Posted on 07/25/2010 10:11:59 AM PDT by NYer
Click the following link:
Ping!
interesting, the catholic church mass was then, is now, and will be...the same...
odd, thought we catholics made that up....
do we have any instructions from 155 a.d. for any protestant ‘services’????
We have to be careful when we equate the early services with the mass.. there was no prescribed responses and the communal prayers were not in Latin, but the native tongue. There were no vestments or relics on the altar or many of the other Jewish practices that the church later incorporated.
ML/NJ
If anyone would like to read the whole letter...
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.x.ii.iii.html
We have instructions for Pagan services from thousands of years before any Christian service ever happened. If the age of a religion is the only basis of spiritual truth, I guess we’re all heathens.
No, the Catholic Church has never been about following some historical model to the letter, because the New Covenant was literally that: new.
The early Catholic liturgy was a combination of Jewish practice and a few pagan overlays; as the Church advanced, some services became more elaborate and Christianized certain pagan practices (carrying a processional parasol over the Pope on his way to a basilica, a church where he celebrated mass, for example).
The problem with Vatican II is that it rejected 2000 years of development in exchange for a fanciful version of the 2nd century.
Divine Liturgy in the Orthodox churches has changed little over the centuries. In 155 AD, it was Catholic Liturgy, although not Roman Catholic Liturgy. We are Catholics too.
Beautiful. Thank you for posting.
That video describes perfectly what we do every week in our non-denominational fundamentalist protestant congregation.
Song, prayer, reading and meditating on the Word, communion with the Lord.
All these years, and it’s still the same.
No. Apostasy, the “falling away,” had not yet occurred. The church was still young and adherant to the simplicity of the Gospel and the pattern set by Christ and his apostles.
There was not yet anything to “protest.”
I Tim. 4:1-3.
As a matter of fact yes we do: Nicea, August 24, A.D. 325, 7:41 p.m. "That was powerful preaching, Brother Athanasius. Powerful! Amen! I want to invite any of you folks in the back to approach the altar here and receive the Lord into your hearts. Just come on up. We've got brothers and sisters up here who can lead you through the Sinner's Prayer. Amen! And as this Council of Nicea comes to an end, I want to remind Brother Eusebius to bring the grape juice for tomorrow's closing communion service . .
You can read the rest of here: http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.4/coverstory.html
Answer: Yes, it's called the Holy Bible
AMEN!!!
one of our priests once said the mass is like the early Jewish rituals
fatboy:
You mean the Sacred Scriptures that were not yet codified into the NT canon that was eventually settled at the Councils of Rome (382 AD), Hippo (393 AD), Carthage (397 AD) which are attested to in the writings of St. Augustine and Pope Innocent.
So what did the early Church Liturgy look like, well the essentials are laid out in Acts 2:42 “the devoted themselves to the teachings of the Apostles and to the communal life and to the Breaking of the bread and to the Prayers.”
So teachings of the Apostles would eventually relate to what books were allowed to be read in the Liturgy, the Prayers [well what are those prayers], early works such as the Didache (90-95AD) give us an insight and of course breaking of the bread is “Without A Doubt” a clear indication that the Holy Eucharist was heart and center of Christian Liturgy/Worship.
tsk, tsk,
Wrong. The "Holy Bible" of the Catholic Church had to wait another 150 or years to be completed by the Church, and that of the Protesters another 1,300 years.
Individual churches in the 2nd century AD had various writings that make up the current Bibles, but they also had many writings that don't. Justin Martyr himself only references the Gospels.
Good Post! They believed in the real presence being eaten. They knew what it meant from the Apostles. “Truly, truly this is my Body.”
You are right about the kneelers & pews, but
1) there actually were prescribed responses to the liturgy back then. I’ll have to look up the exact reference.
2) there were relics on the altar—the Eucharist in the catacombs was offered right on the tombs of the martyrs for exactly that purpose. That’s where our modern custom of relics in the altar comes from.
3) the liturgy in Rome was, as far as we know, offered in Greek for the first 200 years or so. Which was not, obviously, the language of your typical Roman. So even back then, if you were an uneducated Roman, you were very likely going to a liturgy in a foreign tongue and not your native one.
Perhaps they searched other writings themselves and compared them to scripture and found out those things were not so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.