The original liturgy:
The Roman liturgy:
Ephraim the Syrian
Ephraim the Syrian was from Edessa, where he died in 373. Edessa is very close to where it is alleged that a Eunomian Bishop Julian of Cilicia, a heretic, wrote Apostolic Constitutions in c375-380. Athanasius also died in 373, but he was far away in Alexandria. As we discussed in the Part 17: Interlude, this was an era of change. So let’s see if that change affected Ephraim, who very close indeed to the heart of the change.
— Fish Eaters
Our Lord Jesus took in His hands what in the beginning was only bread; and He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy in the name of the Father and in the name of the Spirit; and He broke it and in His gracious kindness He distributed it to all His disciples one by one. He called the bread His living Body, and did Himself fill it with Himself and the Spirit. And extending His hand, He gave them the Bread which His right hand had made holy: “Take, all of you eat of this, which My word has made holy. Do not now regard as bread that which I have given you; but take, eat this Bread, and do not scatter the crumbs; for what I have called My Body, that it is indeed. One particle from its crumbs is able to sanctify thousands and thousands, and is sufficient to afford life to those who eat of it. Take, eat, entertaining no doubt of faith, because this is My Body, and whoever eats it in belief eats in it Fire and Spirit. But if any doubter eat of it, for him it will be only bread. And whoever eats in belief the Bread made holy in My name, if he be pure, he will be preserved in his purity; and if he be a sinner, he will be forgiven.” But if anyone despise it or reject it or treat it with ignominy, it may be taken as a certainty that he treats with ignominy the Son, who called it and actually made it to be His Body.
After the disciples had eaten the new and holy Bread, and when they understood by faith that they had eaten of Christ’s body, Christ went on to explain and to give them the whole Sacrament. He took and mixed a cup of wine. Then He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy, declaring that it was His own Blood, which was about to be poured out…Christ commanded them to drink, and He explained to them that the cup which they were drinking was His own Blood: “This is truly My Blood, which is shed for all of you. Take, all of you, drink of this, because it is a new covenant in My Blood. As you have seen Me do, do you also in My memory. Whenever you are gathered together in My name in Churches everywhere, do what I have done, in memory of Me. Eat My Body, and drink My Blood, a covenant new and old.”
This quotation is a very common selection among Roman Catholic apologists. Here Ephraim says:
This is a stunning statement, so different from the writings that came before it, for two reasons.
First, he describes a (4-5) Lord’s Supper without a (1) Dismissal, for he allowed sinners to participate. If you wondered how that got lost in history, here is how it happened: they simply stopped requiring the unbelievers, catechumens, and backsliders to leave the service at the start of the Eucharist.
Second, he describes the consumption of the elements in the Lord’s Supper as bringing forgiveness. Although we did not remark on it at the time, we’ve actually seen this teaching before in another contemporary document from a close neighbor geographically:
Citation: “Apostolic Constitutions, Book VIII.” §12
Here too we see the idea developing that the consumption of the consecrated bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper are themselves a propitiatory sacrifice, and not merely symbols and a remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice. But, while the Roman Catholic church has declared Apostolic Constitutions a work of heretics, it comports with Ephraim, rather than the earlier patristic writers! Was Saint Ephraim secretly a heretic?
We should pause here and note that Ephraim was a poet. His hundreds of writings are full of metaphor and symbolism. One must be careful not to read of themselves into what Ephraim himself said. We cannot be sure how much artistic license Ephraim has taken here. So it is best to keep that in mind as we continue.
Once again we note two things.
First, Ephraim’s symbolism is showing through when he speaks of “eating it in Fire and Spirit.”
Second, Ephraim’s statement is mutually contradictory with transubstantiation. In the Roman liturgy, once the bread is consecrated it is the literal body and blood of Christ. For a sinner to eat it would be to heap judgment and the wrath of God upon them. But Ephraim says that the consecrated bread in the unbeliever is just bread.
it revives spiritual ones in a spiritual manner.
But the one who takes it in a bodily manner
takes it indiscreetly and uselessly.
Let the mind take the bread of the Compassionate One
in a discerning manner as the medicine of life.
Citation: Kathleen E. McVey (translator), “Ephrem the Syrian: Hymns.” p.97
Again, Ephraim describes how one’s beliefs change how the bread is physical received. This is, to put it bluntly, a heretical view. It certainly does not represent the Roman liturgy.
Now let’s return to the quotation that FishEaters cited:
As we saw above, Ephraim does not believe in transubstantiation, for if he believed in any transformation, it would be that the bread also transforms into the Holy Spirit. Is Ephraim suggesting that Roman Catholics sacrifice the Holy Spirit in the Mass? This is plainly absurd. Ephraim is not making any such claim, he is speaking in figurative language.
As we discussed in Part 13: Aphrahat the Persian Sage, this is factually incorrect and betrays a 4th-century ignorance of 1st century wine production and meal preparation methods. You can see how Ephraim has contributed to the (fake) liturgical significance of mixing water and wine together at the table, a point that would become hotly contested between the East and West centuries later. Interestingly, this error also exists in the Apostolic Constitutions:
The “coincidences” are beginning to pile up.
The bread and cup are truly the body and blood just as truly they are the new and old covenant. Ephraim the poet, as before, generously uses figures of speech.
In conclusion, we have certainly found hints of some aspects of the Roman liturgy—in particular the notion that the Lord’s Supper was propitiatory—but we’ve also found plenty of statements that directly contradict that same liturgy. Given the poetical nature of his work, with many figures-of-speech, I am hesitant to judge one way or the other. I will note, however, that some of Ephraim’s key view on the Eucharist and Lord’s Supper appear remarkably similar to those found in the Apostolic Constitutions, a work of supposed heresy crafted in the same period. If I had to guess, Ephraim was being influenced by whatever religious changes was going on in Asia Minor around 360s and 370s, but his poetical language hides whatever was actually going on and what he actually thought.
Whether ancient, Protestant, Orthodox, or Roman Catholic, I don’t think anyone would or should look to Ephraim as the main source of their liturgy.
