Abstract
This is the review of the second volume of Vladimir Latinovic’s trilogy, Christologie und Kommunion. The first volume was reviewed in Theological Studies, vol. 80, no. 2. The question driving L.’s research project is this: What is the cause of the diminution of the frequency in the faithful’s reception of the Eucharist in Christian late antiquity? His surprising answer is the affirmation of Christ’s divinity from Nicaea (325) to Chalcedon (451). As a result of this christological dogma, he argues, the lay faithful began fearing the body and blood of Christ, stopped receiving it, and instead adored it, a practice that became prevalent in the Middle Ages.
In this sequel, L. provides further support for his thesis on the cause of the reduction of frequency of Communion in the fourth and fifth centuries by examining the liturgical reception of homoousian Christology. Much is known about the developments of late antique Christology, but how it reached the masses of the lay faithful is largely unexplored. Adopting the principle of “lex orandi lex credendi” and “lex credendi lex orandi,” this book shows that this Christology spread to the masses through various liturgical elements. In investigating how these liturgical elements functioned as vehicles for the transmission of Nicene Christology to the faithful at large, L. uses what he calls the “geographical-comparative method” and traces the different ways in which the transmission took place, an extremely challenging and laborious process. In four chapters, we are introduced to Christian worship in the main provinces and cities of ancient Christianity including Palestine, Syria, Cappadocia, Antioch, Constantinople, Illyricum, Egypt, Rome, Milan, Ravenna, Spain, and Gaul.
The first chapter studies the transformation of prayers from being addressed to Christ (ad Christum) in the pre-Nicene period to being addressed to Christ God (Christus Deus) in the post-Nicene period. L. acknowledges that Christians prayed to Christ privately but argues that this was not the case in public, that is, in liturgical prayer. Over against Larry Hurtado and agreeing with James D. G. Dunn, he shows that as time passed liturgical prayers were more often directed to Christ instead of only to God the Father, and that there is not a single case in which the opposite is true. Importantly, these liturgical changes took place around the time when the new homoousian Christology was introduced in the geographical areas mentioned above, which shows clear evidence of the connection between Nicene Christology and liturgy. L.’s analysis of the vocabulary used in late antique liturgies shows that in the pre-Nicene period Christ was seldom addressed with the title “God,” whereas after Nicaea, there was, along with the increase in prayers addressed to Christ, a marked expansion in the liturgical use of the title “God” for Christ.
The second chapter examines doxologies and their transition from the “per” [through] form when they refer to Christ, which implies subordinationism, to the “et” [and] form, which reflects homoousian Christology with its affirmation of Christ’s divinity, and the development of the eucharistic or offering formulas (Spendeformeln). L.’s detailed study of a large number of doxologies shows how the change of a single syllable, from per to et, was used as a “weapon of war” (Kampfmittel) in christological disputes. On the other hand, the analysis of the Spendeformeln is somewhat less detailed, as not many of these are extant, perhaps because they were improvised by the priests and said orally, and not written down.
The third chapter analyzes homilies, catechesis, and other speech forms before and after Nicaea. The most effective way to spread the new christological doctrine was of course through sermons, of which, fortunately, many have survived. Nicene theologians made use of them to spread the homoousion Christology, just as they were used by Arians to oppose it. In the first volume, L. argued that it is Nicene Christology that was a novelty, not the Arian. There was an exception, however. Cyril of Jerusalem was not such a strong proponent of homoousian Christology, as his homiletic vocabulary shows. Such an example indicates that there was a direct connection between changes in Christology and changes in the liturgy. This connection is also evident in the reception of Nicene Christology in the West a century or two later, where the changes in doctrine were delayed but were also followed by those in the liturgy, following the same pattern.
The last chapter investigates hymns, songs, and poetry, again before and after Nicaea, which were among the most effective tools for transmitting doctrines to the masses. They functioned not only as a didactic tool but also as a source of entertainment, especially if the doctrine was put into music. L. gives some very interesting examples of how hymns were used in this regard. Constantinople was apparently the christological Broadway of its time (my words, not his). Empresses gave their mass-media experts (the eunuchs) the opportunity to practice their artistic and organizational skills and stage Christian liturgical processions, which not only attracted attention and helped increase church membership, but occasionally also led to turmoil and fistfights. This is again an excellent example of how lively the christological scene of late antiquity was.
This book, along with the first volume, evinces massive erudition and extensive scholarship. L. not only analyzes a cornucopia of texts in support of his thesis but also ranges over practically the entire ancient world in which Nicene Christology took hold. Furthermore, he writes clearly and concisely; it is a spectacular feat to master a sheer amount of sources, both primary and secondary, and pack such immense scholarly materials into some 250 pages. With these two works alone, L. has established himself as one of the foremost patristic scholars of his generation.
While we eagerly wait for the final volume, I most strongly recommend this volume to both advanced scholars and beginning students; the latter will benefit greatly from its clear summary of early christological developments and the helpful translation of key Greek and Latin texts (245–66). It would be a great service to the non-German theological readership if an intrepid English publisher undertook a translation of both volumes 1 and 2 of this trilogy.