The meaning of the Liturgies of the Word and Eucharist did not change significantly over the course of the first five or six centuries of Christianity; however, what the elements are meant to symbolize have experienced several changes. By looking at several Christian texts from the Didache through Pseudo-Dionysius and Patriarch Germanus we can see how the theology behind the ritual, symbolism and practices of the Catholic Church changed to fit the political environment and sophistication level of the laity.

According to the tradition of Pseudo-Dionysius, the Church is a series of hierarchies, only to be known by the initiated. The entire basis and meaning of the liturgy is a hierarchy of reflections of the angels, archangels, cherubim and seraphim, all of which are subordinate to God. The goal of the hierarchy of Christian piety is to understand these hierarchies and to thereby achieve "likeness to and union with God" (P-D 200).

The "rite of the Illumination" as he calls baptism cannot be watched or participated in unless you are prepared, presumably through the intensive three year training set forth by Hyppolytus in his Apostolic Tradition two centuries before. Baptism is the act of becoming divinized, or being given the ability to one day become divine and only the truly inspired or "fired by love of transcendant reality" are prepared to partake of it. The act of baptism separates one's spiritual being from the physical, and the immersion in water represents this spiritual death by hiding the unprotected physical body. All other aspects and accoutrements of the ritual are used to remind the people of God's various powers, blessings and perfection.

The next thing he talks about is the eucharist or the "synaxis." He explains this element of the liturgy as the only way the other symbols of the hierarchy can be perfected and fully understood. It is the method one uses to pull all the scattered fragmented elements of one's life together. All the other elements of the Mass are to serve as a reminder of Gods sacredness and perfect holiness, and are not to be questioned or changed or contemplated because they are too esoteric for the common laity to comprehend. It is also interesting to note that only the priest and deacons partake of the bread and wine while the congregation is to be satisfied with seeing the body and blood of jesus Christ. These are the primary elements of the Mass that have any importance in and of themselves. Some of the other things that are used to augment the sacraments are music, scriptures and iconography. All of these things are used to serve as a reminder of what the sacraments mean, but also to prepare one's spirit, mind and heart for the reception of God into them, either by the viewing or partaking of the bread and wine. Their sacredness and holiness is stressed, to prevent challenge as well as to demonstrate the inexplicable nature of things sacred to God.

Pseudo-Dionysius did not write to be read or understood by the laity. He used very esoteric, obscure terminology and concepts that only could be understand by the noble and educated in the fifth century. The text very heavily relies on the reader's willingness to believe whatever they are told is sacred or holy and mystical and not to be questioned which underestimates the minds of it's audience.

On the other hand, Patriarch Germanus is very straightforward about what each individual element, either object or action, means and it's relevance to the other elements involved. He doesn't quite go so far as to explain the practical applications and origins of each thing, but what he's describing are the mystical attributes as honestly as they were defined at the time he was writing in the Greek Orthodox Church and as they were defined for the next six hundred years.

Germanus systematically takes the reader through the physical body of the church, mass and habitation, as well as the rites, ritual actions and prayers. He doesn't discuss baptism at all, and only goes in depth when talking about the Eucharist. Each of the peripheral elements of the Mass, the objects, dress, and physical parameters of the celebration are briefly discussed first. They are tied to other elements, biblical structures and quotes, however they are discussed in a very commonplace manner that is very literal and straightforward.

This tone changes somewhat when Germanus gets to the heart of the Mass, both physically and theologically. The Eucharist is not so much a re-enactment of what happened, but is rather actually happening again for the first time through the priest, acting as a medium for God. It is made very clear that the prayers of the clergy and the congregation are actually literal conversations with God, and the priest is merely expressing what God is saying. The bread and wine literally becomes the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in that room, not a symbolic representation thereof. There is a literal dialogue between the priest and God as he "changes the holy gifts" into body and blood. The language is very clear, leaves no doubt as to whether or not what's happening is really transformation or merely representational. It is also very clear that when speaking to the congregation, God is speaking through the priest, the angels through the deacons, and that the people are merely people being elucidated and elevated by the revelations of their superiors.

These two presentations of the meanings of the Liturgy are rather different in scope and theology. While they aren't necessarily contradictory in any way, they are written with entirely different purposes in mind, with entirely different abstractions behind them. Pseudo-Dionysius wrote for the educated nobility, his peers and fellow scholars, therefore his interpretation is very much symbolic and incorporeal and abstract. Patriarch Germanus, on the other hand, wrote for the common folk, for everyone to understand and learn from. His language is very beautiful and flowery, until he gets to the central part of the Liturgy in theology and in actuality. Pseudo Dionysius uses symbolic, esoteric language from begining to end, and he uses this to emphasize the mystical and incomprehensibility of the Liturgy. Whereas Germanus tries his best to get his readers to actually understand what is being said and what is going on, while still using beautiful language that occasionally obscures real meanings accidentally.

Both of these are very different from earlier Christian writings, like the Didache and the Apostolic Tradition of Hyppolitus because the earlier works were entirely bare bones, used for instruction, rather than description. They were also written in entirely different time periods where the importance of the main points without time-consuming embelleshementthat they couldn't risk for safety reasons. The earlier writings were also dealing with a much smaller area of people, only a generation or two separating them from the actual lifespan of Jesus Christ, thereby rendering elaborate explanation or description entirely unnecessary and irrelevant.

These two works both show important aspects and channels of development in the Christian Church, one being of clear unquestioning educated participation, the other of fearful, confused, mystical teachings to a bewildered people. Both have played key roles in the church throughout time, and it is hard to say which is more valid than the other. It is easy to lean toward the clear, concise approach taken by Patriarch Germanus because of our questioning culture, but at the same time one can see how it would be easy and more acceptable to a supersticious, suspicious culture like that of Medieveal Europe would better appreciate the mystical, mysterious and fear-inspiring. Either way, both represent equally valid philosophies and theologies that compliment each other and together create a more complete concept of the meanings of the Christian Liturgy.