Abstract
Some churches during the fourth century slowly surrounded the LP with a comfortable, yet firm, desire to be cautious with their precious pearl, which is to say that they sought to keep the LP from outsiders and to expand its importance throughout the life of the church. A furtive attitude toward the prayer may have already existed for some time in places like Tertullian’s and Cyprian’s Carthage in North Africa, as has been shown earlier. However, by the end of the fourth century, some notable authors developed what some scholars have called a discipline of the secret (disciplina arcani). The fourth century came to an end with some strong bishops, such as Ambrose of Milan, promoting a definite secrecy with regard to the LP. This teaching held that, along with other sacred mysteries of the church, like the Eucharist and the Creed, the LP was to be known by Christians alone and hidden from non-Christian outsiders, even those seeking to be baptized. The pearl of great price in any case was to be carefully handled and reverently cherished.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
For more on all of these and other such terms see Cheslyn Jones, Geoffrey Wainright, Edward Yarnold, eds., The Study ofthe Liturgy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), pp. 97ff.
Jerome, De Viris Illustribus, Chapter 84, “Juvencus, nobilissimi generis, Hispanus presbyter, quatuor Evangelia hexametris versibus paene ad verbum transferens, quatuor libros composuit, et nonnulla eodem transferens, quatuor libros composuit, et nonulla eodem metro ad sacramentorum ordinem pertinentia. Floruit sub Constantino principe.” The literature on Juvencus is limited but for more see Otto J. Kuhnmuench, Early Christian Latin Poets from the Fourth to the Sixth Century (Chicago: Loyola Univ. Press, 1929);
R. Herzog, Die Bibelepik der lateinischen Spätantike 1 (Munich: 1975);
J. Fontaine, Naissance de la poésie dans l’occident chrétien. IIIe–VIe siècles (Paris: Etudes augustiniennes, 1981);
M. A. Norton, “Prosopography of Juvencus” in J. M. F. Maricq (ed.) Leaders of Iberian Christianity (Boston: 1962);
I. Opelt, “Die Szenerie bei Iuvencus,” Vigiliae Christianae 19 (1975) 191–207. For editions ofthe Evangeliorum Libri IV see PL 19:53–546 and CSEL 24; CPL 1385.
F. J. E. Raby, A History of Christian Latin Poetry from the Beginnings to the Close of the Middle Ages (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953), pp. 17ff.;
Otto J. Kuhnmuench, Early Christian Latin Poets from the Fourth to the Sixth Centuries (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1929) 13ff.
Various other first names such as Caelius, Cellius, Caecilius, C. Caecilius, and Circilius have also been applied to Sedulius. The early manuscripts, however, only use Sedulius. Carl P. E. Springer, The Gospel as Epic in Late Antiquity: The Paschale Carmen of Sedulius (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1988), p. 29.
Springer, The Gospel as Epic, pp. 55ff.; A. J. O. J. Kuhnmuench, Early Christian Latin Poets (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1929), p. 13, also notes that there are 40 manuscripts of the Evangeliorum that are extant, with the oldest of them dating to the seventh or eighth century. Also, between 1490 and 1700, there were 28 printed editions of this work.
Springer has suggested that Sedulius taught philosophy and poetry in Italy, but wrote his works in Greece. His Paschale carmen neither confirms nor denies this. A. D. McDonald suggests that Sedulius was from southern France, northern Spain, or northern Italy, because Sedulius’ description of the slaughter of the innocents is similar to the iconographic tradition in those areas, namely, that the children were not killed by the sword, but dashed upon rocks. A. D. McDonald, “The Iconographic Tradition of Sedulius,” Speculum 8 (1933), pp. 150–156, also argued that there are parallels with the women at the tomb story. But Carl Springer has noted that Sedulius also may have been following Prudentius’ description of the infants of Bethlehem. Prudentius used the image of dashing upon rocks as well. Paschasius Radbertus claimed Sedulius was a rhetor Romanae ecclesiae (De partu virgine 2, PL 120:1385), but there is no firm evidence for this.
In the introduction, Sedulius admitted this title comes from a phrase in 1 Corinthians 5:5, “pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus” or “Christ our pasch (paschal lamb) has been sacrificed.” The focus is clearly on Christ the miracle worker, the one who has come as the lamb to perform the greatest miracle of all, to save the world. Critical editions of the Paschale carmen may be found in PL 19:433–752, which has a convenient side-by-side edition of the Paschale carmen and Paschale opus; CSEL 10; for partial English translations, see George Sigerson, The Easter Song (Dublin: Talbot Press Ltd., 1922),
R. A. Swanson, “Carmen Paschale I,” Classics Journal 52 (1957) 289–298
Kuhnmuench, Early Christian Latin Poets; and for Italian and Dutch translations, see F. Coraro, Sedulio poeta (1956)
N. Schefs, Sedulius Paschale Carmen Boek I en II (Delft: 1938).
Cf. J. P. Lewis, A Study of the Interpretation of Noah and the Flood in Jewish and Christian Literature (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1968), pp. 101–120.
Pierre de Labriolle, History and Literature of Christianity (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1968), p. 475 notes that Macedonius wanted him to rewrite the Paschale carmen in order to “repair (as he explains in the preface) the omissions which the angustia metricae necessitatis had imposed upon him.” The actual letter (Paschale opus, 171.29) reads in a translation by Michael
Robbers, Biblical Epic and Rhetorical Paraphrase in Late Antiquity (Liverpool: Francis Cairns, 1985), p. 79, “You have instructed me, reverent sir, to rewrite in rhetorical prose the text of my Paschale carmen which in humble performance of my duty of perfect devotion I presented to you to read. I feel myself wavering, uncertain in my judgment, whether you wanted the work duplicated because it pleased you or, as I am inclined to believe, you thought it should be written in a more unhampered style, because as it was, it displeased you. Nevertheless I have not resisted your holy commands but have undertaken the task enjoined on me …” Roberts believed, p. 80, that this text is not to be taken too seriously and that it is merely a rhetorical device for providing a justification for the opus. Roberts continued by arguing that Macedonius was not displeased and that Sedulius merely wanted to write his work again, this time without the constraints of meter.
For more, see Springer, Gospel as Epic, p. 82; E. R. Curtius, European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages. Trans. Willard Trask, (London: Rout-ledge and Kegan Paul, 1953), p. 148; Roberts, Biblical Epic and Rhetorical Paraphrase in Late Antiquity, pp. 78–79.
Edward Sievers, Heliand (1935 reprint of his 1878 edition); The Heliand: The Saxon Gospel, G. Ronald Murphy trans. and commentary (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992);
John Knight Bostock, A Handbook on Old High German Literature (1976) 168–186.
Francis and Clare, The Complete Works (New York: Paulist Press, 1982), p. 104;
Kajetan Esser, “Die dem hl. Franziskus von Assisi zugeschriebene ‘Expositio in Pater Noster,’” Collectanea Franciscana 40 (1970) 241–271.
Francis Mary Schwab, David of Augsburg’s ‘Pater Noster’ and the Authenticity of His German Works (München: C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1971).
Siegried Heinimann, Oratio Dominica Romanice (Tubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1988), pp. 80ff.
Kuhnmuench, Early Christian Latin Poets, p. 13, notes that Juvencus used the Vetus Itala Latin version of the Bible and that Juvencus was later on widely quoted and was even used in early church school textbooks. The Evangeliorum Libri IV survives in 40 MSS, the oldest of which dates to the seventh or eighth century; likewise, it was printed in 28 editions between 1490 and 1700. For various versions of paraphrased and poetic Pater Noster’s cf. Siegried Heinimann, Oratio Dominica Romanice and H. Walther, “Versifizierte Paternoster und Credo,” Revue du Moyen Age Latin 20 (1964), pp. 45–64.
Also, for an interesting comical later parody of the Lord’s Prayer cf. Paul Lehmann, Die Parodie im Mittelalter (Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1963), pp. 195ff.
An earlier version of this section of the chapter previously appeared in a slightly different form in Roy Hammerling, ed., A History of Prayer: The First to the Fifteenth Century (Leiden: Brill, 2008), pp. 167–182, where it is entitled “The Lord’s Prayer: The Cornerstone of Early Baptismal Catechesis.”
Fr. Petit, “Sur les catéchèses post-baptismales de saint Ambroise. A propos de De sacramentis IV, 29,” Revue Benedictine 68 (1958), pp. 156–265. Later on we will see that Ildephonsus of Toledo (d. 669) also taught the LP after baptism, but in his case, after baptism and before the Eucharist was celebrated; cf. Whitaker, Documents of the Baptismal Liturgy, p. 115.
Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogic Catechesis 5; Edward Yarnold, Cyril of Jerusalem, (London: Routledge, 2000), pp. 34–55, 182–187; SC 126, pp. 156–175.
Alexis James Doval, Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue: The Authorship the Mystagogia Catechesis (Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press: 2001), 160 who also points to Gregory Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy (London: Dacre Press, 1964), pp. 108–109, 130–131. Doval also points out that the Apostolic Constitutions, which date from the same period, state that the Our Father was prayed by recently baptized converts as a part of the baptismal rite after the chrismation (Apostolic Constitutions 3:18). Doval concludes that the LP became a part of the Eucharistic Liturgy in the early fourth century. He points also to Josef Andrewas Jungmann, The Mass of the Roman rite: Its Origins and Development (Missarum Sollemnia), trans. Francis A Brunner, 2 vols. (New York: Benziger, 1951–1955), 2:280.
who also points to Gregory Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy (London: Dacre Press, 1964) 108–109, 130–131. Doval also points out that the Apostolic Constitutions, which date from the same period, state that the Our Father was prayed by recently baptized converts as a part of the baptismal rite after the chrismation (Apostolic Constitutions 3:18). Doval concludes that the LP became a part of the Eucharistic Liturgy in the early fourth century.
He points also to Josef Andrewas Jungmann, The Mass of the Roman rite: Its Origins and Development (Missarum Sollemnia), trans. Francis A Brunner, 2 vols. (New York: Benziger, 1951–1955) 2:280.
Those wading in the water, awaiting baptism were asked, “Do you believe in God the Father?” and they responded by reciting the first article of the Creed. In turn, the questions, “Do you believe in God the Son?” and “God the Holy Spirit?” were asked and they in turn responded with the second and third articles. For more on this in Ambrose, see Epistolae 20.4; PL 16:1037. Also, for an analysis of the Milanese situation with regard to the baptismal rite down through the Carolingian Era, see F. D. C. Fisher, Christian Initiation, pp. 30ff. and Leonel L. Mitchell, “Ambrosian Baptismal Rites,” Studia Liturgica 1 (1962), pp. 241–253.
CSEL 32, p. 369, “Est etiam illa commendandae orationis et uoti disciplina, ut non diuulgemus orationem, sed abscondita teneamus mysteria, sicut tenuit Abraham, qui subcinericias fecit.” Translation in FC 42:391–392. Cf. Bouhot, Une ancienne homélie catéchétique, p. 71; Fr. Petit, “Sur les catéchéses post-baptismales de saint Ambroise. A propos de De sacramentis IV, 29,” Revue Bénedictine 68 (1958), pp. 156–265.
Cf. St. Ambrose, On the Sacraments and On the Mysteries, trans. T. Thompson, ed. and notes J.H. Srawley (London: SPCK, 1950), p. 4; FC 44, p. 266;
Ambrosius, De Sacramentis, De Mysteriis, ed. Josef Schmitz (Freiburg: Herder, 1990), pp. 9ff.
Cf. O. Faller’s introduction who edited Sancti Ambrosii Opera, pars vii, CSEL 73, (Vienna: Hoelder-Pichler-Tempsky, 1955).
Ambrose, On the Sacraments and On the Mysteries, trans. T. Thompson, ed. and notes J. H. Srawley, pp. 4ff. Others have offered alternate interpretations that are not completely satisfactory in light of this evidence. For example, L. L. Mitchell, “Ambrosian Baptismal Rites,” Studia Liturgica 1 (1962), p. 241.
The authorship of these two works has long been debated. More recent scholarship has tended to hold that these two works are authentic and that some of the problems with attributing them to Ambrose can be explained. For more on this, see Ambrose de Milan, Des Sacrements, Des Mysteréres, SC 25 (Paris: Tour-Maubourg, 1949), pp. 7ff.; St. Ambrose, On the Sacraments and On the Mysteries (London: S.P.C.K., 1950), pp. 3ff.
St. Ambrose, On the Sacraments and On the Mysteries (London: S.P.C.K., 1950) 3ff.
John Chrysostom, Baptismal Instructions (New York: Newman Press, 1963), p. 167; cf. Yarnold, The Awe-Inspiring Rite, p. 57.
This is certainly true in Ambrose and Cyril of Jerusalem, but numerous examples abound later on as well. For another example of this see Peter Chrysologus, Sermons 57 and 61; CCSL 24, pp. 318ff. and 341ff.; FC 17, pp. 103ff. For more on the disciplina arcani, see The Study of Liturgy, pp. 109–110; Edward Yarnold, The Awe-Inspiring Rites of Initiation (London: St. Paul Publications, 1971), pp. 11f, 50ff., 99ff.
Henry G. J. Beck, The Pastoral Care of Souls in South-East France During the Sixth Century (Rome: Apud Aedes Universitatis Gregorianae, 1950) notes how by the time of Caesarius of Arles (d. 543) this practice had completely disappeared in French lands, 182.
The manuscript tradition regarding the baptismal homilies of Chrysostom is complicated. For a good discussion of the three main manuscript traditions, aka the Montfaucon, Papadopoulos-Kerameus, and Stavronikita Series, see Paul W. Harkins, trans., St. John Chrysostom: Baptismal Instructions, ACW Series Vol. 31, (New York: Newman Press, 1963).
Augustine, Sermons 56–59; PL 38:377ff.; Edmund Hill, Augustine’s Sermons, Vol. III/3, pp. 95ff., especially see p. 125 n. 3; Pierre Patrick Verbraken, “Les Sermons CCXV et LVI de Saint Augustin De Symbolo et De Oratione Dominica,” Revue Benedictine, 68 (1958), pp. 5–40. Also cf. Froehlich, “The LP in Patristic Literature,” pp. 74ff.; Schnurr, Hören und Handeln, pp. 111–112.
The history of scrutinies is long and complicated. Early on, scrutiny simply meant the time when candidates for membership in the church were in the last stages of preparation for baptism; candidates underwent exorcisms and rigorous character analysis before they were allowed to enter the font. Later on, during the time of Augustine, scrutinies were used to determine whether adult candidates had learned the Creed and other central tenets of the Christian faith. Augustine did not use the term “scrutiny” (scrutinium), but the concept was certainly a part of the thinking and practice in his church. Whitaker, Documents of the Baptismal Liturgy, p. 256, also offers a broader definition, namely, that scrutinies later on were simply “any assembly in preparation for baptism.” For more on the history of catechesis and scrutinies, see Michel Dujarier, A History of the Catechumenate: The First Six Centuries (New York: William H. Sadlier, 1979);
John H. Westerhoff III and O. C. Edwards, Jr. eds., A Faithful Church: Issues in the History of Catechesis (Wilton, Connecticut: Morehouse-Barlow Co., Inc., 1981); Made, Not Born (Notre Dame, IN: Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1976);
Aidan Kavanaugh, The Shape of Batpism: The Rite of Christian Initiation (New York: Pueblo Pub. Co., 1978);
J. D. C. Fisher, Christian Initiation: Baptism in the Medieval West (London: S.P.C.K., 1965);
Josef Andreas Jungmann, Handing on the Faith (New York: Herder and Herder, 1959);
Lawrence D. Folkemer, “A Study of the Catechumenate,” Church History 15 (1946) 286–307; Adult Baptism and the Catechumenate 22 in Concilium: Theology in the Age of Renewal (New York: Paulist Press, 1967).
Lynch, Godparents and Kinship, p. 115, has noted that Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 4.25 is the first known reference to the baptismal font as a womb; cf. Walter Bedard, The Symbolism ofthe Baptismal Font in Early Christian Thought (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University Press, 1951), pp. 17–36;
Joseph C. Plumpe, Mater Ecclesia: An Inquiry into the Concept of the Church as Mother in Early Christianity (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University Press, 1943);
Karl Delahaye, Ecclesia Mater: Chez les Peres des Trois Premieres siécles (Paris: Latour-Maubourg, 1964)
Nathan Mitchell, “The Dissolution of the Rite of Christian Initiation,”, Made, Not Born (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1976), p. 52.
Jean-Paul Bouhot, “Une ancienne homélie catéchétique pour la tradition de l’oraison dominicale,” Augustinianum 20 (1980), pp. 71–72.
Puniet, “Les trois homélies catéchétiques,” RHV 6 (1905), p. 313, “L’Expositio Orationis Dominicae du sacramentaire Gélasian serait donc l’oeuvre de S. Chromatius, évéque d’ Aquilée de 388 à 408. Ce n’est évidemment qu’une hupothése, mais elle a pour elle bien des vraisemblances.” Since this sacramentary was very influential, Chromatius had a significant impact upon this later important baptismal rite. More will be said about Chromatius and the Gelasian Sacramentary later on.
Cf. Bouhot, Une ancienne homélie catéchétique, p. 72; Pierre de Puniet, Les trois homélies catéchétiques, RHV 4 (1904), pp. 505–521, 755–786; RHV 6 (1905): pp. 170–179, 304–318.
Puniet, Les trois homélies catéchétiques, RHV 6 (1905), pp. 315ff.
A list of the anonymous fifth-century LP commentaries are as follows: First, a sermon commonly attributed to Pseudo-Quodvultdeus on the LP has had some scholarly work done on it. G. Morin thought that the sermons of Quodvultdeus and a LP homily in Wolfenbuttel Codex 4096 (which is a collection of sermons attributed to Augustine) were similar, so he attributed this sermon to Quodvultdeus, who became bishop of Carthage ca. 437. Cf. G. Morin, Augustini tractatus (Kempten: 1917), p. 181, also Ps.-Quodvultdeus, De dominica oratione in PLS 3:299–303. For more on Quodvultdeus, see Augustine’s epistulae 221 and 223 and Augustine’s On Heresies (PL 42:21–50), and Quodvultdeus Depromissionibus Dei; SC 101; CCSL 60;
V. Saxer, Saints anciens d’ Afrique du Nord (Vatican City, 1979) 184ff. Many modern scholars, however, have considered Morin’s attribution impossible to confirm (cf. Schnurr, Horen und Handeln 235). The sermon is probably from fifth-century North Africa or Italy, and it most likely concerns the handing over of the LP to catechumens during Lent. The sermon may draw on Peter Chrysologus’ LP writings. For example, the style and content of the Pseudo-Quodvultdeus introduction echoes Chrysologus. The anonymous author boldly states, “Prayer pierces heaven, strikes the ears of God, obtains the key of indulgence, cleanses the vessel of our bodies, and adorns the temple of the spirit with holiness” (Ps- Quodvultdeus, De dominica oratione; PLS 3: 299). This evidence suggests that this sermon was preached no earlier than the 450’s (Schnurr, Horen und Handeln 235, 248, n. 42).
Third, another anonymous homily, known as Pseudo-Augustine Sermon 65 (PL 39) has drawn little scholarly interest. Klaus Schnurr and P. Vallin have written about it, but both admit that there is little to say concerning its historical context other than the fact that it is a typical LP catechetical sermon presented for catechumens probably from the fifth century; Schnurr, Horen und Handeln, pp. 135ff. and P. Vallin, “‘Prex Legitima’: Pseudo-Augustine, Sermon 65.1,” Revue des études Augustiniennes 26 (1980), pp. 303ff.
Fourth, a work entitled An Explanation of the Lord’s Prayer, which has been falsely attributed to Fortunatus in some manuscripts, has gone virtually undiscussed by scholars. For a list of early printed editions of the Fortunatus’ LP Commentary, see D. Tardi, Fortunat. Etude sur un dernier représentant de la poésie latine dans la Gaule mérovingienne (Paris, 1927), p. ix. for editions of these works, see PL 88:59–592 (PL 88:313–322 the Expositio orationis dominicae section), with the PL 88 being a reproduction of the edition of the Benedictine A. Lucchi (Rome, 1786–87). The critical edition is MGH, AA 4:1–2. The commentary appears in Book 10 of a collection entitled The Songs (the Carmina, aka the Miscellanea, Book 10). Significantly, it appears alongside An Explanation of the Apostles’ Creed (Expositio Symboli). For more on the manuscript tradition, see MGH Auctorum antiquissimorum 4/1, pp. v–xxv. Some believe that this LP sermon was written late in Fortunatus’ life (ca. 590–600, when he was a bishop).
Judith W. George, Venantius Fortunatus: A Latin Poet in Merovingian Gaul (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992) 208ff., talks about the differing views of Koebner and Meyer, who suggests that the later collection was made by friends of Venantius. A few scholars have accepted Venantius as the author of the LP homily simply because it appears in the critical edition, while others have remained skeptical. Some authors who have considered Fortunatus to be the author of the Expositio orationis dominicae are Joseph Vives, Morton W. Bloomfield, and G. Walsh. In the most detailed argument on this work, Walsh in a brief article, “Venantius Fortunatus,” The Month 120 (1960) 292–302, discusses the importance of this work in regard to the Fortunatus’ corpus. A thorough study of Fortunatus, by Judith W. George’s Venantius Fortunatus: A Latin Poet in Merovingian Gaul offers (in appendix 2, p. 210) a passing reference to the LP commentary: “Of the two final books (of the Carmina), the first poem in Book 10 is a prose dissertation on the Lord s Prayer, which appears to be incomplete.” In the critical edition itself, MGH AA 4/1, p. 24, Fridericus Leo has noted that there has been some dispute over various works of Fortunatus, but earlier editors included the Expositio orationis dominicae as being a part of the manuscript tradition, and therefore he included it in his critical edition. Teuffel’s History of Roman Literature by George C. W. Warr, vol. 2 (New York: Burt Franklin, 1967), p. 555 (paragraph 491.5) simply accepts Fortunatus’ authorship without any explanation why.
Paul Antin, however, in his comments on the Dictionnaire de Spiritualité noted in 5, 725, “On peut négliger son Expositio symboli d’apres Rufin (11,1; MGH, 253–258, et PL 88:345–351) et son Expositio orationis dominicae (10,1; MGH, 21–119, et PL 88:313–322) encore que ce dernier texte puisse donner lieu des remarques intéressantes.” Many standard reference works do not mention the Expositio orationis dominicae in their discussions of Fortunatus. In this regard, see especially the Lexicon für Theologie und Kircke Max Manitius, Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters 1 (München: C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung: 1911)
Michael Grant, Greek and Latin Authors: 800 B.C.-A.D. 1000 (New York: The H. W. Wilson Company, 1980)
F. J. E. Raby, A History of Secular Latin Poetry in the Middle Ages (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957) 1 Franz Brunhölzl, Geschichte der Lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters Internal evidence, however, suggests the probability that this work was written during the fifth century and therefore excludes the authorship of Fortunatus. One historic reference in particular points to this conclusion. The author argued that converts have the right to call God “Father” after baptism. However, after baptism, believers still may reject their heavenly Father if they stray from the faith by either doctrinal error or moral conduct. The notion that baptism can be undone is reminiscent of Caesarius of Arles writing on the LP, but does not suggest this author necessarily knew Caesarius, because the opposite may also be true, namely, that Caesarius knew this author and was borrowing from him/her. The author declared that God is not for “Arius, the Jews, Photinus, Manichaeus, and Sabellius,” and therefore whoever follows them has Satan as their Father. MGH AA 4.1:13, 223 states, “Also, it is well that [the words] ‘Our Father’ are added [to this prayer], because unless one believes rightly in Christ, he is not able to have a Father in heaven. For the Father himself is not for Arius, a Jew, Photinus [Bishop of Sirmium, d. 376], Manichaeus, Sabellius [third century] and the remaining pestilence, or those who have been cut down with a perversely poisonous scythe of an infected heart and of the worst kind of confession. These have been unjustly counted as being from the Son as much as from God our Father; [the heretic] sins against the Father [being of] the devil’s own fruit. Therefore the Father in heaven is for us, who rightly confess the Son on earth.” The Jews were often condemned by Christians for not recognizing Christ as the Messiah, and numerous LP commentaries reflect this sentiment; Photinus appears to be the bishop of Sirmium in Galatia (d. 376) who was condemned by both Eastern and Western churches during the fourth century for his Monarchian tendencies; Manichaeus and his followers challenged the Catholic church during the third to the fifth centuries; Sabellianism, for the most part, was of little concern by the fifth century, but Arianism troubled orthodox Christianity during the fourth to the sixth centuries and was considered a problem in parts of Europe (including France) until the seventh century.
Henry G. J. Beck, The Pastoral Care of Souls in South-East France During the Sixth Century (Rome: Universitatis Gergorianae, 1950), pp. 43, 184. A similar list of heretics comes from the fifth century Paschal Song of Sedulius, which attacked Sabellius, Arius, and the Jews. However, he made no mention of the Manichaeans or Photinus. For more on the context of Sedulius in these matters, see Carl P. E. Springer, The Gospel as Epic, pp. 36ff. The inclusion of Arius and the Jews might reflect the concerns of the late sixth and early seventh centuries, i.e., concerns from around the time of Fortunatus. However, the earlier heresies were not of particular concern during Fortunatus’ day. The practice of referring to earlier heresies by later authors is not uncommon; nevertheless, an earlier fifth century date would make more sense in light of the complete list. The baptismal catechetic context reflected in this work also points to a fifth century date. The author does not mention a Lenten handing over of the LP to converts and mentioned that it was only after baptism that the believer had a right to pray the words “Our Father.” Therefore, the work reflects Augustine’s theology on the LP, but not the later fifth-century ideas of Peter Chrysologus or Pseudo-Quodvultdeus. The sixth-century concerns of Caesarius of Arles to educate parents, godparents, and children with the LP in baptismal catechesis is completely absent from the Explanation of the Lord’s Prayer, which if it was written by Fortunatus, would have postdated Caesarius by half a century. Once again, a fifth-century date seems most probable.
The part of this chapter that deals with Augustine appears in a slightly different and earlier form in Roy Hammerling, ed., A History of Prayer: The First to the Fifteenth Century (Leiden: Brill, 2008), pp. 183–200, where it is entitled “St. Augustine of Hippo: Prayer as Sacrament.”
Roy Hammerling, “Gregory of Nyssa’s Sermons on the Lord’s Prayer: Lessons from the Classics,” Word and World 22 (Winter 2002), 64–70.
Gregory of Nyssa, The Lord’s Prayer, The Beattitudes, ACW, Vol. 18 (Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press, 1954), pp. 37–38;
Johannes F. Callahan, ed., Gregorii Nysseni: De Oratione Dominica, De Beatitudinibus (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), pp. 21–22.
Johannes F. Callahan, ed., Gregorii Nysseni: De Oratione Dominica, De Beatitudinibus (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), pp. ix–xxx.
For two excellent studies on Gregory of Nyssa and the Lord’s Prayer in the context of the Greco-Roman, world please read Michael Joseph Brown, “Piety and Proclamation: Gregory of Nyssa’s Sermons on the Lord’s Prayer” in Roy Hammerling, ed., A History of Prayer: The First to the Fifteenth Century (Leiden: Brill, 2008)
Brown’s The Lord’s Prayer through North African Eyes: A Window Early Christianity (New York: T & T Clark, 2005).
We cannot say for certain whether Gregory preferred the Holy Spirit version of the petition over the Kingdom of God petition. This petition clearly had a tradition in his area biblically, and maybe even liturgically and in private prayer. Later on, Maximus Confessor, another famous author, will also refer to this petition. Cf. Maximus Confessor, Selected Writings (New York: Paulist Press, 1985), pp. 107ff.
John Leinenweber ed., Letters of Saint Augustine (Liguoiri, Missouri: Triumph Books, 1992), p. 160.
Augustine, Regula Sancta Augustina 6.2 and 8.2; L. Verheijen, Le Règle de Saint Augustin (Paris, 1967), pp. 417–437;
George Lawless, Augustine of Hippo and His Monastic Rule (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987), pp. 99 and 103.
When researching Augustine’s view of the sacraments, one notices immediately that a recent comprehensive work on the subject is lacking. Secondary literature on this topic from the 1970’s is scarce. Most secondary sources tend to repeat the opinions stated by Frederic van der Meer in Augustinus der Seelsorger: Leben und Wirken des eines Kirchenvaters (Köln: J. P. Bachem, 1951), in English G. Battershaw and G. R. Lamb translators, Augustine the Bishop (London: Sheed & Ward, 1961).
Such an eschatological understanding of the LP was always a part of LP interpretations from the beginning, as has been noted. Again, cf. Raymond Brown, “The Pater Noster as an Eschatological Prayer,” Theological Studies 22 (1961), pp. 175–208.
Willy Rordorf, “The LP in the Light of its Liturgical Use in the Early Church,” Studia Liturgica 14 (1980/81), pp. 1–19
Norman Russell, Cyril of Alexandria (London: Routledge, 2000), 3–58.
Cassian, Conlationes 9.2, SC 42, p. 39; translation in Cassian, Conferences, trans. Colm Luibheid (New York: Paulist Press, 1985), p. 101: cf. Cassian, The Conferences, translated by Boniface Ramsey (New York: Paulist Press, 1997).
Much more could be said here, and indeed, something could be said about Saint Benedict, who died around 550, and falls just outside the timeframe of these chapters. However, since other modern scholars have written clearly about this, I encourage the reader to look at the excellent works of by Terrence Kardong and Columba Stewart on this topic, especially Columba Stewart’s “Prayer among the Benedictines” in Roy Hammerling, ed., A History of Prayer: The First to the Fifteenth Centuries (Leiden: Brill, 2008), pp. 201–222.
Copyright information
© 2010 Roy Hammerling
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hammerling, R. (2010). The Flowering of the Lord’s Prayer Tradition. In: The Lord’s Prayer in the Early Church. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230113084_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230113084_4
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-29016-1
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-11308-4
eBook Packages: Palgrave Religion & Philosophy CollectionPhilosophy and Religion (R0)