Liturgy

[wayseer]

In an age of the cult of the self I am wondering how liturgy might fit in with peoples practice.

There is a lot of Bible reading going on but not much understanding of what is being read. This is not necessarily the fault of the reader - the Church has actively created barriers to anyone who really wants to engage with the biblical texts.

But such is beside the point.

The point is that the Bible, as we know it, was not finalized until well into 4th century CE. Yes, there were various pieces of texts floating about and even when these were refined and made into narrative the time distance was into the 2nd century.

But what we had before all this textual stuff was liturgy. It was what people 'did' that was more important. Very few could read and there was precious little to ready anyway. Apart from Paul's letters (the real ones that is) there was not much else to go other than Hebrew scrolls and these were singular and not easily read even by those who could read.

So what the early followers of the Way did was - liturgy. In fact the 'Our Father' prayer probably came from what was being said during the liturgy rather than from some text. The Didache also indicates that liturgy was more important than reading text.

So I am left wondering - apart from RC and Anglican churches, how goes liturgy in other churches? What does the liturgy of the Eucharist actual mean in the 21st century - if anything? And I don't mean the grape juice and stale bread passed around one a month as a sort rememberance service for the dead which seems to pass for 'communion'.

I would be interested in your thoughts.

 

[wayseer]

Anyone?

 

[Carolyn]

Liturgy has been maintained also in Lutheran Churches, but only the conservative ones like Missouri Synod necessarily believe that the Bible is the Word of God inspired by the Holy Spirit. Martin Luther's break with the Roman church was all about the departure from the truth of God's Word as opposed to tradition. Ephesians 2:8-9 are the verses that set him on fire. He learned that he no longer needed to work for his salvation climbing steps on his knees or buy his salvation via indulgances. While many Lutherans have parted from the Bible, they still cling to their liturgy and maintain a dying church. Many have fallen victim to those unbelievers that sought to discredit the Bible via "higher texual criticism".
Only the Holy Spirit and the Word of God can give life to a church, and they tend to work together.

The church fathers of the first four centuries exchanged letters that contain all but 3 verses of the New Testament, including those excluded by the Alexandrian text. Even the Book of Mark was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, showing that Christians took refuge at the Quamran during their persecution.
The letters of the apostles were circulated among the churches and read at each meeting. It may be that the reason there are so many fragments is that they tore them and distributed them to those who could read. That is being done today in the persecuted churches of India and China. People haven't changed.

 

[John 8:32]

In an age of the cult of the self I am wondering how liturgy might fit in with peoples practice.

There is a lot of Bible reading going on but not much understanding of what is being read. This is not necessarily the fault of the reader - the Church has actively created barriers to anyone who really wants to engage with the biblical texts.

But such is beside the point.

The point is that the Bible, as we know it, was not finalized until well into 4th century CE. Yes, there were various pieces of texts floating about and even when these were refined and made into narrative the time distance was into the 2nd century.

But what we had before all this textual stuff was liturgy. It was what people 'did' that was more important. Very few could read and there was precious little to ready anyway. Apart from Paul's letters (the real ones that is) there was not much else to go other than Hebrew scrolls and these were singular and not easily read even by those who could read.

So what the early followers of the Way did was - liturgy. In fact the 'Our Father' prayer probably came from what was being said during the liturgy rather than from some text. The Didache also indicates that liturgy was more important than reading text.

So I am left wondering - apart from RC and Anglican churches, how goes liturgy in other churches? What does the liturgy of the Eucharist actual mean in the 21st century - if anything? And I don't mean the grape juice and stale bread passed around one a month as a sort rememberance service for the dead which seems to pass for 'communion'.

I would be interested in your thoughts.

???

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

This was the source...

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

The true church was not dependant on liturgy, they used the scriptures.

 

[smaller]

The entirety of N.T. understandings and teachings stem directly from O.T. writings that were long in place and in place in writing at the time of the emergence of Christianity.

The system you speak of that we see largely from Orthodox sects is a replication of a very similar dispensationary (sacerdotal) system that did not exist in the early christian church memberships, but developed over time largely reflecting what prior existed in Israel, a 'temple/synagogue/text/priest' system.

There are exactly zero examples in the N.T. of offerings being taken up for 'church buildings.' They 'sprang up' over time from believers meeting in their homes or wherever they were into more formalized and controlled systems. Today we have them splattered all over the planet on just about every street corner, all peddling their subjective systemic wares to the participating masses.

I might observe that over time the same 'type' or 'manner' of religious controllers stepped into the churches and moved them over time into just another replica of what the Jews had prior.

Same power mongers. Different days.

Early christianity presents the person as the temple and believers as the Body of Christ.

What we had develop over time is just another version of Jewish pre-Christ system.

Christ Himself could not have stood in the Jewish temple, reading or teaching as a Priest nor would He have been 'authorized' to do so.

The 'need' that is presented in Orthodoxy for their hierarchy and participation only role is not even a N.T. teaching.

The Spirit of Truth, The Spirit of Christ 'indwells' a believers heart by faith.

His Spirit is not something any man or system can 'dish out' or 'control' as much as men like to claim otherwise.

s

 

[John 8:32]

The entirety of N.T. understandings and teachings stem directly from O.T. writings that were long in place and in place in writing at the time of the emergence of Christianity.

The system you speak of that we see largely from Orthodox sects is a replication of a very similar dispensationary (sacerdotal) system that did not exist in the early christian church memberships, but developed over time largely reflecting what prior existed in Israel, a 'temple/synagogue/text/priest' system.

There are exactly zero examples in the N.T. of offerings being taken up for 'church buildings.' They 'sprang up' over time from believers meeting in their homes or wherever they were into more formalized and controlled systems. Today we have them splattered all over the planet on just about every street corner, all peddling their subjective systemic wares to the participating masses.

I might observe that over time the same 'type' or 'manner' of religious controllers stepped into the churches and moved them over time into just another replica of what the Jews had prior.

Same power mongers. Different days.

Early christianity presents the person as the temple and believers as the Body of Christ.

What we had develop over time is just another version of Jewish pre-Christ system.

Christ Himself could not have stood in the Jewish temple, reading or teaching as a Priest nor would He have been 'authorized' to do so.

The 'need' that is presented in Orthodoxy for their hierarchy and participation only role is not even a N.T. teaching.

The Spirit of Truth, The Spirit of Christ 'indwells' a believers heart by faith.

His Spirit is not something any man or system can 'dish out' or 'control' as much as men like to claim otherwise.

s

Excellent post smaller, you seem familiar with Nicolaitans. They are everywhere these days.

 

[smaller]

Excellent post smaller, you seem familiar with Nicolaitans. They are everywhere these days.

It is hard for any of us to keep this in mind:

Philippians 1:18
What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

Do I condemn these various systems and their participants? Never. That is where I draw my own line and also determine my participation. If such systems have a requirement of possible or factual eternal damnation or eternal death to another believer, I will not participate, period.

In my eyes God in Christ is quite and entirely capable of leading His Flock regardless of current diversities.

His Word and Spirit is quite entirely active in all of these engagements for those led to see same.

If Orthodoxy says Christ does not abide in the heart of those who call upon Him, I would say to them they do not see or understand by their imposed blinders.

Protestantism in general sprang up as a rejection to those types of systems and the men at war and power mongering therein.

There are 'Divine Reasonings' that will show how and why these things keep happening. And to me it remains a testimony to the validity of the Living Word, active today in front of our eyes, both to the arousal of good and of bad. That's just the 'way' things work out.

s

 

[Osgiliath]

Originally Posted By smaller,

Early christianity presents the person as the temple and believers as the Body of Christ.

What we had develop over time is just another version of Jewish pre-Christ system

.

Well said. That's exactly right.


All New Testament churches were in people's homes. No one ever even thought of 'going to church' as we think of it today. The earliest Christians knew "Ye are the temple of God."

Romans 16:5 "Likewise greet the church that is in their [Priscilla and Aquila's] house."

1 Timothy 3:15 "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church [the people] of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."

When Paul wrote these words, things were not as they are today. The thought of a church building, and the millions of dollars that go into such edifices, never once entered Paul's mind. Incorporating the means to fleece God's sheep of billions of dollars to build 'kingdoms of man' was the last thing in the world that should ever have been done. And yet it is big business today. And that is exactly what it is, big business............. not to mention what these 'Nicolaitan, Jezebel, Balaam' corporations teach:


Matthew 23:13 "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."


Do these churches think this is what they are doing? Of course not. They are "compassing heaven and earth to make millions more proselytes." Here is how these churches feel about the lies they are espousing to the world:

Revelation 3:17 "Because you say, I am rich, and increased with goods [have the Truths of God's Word], and have need of nothing; [But what is the Truth of their spiritual condition?] and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind [to the Truth], and naked."

 

[wayseer]

The true church was not dependant on liturgy, they used the scriptures.

Of dear - it's worst than I thought.

What 'scriptures' pray tell did 'they' use? Very few people could read let alone write. The 'scriptures' were not finalized until well into the 4th century. The texts that compose the NT had yet to written.

Other posts demonstrate the deplorably level of understanding of the Christian tradition which I choose not to even try to correct.

But thank you for posting.

 

[Free]

Of dear - it's worst than I thought.

What 'scriptures' pray tell did 'they' use? Very few people could read let alone write. The 'scriptures' were not finalized until well into the 4th century. The texts that compose the NT had yet to written.

Other posts demonstrate the deplorably level of understanding of the Christian tradition which I choose not to even try to correct.

Agreed.

Personally, I find the Anglican liturgy very moving and full of meaning. I think that the Reformers unfortunately ended up throwing out the baby with the bath-water in many regards, and much of the meaning and significance of the liturgy is lost in many denominations.

 

[wayseer]

Agreed.

Personally, I find the Anglican liturgy very moving and full of meaning. I think that the Reformers unfortunately ended up throwing out the baby with the bath-water in many regards, and much of the meaning and significance of the liturgy is lost in many denominations.

Thank you for your response and I agree - it's a matter of throwing out both the baby and the bathwater.

You have a point and unfortunately the liturgy became a symbol more of ecclesiastical power than that which points towards something else.

I wondering if liturgy might make a come back.

 

[Osgiliath]

Originally Posted By wayseer,

Unfortunately the liturgy became a symbol more of ecclesiastical power than that which points towards something else.

That is precisely the point I was making in one of those "deplorable posts" you referred to. I guess that point, which was the entire point of my post, was missed. Oh well, can't say I didn't try. 2

 

[wayseer]

Sorry - my humble apologies.

 

[John 8:32]

Of dear - it's worst than I thought.

What 'scriptures' pray tell did 'they' use? Very few people could read let alone write. The 'scriptures' were not finalized until well into the 4th century. The texts that compose the NT had yet to written.

Other posts demonstrate the deplorably level of understanding of the Christian tradition which I choose not to even try to correct.

But thank you for posting.

Ummm, lemme see, what scriptures could they have had?

Mat 12:3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;

Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Mat 21:16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?

Mar 12:10 And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:

Hmmm, me thinks...

Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

 

[wayseer]

Ummm, lemme see, what scriptures could they have had?

Good question.

We may not know what texts they had but we know what texts they did not have - and that was we call the NT. None of the NT authors had written anything , as far as we know, before Paul wrote his first letter to the Thessalonians, about 51 AD, some twenty years after the Death of Jesus.

Texts - scrolls actually - were very expensive to produce and there is no way every synagogue had a full set of Jewish scrolls.

My argument is that liturgy gave us things like baptism, the Eucharist, the Lord's prayer and symbols like crossing oneself.

 

[John 8:32]

Good question.

We may not know what texts they had but we know what texts they did not have - and that was we call the NT. None of the NT authors had written anything , as far as we know, before Paul wrote his first letter to the Thessalonians, about 51 AD, some twenty years after the Death of Jesus.

Texts - scrolls actually - were very expensive to produce and there is no way every synagogue had a full set of Jewish scrolls.

My argument is that liturgy gave us things like baptism, the Eucharist, the Lord's prayer and symbols like crossing oneself.

My friend, this is a dodge, they had the Masoretic texts carefully transcribed down through the ages. They had the O.T.

 

[wayseer]

My friend, this is a dodge, they had the Masoretic texts carefully transcribed down through the ages. They had the O.T.

The Masoretic texts were not completed until the Middle Ages.

I have already noted the early Christians had access to some OT scrolls.

 

[John 8:32]

The Masoretic texts were not completed until the Middle Ages.

I have already noted the early Christians had access to some OT scrolls.

Sorry, I mispoke and you are correct here, the Masoretic texts were compiled somewhere between the 7th and 10th centuries. On the other hand...

Most scholars agree that the Old Testament was composed and compiled between the 12th and the 2nd century BC. The books of the Old Testament were therefore completed before Jesus' birth. Jesus and his disciples based their teachings on them, referring to them as "the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms ... the scriptures"

- Wikipedia

They had the complete Old Testament at the time of Christ and the Apostles.

 

[wayseer]

Sorry, I mispoke and you are correct here, the Masoretic texts were compiled somewhere between the 7th and 10th centuries.

No problems - the whole process of how we got the biblical texts is complicated.

On the other hand...

- Wikipedia

They had the complete Old Testament at the time of Christ and the Apostles.

Depends on who one means by 'they' and what might constitute the OT. Remember the OT only became the OT when there was a NT - before that it was simple known as the Law and the Prophets or the TaNaK - depending on one's take. And there were no 'books' per se - there were scrolls. Texts were made into 'codexs' (something like large books) only when the technology became available sometime during the early first centuries - before that there were scrolls and no one carried around a complete set - both expensive and you needed a horse and large cart to carry them. The effect was that apart from the Temple, local synagogues might have two or three scrolls at the most - and these were probably written in Greek.