This sparked a memory about Bishop Flores’ homily to us ordinandi. He spoke of how a liturgy that does not lead to service was a broken liturgy. Along this same line of thought, the early church understood their identity in the context of what Christ did to the sacrificial system of the Old Testament. He ‘did away with it’ by replacing it with himself. To partake of the new ’sacrifice’ means to partake of the life of Christ, that is, all of his life, not just his death, resurrection and ascension (which of course culminate all of his life). Thus, we celebrate the liturgy of love and service in which the sacrifice we offer is not just a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving at the altar, but also a sacrifice of Christian ethic in everyday life. To bring this point home, we find the centrality of the public nature of the Christian life even before St. John Chrysostom:”The bodies of the animals whose blood the high priest brings into the sanctuary as a sin offering are burned outside the camp. Therefore, Jesus also suffered outside the gate, to consecrate the people by his own blood. Let us then go to him outside the camp, bearing the reproach that he bore. For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the one that is to come. Through him [then] let us continually offer God a sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of lips that confess his name. Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have; God is pleased by sacrifices of that kind. (Hebrews 13:11-16)”So deep this presupposition operated in the minds of the early Christians, that only until the third or fourth century, according to Robert Daly in, The Origins of the Christian Doctrine of Sacrifice, did the sacrifice become identified with the words of the prayer by the bishop in the Liturgy and less identified with “the practical living of the Christian life” (100). Of course there is a long complex history involved here involving the development of orders, the Reformation, the reforms of Trent, and the post-Vatican II liturgical development. However, I hold it as not uninteresting that a reduction in the public participation of Christians parrallels an increased devotional disposition that percieves the Eucharistic celebration more cultically or as merely a source for internal nourishment and less as a natural source of moral imperitave. Indeed, the res of the Eucharist is unitas corporis mystici, in the words of the Angelic Doctor. This impinges immediately on the moral character of all who are united in the body. Unity and charity are one. Also consider that on a subjective level the way we approach the Eucharist shapes our self-understanding and identity. Understanding all of this, we must ask the question, if the people of God had a better understanding, especially on the “gut level,” this truth, how would they understand their identity in the public sphere on this same “gut,” that is, symbolic, level?
