions.  

Author Response

Comments 1: We recommend that the author integrate into his study the opinion of Father Alexander Schmemann on overcoming the current liturgical crisis, marked by formalism and secularism, through the rediscovery and updating of the relationship between lex orandi and lex credendi, by placing the Liturgy back at the center of the life of the Church.  

Response 1: Thank you so much for your recommendation. I inserted this new text: 638-661: 

For Alexander Schmemann, rediscovering the patristic vision of the relationship between Word and Mystery, between the Bible and the Liturgy, is one of the solutions to the current liturgical crisis. In order for Lex orandi to be lex credendi, the Liturgy must once again become the Mystery of the Church par excellence and be linked to all aspects of the Church's life, which can only thus acquire an eschatological finality, escaping the purely material secular logic. The Holy Liturgy must once again be linked to all the Holy Sacraments of the Church as their fulfillment and crowning glory. Only in this way can the Liturgy give life to the Bible, only in this way can Tradition be perceived as the life of the Church and not another source of faith, and only in this way the Church can rediscover her missionary vocation, seeking the real and actual inclusion of all humanity in the mystical body of Christ: “The Church alone knows and keeps the /meaning of scripture, because in the sacrament of the word, accomplished in the church assembly, the Holy Spirit eternally gives life to the “flesh” of scripture, transforming it into “spirit and life.” Any genuine theology is rooted in this sacrament of the word, in the church assembly, in which the Spirit of God exhorts the Church herself—and not simply her individual members —into all truth. Thus, any “private” reading of scripture must be rooted in the Church: outside of the mind of the Church, outside of the divine-human life of the Church it can neither be heard nor truly interpreted. So, the sacrament of the word, accomplished in the church gathering in a twofold act - reading and proclamation - is the source of the growth of each and all together into the fulness of the mind of truth.” (Schmemann 1973, 79)

The Orthodox Church identifies itself with its worship, hence the importance of overcoming the current liturgical crisis by returning to missionary work and the beauty of early Christianity:

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author offers a contribution that is strongly committed to the patristic-neopatristic perspective. He addresses the relationship between liturgy and Scripture. He embeds this relationship in the discussion about Scripture and tradition that has been ongoing since the confessional era, particularly in Western Europe. He offers a consistent argument that makes it clear that, from an orthodox perspective, tradition also encompasses liturgy and that liturgy cannot be separated from Scripture or the Word. The patristic and neopatristic references are illuminating, and in this respect the essay is definitely worthy of publication.
However, in my opinion, it needs to be revised on a few other points in order to be unassailable.
1. This concerns above all the assertion that liturgy and Scripture were divided during the Reformation. For Martin Luther, in the Augustinian sense, the Lord's Supper was verbum visibile. He opposed tradition above all insofar as Rome claimed to be able to define it. The author should definitely cite original sources to support his sweeping statements about the Reformation and the Enlightenment.
2. The constant emphasis on Eastern patristics is confusing. However, Irenaeus, Jerome, Augustine and even Vincent of Lerinum are also quoted. Is such a strict division of patristics into East and West really appropriate? And where does Origen actually belong? I find the reference to an Eastern patristic perspective problematic even in the title!
3. Further reflection could be given to the problem of tradition and historically conditioned changes. How does one deal with the fact, as an Orthodox Christian, that essential liturgical texts date only from the early Middle Ages? There are certainly easy answers to this question with regard to pneumatology, but they should be incorporated.
4. Particular attention should be paid to the sharp distinction between Orthodoxy and other denominations, for example the results of the ecumenical dialogues on this topic, which have been virtually ignored. The Lutheran World Federation, for example, has already dealt with the topic in detail in its dialogues with Orthodox churches. According to these, the differences are by no means as stark as presented in the article. More recent publications on the subject, such as those by Elizabeth Maikraut, could also be taken into account.
After revising these four points, I consider the article to be worthy of publication.

Author Response

 

Thank you so much for your time and for your effort! Your comments really improuved the quality of my paper! Thank you very much! For further suggestions I am very grateful.

Comments 1: This concerns above all the assertion that liturgy and Scripture were divided during the Reformation. For Martin Luther, in the Augustinian sense, the Lord's Supper was verbum visibile. He opposed tradition above all insofar as Rome claimed to be able to define it. The author should definitely cite original sources to support his sweeping statements about the Reformation and the Enlightenment.

Response 1: Thank you so much for your observation! Your observation is correct and very fair. The statement is very general and requires citation of original sources. I have chosen to delete this paragraph (469-471) because the argument you rightly suggest would require a broader discussion and would diminish the coherence of the study's demonstration.

Comment 2: The constant emphasis on Eastern patristics is confusing. However, Irenaeus, Jerome, Augustine and even Vincent of Lerinum are also quoted. Is such a strict division of patristics into East and West really appropriate? And where does Origen actually belong? I find the reference to an Eastern patristic perspective problematic even in the title!

Response 2: Thank you for pointing that out. It is perfectly justified! I noticed this problem myself. Now at your suggestion I replaced it in the text: Eastern Patristic with Patristic.

Line 2: deleted: Eastern

Line 13: deleted Eastern, replaced: the patristic

Line 95: deleted Eastern, replaced with: Church Fathers

Line 97: deleted Eastern

Line 439: deleted Eastern

Line 451: deleted Eastern, replace with: the

Line 452: deleted Eastern, replaced with: Church Fathers

Line 475: deleted Eastern, replaced with: Church Fathers

Line 523: deleted Eastern, replaced with: the

Line 542: deleted Eastern

Line 570: deleted Eastern, replaced with: Church Fathers

Line 582: deleted Eastern

 

Comments 3: Further reflection could be given to the problem of tradition and historically conditioned changes. How does one deal with the fact, as an Orthodox Christian, that essential liturgical texts date only from the early Middle Ages? There are certainly easy answers to this question with regard to pneumatology, but they should be incorporated.

Response 3: This observation is very fair and correct. Thank you. I have inserted this paragraph:

Line 171-179

The main liturgical texts in use today in the Orthodox Churches date mainly from the early Middle Ages, but they are seen and received as the fruit of the crystallization of Tradition as a dynamic, Spirit-guided process. Although the written forms of liturgical texts, such as the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom or St. Basil the Great, were finalized in the early Middle Ages (approximately the 4th-9th centuries), their essential elements reflect the apostolic practices and oral traditions of the early Church. Liturgical texts have evolved organically over time, shaped by the needs of the community of believers under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They are the work of the whole Church and therefore transcend time and are always relevant. (Stăniloae 1986, p. 9).

Comments 4: Particular attention should be paid to the sharp distinction between Orthodoxy and other denominations, for example the results of the ecumenical dialogues on this topic, which have been virtually ignored. The Lutheran World Federation, for example, has already dealt with the topic in detail in its dialogues with Orthodox churches. According to these, the differences are by no means as stark as presented in the article. More recent publications on the subject, such as those by Elizabeth Maikraut, could also be taken into account.

Response 4: Thank you also for this observation! My article needed these very important clarifications regarding the impact on ecumenical dialogue! Thank you very much! I have added the following paragraph:

 

Line 676-696

This renewal also presupposes the existence of a constructive ecumenical dialogue that allows for rapprochement between confessions. The relationship between Word and Mystery has been and must continue to be the subject of discussion for interconfessional theological dialogue commissions (Saarinen, 1997; Hurskainen, 2013; Hellqvist, 2011). An edifying example in this regard is the dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Lutheran World Federation, which began in 1981 and addressed a number of important theological issues, including the relationship between Word and Sacrament. At the 10th meeting of the Dialogue Commission, the topic debated was: The Mystery of the Church: Word and Sacraments (Mysteria) (2000, Damascus), and the joint statements of the preparatory subcommittee in Chania (1999) and of the Joint Commission meeting in Damascus (2000) emphasize that the Word of God and the Sacraments are closely linked, being included in the great Mystery of the Church, and constitute determining factors in the mission of the Church and in the participation of the faithful in the new life in Christ. (Pricop 2013, pp. 343-345). They are and must be in the Church two related modes of the work of grace, the Mysteries being visible words and the word having a sacramental character. The life of the Church is revealed in Word and Mystery as life in Christ as God's gift through the Holy Spirit (Kretschmar 1999, p. 11). These common statements highlight the fact that closeness between confessions is possible when theology returns to its patristic sources, when common points of view become more important than theological differences. This is also the path that theology must follow in the future in the search for the much-desired unity of all Christians.

 

 

I inserted this notes:

 

Line 809-810

Kretschmar, Georg. 1999. Das Leben der Kirche in Wort und Sacrament. In: The Lutheran Federation, GS X8. 24, Ecumenical Affairs, Universal Interconfessional Dialogue, Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue, Preparatory Meeting for the Lutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission, Chania, Greece, 9-14 October, 1999.

Line 844-845

Pricop, Cosmin Daniel. 2013. From Espoo to Paphos: The Theological Dialogue of the Orthodox Churches with the Lutheran World Federation (1981-2008), Bukarest: Basilica Publishing House (Romanian Patriarchate).

Line 847

Saarinen, Risto. 1997. Faith and Holiness: Lutheran - Orthodox Dialogue 1959 -1994. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Line 787-788

Hurskainen, Heta. 2013. Ecumenical Social Ethics as the World Changed. Socio-Ethical Discussion in the Ecumenical Dialogue between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland 1970‒2008. Helsinki: Luther-Agricola-Gesellschaft.

Line 786-787

Hellqvist, Elina. 2011. The Church and its Boundaries. A Study of the Special Commission on Orthodox Participation in the World Council of Churches. Helsinki: Helsinki: Luther-Agricola-Gesellschaft 2011.