Holy writ tells us that on the night of Passover, Jesus had instituted the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist:
… took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, ‘Take eat; this is My Body.’ Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.’
— Matthew 26:26-28.
Being that our Lord and the Apostles were Hebrews, the elements and customs used were Hebraic in nature. More elaborately, the ancient Hebrews would consider meals to be joyful occasions, which would be celebrated within their homes. Church historian Roger T. Beckwith stated that in accordance to the Mishnah:
“grace was said several times at meals, over each main dish, over bread, and over wine; and when people were eating together, most benedictions were said by one person for all, and a responsive grace was added at the end of the meal.”
— Jones, Cheslyn , Geoffrey Wainwright, Edward Yarnold SJ, and Paul Bradshaw, eds. 1992. The Study of Liturgy. Revised. Oxford University Press. Pg. 72.
The Liturgist and scholar C.P.M. Jones is also in agreement, and even suggested that the singularity of the cup could have been something which originated with Christ Himself:
The action and words concerning the bread precede the meal; those concerning the cup follow it. This pattern accords well with Jewish meal customs on solemn occasions. The bread-words accompany the normal action over the bread; the wine-words accompany the thanksgiving over the cup. The single, common cup, so essential to the symbolism, may not have been contemporary custom, but Jesus’ own idea.
— Jones, Cheslyn , Geoffrey Wainwright, Edward Yarnold SJ, and Paul Bradshaw. Pg. 195.
The use of bread and wine in worship is also evident when examining the Old Testament scriptures that were reverenced by the Hebrews. This can be seen in the case of Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18) as well as within the Levitical sacrifices (Leviticus 23:13-37).
This pattern used by Christ would be the one also used by His apostles; who then handed it down to the Church. On the subject of the liturgy, St. Paul the Apostle describes it as being sacramental in nature:
“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not communion of the body of Christ?”
— 1 Corinthians 10:15-16.
This is consistent with what we find in the 1st Century Treatise the Didache which is credited to the Apostles and their tradition (paradosis):
Now concerning the Thanksgiving (Eucharist), thus give thanks. First, concerning the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David Your servant, which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory forever. And concerning the broken bread: We thank You, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory forever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom; for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever. But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs.
— Didache, Chapter 9.
In addition, the bible speaks of there being a “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship in the breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42). In the original Greek, it more specifically says ‘ταῖς προσευχαῖς, or ‘the prayers’; suggesting a formalized structure of worship. These same words in Greek are used for Revelations 5:8 and Revelations 8:3, which both speak of the prayers of the saints rising as incense which are carried by the angels to God. [To the Orthodox Christian, there is an obvious connection to the liturgy in its current form, especially with the use of incense that mirrors this system in Heaven].
Take into account that liturgical prayer was attached to the everyday life of the devout Hebrew; which is what the earliest Church predominately consisted of ethnically. Thus, they would have fixed hours of prayer at the temple (Acts 3:1) though they would not partake in the sacrificial services and instead celebrate the eucharist in secret within the home of a Christian. [Source: Veselin Kesich. 2007. Formation and Struggles. Part I : The Church, A.D. 33-450 : The Birth of the Church Ad 33-200. Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press. Page 34-35].
This was the norm (Acts 2:45) prior to being excluded from the temple as a product of persecution from their anti-Christian cousins. This especially precipitated their dispersion into areas such as Antioch, especially with the martyrdom of St. Stephen the first Deacon (Acts 7:54-60).
As the Church grew and spread, so did the celebration of the Eucharist throughout the known world; especially with the incorporation of the Gentile nations into her. It was through Eucharistic gatherings and fellowship that barriers between ethnicities were transcended, and both Jew and Gentile “ate at the same table” [Green, Michael. 2004. Evangelism in the Early Church. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Pg. 253].
“In every city and village, churches were quickly established, filled with multitudes of people like a replenished threshing-floor.”
— Eusebius, Church History (Book II), 3:2.
Both Jewish and Gentiles collaboratively preserved the Apostolic tradition (Cf. 1 Cor 11:2 & Acts 20:7) in relation to the Eucharist, as evidenced in their writings (See Here). The growth of the Church also came with the gradual development of the liturgy; for prior to the fourth century, liturgical families did not possess distinct rites that would markedly set them apart from one another. Scholar of Church history and liturgist Fr. Athanasius Al-Makary explains:
The evolution of liturgies was gradual and did not attain a fixed form until much later. Initially, there existed considerable freedom in the execution of religious rites. Churches universally shared only the basic framework of prayer and its core significances, a legacy passed down from the earliest Christian community in Jerusalem. Over time, specific modes of worship and prayer texts began to take shape within various cities, disseminated among the faithful.
These practices proliferated, eventually developing into traditions and customs, which, in turn, solidified into established norms and canons. Initially, each ecclesiastical region—or diocese, as it is known today— possessed its unique anaphora, which refers to a specific form and text for the Eucharistic prayer. The early Church did not adhere to the notion of standardizing these Eucharistic prayers into a single, uniform structure, a concept that emerged subsequently.
— Athanasius al-Makary. 2024. The Divine Liturgy – the Mystery of the Kingdom – Book 1. Theology & Academy Press. Page 19.
With the Church becoming legalized preceding the Edict of Milan, discussions pertaining to important Christological and theological principles came to the surface of discussion due to the challenges presented by heretics. Consequently, heresy began to spread and would even impact the prayers of the local church. One such example of many being the grave errors of Arius. Granted, the Church in her wisdom standardized the liturgical prayers to suppress heresy and to “Hold fast the pattern of sound words” (2 Tim 1:13, Cf. Acts 2:42). This is why the dogmas of the faith can be found within the liturgy of the Church. [Athanasius al-Makary, Page 19].
Further Reading: The Church Preserves Her Dogmas in the Divine Liturgy per St. Basil’s treatise ‘De Spiritu Sancto’, Chapter 27:66:
“Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us “in a mystery” by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these m relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay;–no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ?
What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of tim invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching.
Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which oar fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learnt the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed: to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents.
What was the meaning of the mighty Moses in not making all the parts of the tabernacle open to every one? The profane he stationed without the sacred barriers; the first courts he conceded to the purer; the Levites alone he judged worthy of being servants of the Deity; sacrifices and burnt offerings and the rest of the priestly functions he allotted to the priests; one chosen out of all he admitted to the shrine, and even this one not always but on only one day in the year, and of this one day a time was fixed for his entry so that he might gaze on the Holy of Holies amazed at the strangeness and novelty of the sight. Moses was wise enough to know that contempt stretches to the trite and to the obvious, while a keen interest is naturally associated with the unusual and the unfamiliar.
In the same manner the Apostles and Fathers who laid down laws for the Church from the beginning thus guarded the awful dignity of the mysteries in secrecy and silence, for what is bruited abroad random among the common folk is no mystery at all. This is the reason for our tradition of unwritten precepts and practices, that the knowledge of our dogmas may not become neglected and contemned by the multitude through familiarity. “Dogma” and “Kerugma” are two distinct things; the former is observed in silence; the latter is proclaimed to all the world. One form of this silence is the obscurity employed in Scripture, which makes the meaning of “dogmas” difficult to be understood for the very advantage of the reader: Thus we all look to the East at our prayers, but few of us know that we are seeking our own old country, Paradise, which God planted in Eden in the East.
We pray standing, on the first day of the week, but we do not all know the reason. On the day of the resurrection (or “standing again” Grk. anastasis we remind ourselves of the grace given to us by standing at prayer, not only because we rose with Christ, and are bound to “seek those things which are above,” but because the day seems to us to be in some sense an image of the age which we expect, wherefore, though it is the beginning of days, it is not called by Moses first, but one.
For he says “There was evening, and there was morning, one day,” as though the same day often recurred. Now “one and “eighth” are the same, in itself distinctly indicating that really “one” and “eighth” of which the Psalmist makes mention in certain titles of the Psalms, the state which follows after this present time, the day which knows no waning or eventide, and no successor, that age which endeth not or groweth old. Of necessity, then, the church teaches her own foster children to offer their prayers on that day standing, to the end that through continual reminder of the endless life we may not neglect to make provision for our removal thither. Moreover all Pentecost is a reminder of the resurrection expected in the age to come. For that one and first day, if seven times multiplied by seven, completes the seven weeks of the holy Pentecost; for, beginning at the first, Pentecost ends with the same, making fifty revolutions through the like intervening days.
And so it is a likeness of eternity, beginning as it does and ending, as in a circling course, at the same point. On this day the rules of the church have educated us to prefer the upright attitude of prayer, for by their plain reminder they, as It were, make our mind to dwell no longer in the present but in the future. Moreover every time we fall upon our knees and rise from off them we shew by the very deed that by our sin we fell down to earth, and by the loving kindness of our Creator were called hack to heaven.”
Faith Unto Ages 