Why (Protestant) Millenials Long for (Catholic/Orthodox) Liturgy

The American Conservative ^ | Gracy Olmstead

[YogicCowboy]

There has always been such liturgy in “Protestant” denominations, if they are also doctrinally orthodox and conservative.

I never belonged to a Lutheran church that did not have structured liturgy, and formal hymns.

I had plenty of experience with “Anabaptist”/”Evangelical” modern services because of my non-denom schooling and associated friendships. They always seemed to me to be too much like live entertainment (too much rock and pop), without sufficient spiritual nourishment (too many empty calories).

I used to love a good CCM concert, but that was more about fellowship than worship. They are not the same thing.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Liturgy (set form and standards of orderly public prayer) and hierarchy (careful distinction of different gifts and roles --in the unity of one Spirit) are found in the Church from the very days when the Epistles were written.

Ignatius of Antioch describes such a service (LINK)and speaks of the importance of the clergy's role:

"Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons."

-Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.

Liturgical prayer (ca 150 AD) is described by Justin Martyr in his famous "First Apology" (LINK).

Excavations of the oldest known Christian House Church at Dura-Europos (in what is now Syria) also show hallmarks of liturgy. This was, at the latest, 257 AD. --- we know this because the whole city of Dura-Europos was depopulated and both the beautiful house-church and synagogue were destroyed after a Sassanian siege that year.

I do hope you'll go to those links --- and read more, there's lots, and it's fascinating.

St. Paul describes the need for orderly public prayer in his epistles. We know from Christian history that there was never an identified era where the Christian Church had no liturgy, defined as public prayer using a set order of service, canonical Scripture and official presiders: deacon, presbyter and/or bishop.

One of the murals at Dura-Europos.
Jesus the Good Shepherd
Built c. 244 AD.
Destroyed by ISIS, 2013 AD.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I think you will enjoy this at #22.

[YogicCowboy]

Half right.

The homoerotic (there is no such thing as homosexual) contingent - along with the Higher Criticism Frankfurt School alumni - are indeed captivated by the superficial trappings of religious spectacle devoid of genuine spirituality.

However, they are not enamored with the unambiguous doctrinal truth and emphatic moral accountability that accompanies the kind of liturgy being discussed.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thank you for your gracious words. That’s like water in the desert, my FRiend.

[MHGinTN]

If you don't conflate for deception what would you do on these threads. You opine/pontificate using Church as if your religion (catholiciism) is the only Church and thus the true church. The TRUTH you spit on is that ALL BELIVERS Saved By Faithing in Christ Jesus ARE THE ONE TRUE CHURCH. Catholicism is no longer even close to Christianity as the Scriptures convey it.

I wonder how many souls you will be responsible for leading down the wrong road so arduously?

[Mrs. Don-o]

"The TRUTH you spit on is that ALL BELIVERS Saved By Faithing in Christ Jesus ARE THE ONE TRUE CHURCH."

But I believe that. I've told you that. You as a believer are in the one true church. I don't understand why you can't tolerate my agreeing with you.

[ealgeone]

Keep’em coming, brother!

[MHGinTN]

You purposely use Church to designate both your religion’s Org and sometimes admit the TRUE CHURCH is made up of ALL BELIEVERS. Then you try this weasely word game as if you aren’t purposely conflating for empowering your Org. You are not serving the Lord Christ with your purposed deceptions.

[Biggirl]

Thank-you for that wonderful posting. God Bless.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"You purposely use Church to designate both your religion’s Org and sometimes admit the TRUE CHURCH is made up of ALL BELIEVERS..."

That's true, it's been true all along. I will gladly claim that statement, except that I'd drop the "sometimes admit" and substitute "gratefully proclaim." Straight statement:

"I purposely use Church both to designate my religion's org and to gratefully proclaim the TRUE CHURCH is made up of ALL BELIEVERS."

There. That's better.

These are not "purposed deception". I've been saying this from Day One.

This is not a program. It's a paradox.

My brother, are you baptized?

[Albion Wilde]

Have Christ; don’t need liturgy or formalism. Certainly don’t need to surrender my Christian liberty to denominational hierarchies.

I was so taken aback at the pridefulness of your response that I wrote a snarky post, but then deleted it. As usual, Mrs. Don-o responded with a thoughtful and tactful reply.

Americans are often confused between our proudly patriotic definition of liberty and the sort of liberty of which the scriptures speak:

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free..." —Luke 4:18

Our freedom in Christ is freedom from everlasting condemnation for sin; and it comes with an exhortation to spread the gospel. Being in community with others is a way to do just that with the younger generation or the unsaved who venture into a church looking for answers. Another fruit of the spirit is the sharing of the gifts and talents we have been given by God, sharing in ministries and charities, working in relationship with others to benefit those seeking the Lord. God has given each of us uniquely individual gifts so that the group effort is greater than that of the individual.

And last but most importantly, we are instructed to take the Lord's Supper. This is of course best done with great fidelity to the scriptures and in the company of other believers, in commemoration of the first Supper shared by the Messiah with his apostles.

It may be that you had an unpleasant experience with a congregation in the past, as have many of us had; but there are other congregations out there waiting for our unique contributions, providing we can offer them with humility to the service of the Lord.

[MHGinTN]

Don’t take the mark, woman. And yes I was baptised almost fifty years ago. I was born from above and then sought baptism. Have you been born again? ... Still striving for meriting eternal life?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thanks for confirming -— then you are a member of the Church. Yes, I was born again. And no, I have never thought it possible for me to merit eternal life, which would be something like a barnacle meriting an engineering degree because it’s attached to the hull of a nuclear sub.

[CondoleezzaProtege]

Food for thought regarding worship. Ping.

[CondoleezzaProtege]

Yes the photo above is of Notre Dame before the fire. May prayers continually be lifted for its glorious restoration. And for the spiritual restoration of all France and Europe. 🕊

[CondoleezzaProtege]

Thank you for sharing. I will need to take a look at those links. Indeed what I have always appreciated most about Catholic worship is the sense of continuity with and connection to the ancient church...and all the saints and pilgrims who have traversed this earth before us. 🕊

[MayflowerMadam]

“Burning thousands of people at the stake...”

In 1611, my ancestor was burned at the stake because he would not baptize his babies. He followed the Bible (never an infant baptism; baptism always followed the person’s individual decision to become a Christian).

[Zionist Conspirator]

I have myself made a religious journey that included investigating the ancient liturgical churches, so I would like to comment if I may. And I assure all readers that nothing I say is meant to be mean or hurtful. I just want to contribute to the conversation.

First, the idea that the ancient liturgical churches are "more conservative" than the low church evangelical denominations is false on its very face. It is the lowest of the low churches who still adhere to the traditional beliefs (and yes, some not so traditional, such as dispensationalism). The ancient churches seem to have all lost their spirit. They concentrate so much on differentiating themselves from "those people" in the trailer parks that they have distorted their own traditions (ie, accepting total Biblical inerrancy) to get mainstream culture to approve of them. And certainly the Catholic and Anglican are no way conservative. They're among the most liberal churches out there.

Even the ancient ethnic churches (about whom so many Americans are ignorant) aren't that conservative. For the most part they are ethnic heritage religions that no longer engage in deep theological thinking. Indeed, the Non-Chalcaedonian, Nestorian, and Chalcaedonian orthodox churches are totally MIA in our culture wars. As ethnic minorities and as the children of previously persecuted immigrants they probably retain some influence with the people who won't even listen to the rest of us. Why don't they use it?

My impression is that the priests and other ministers in these churches could be total atheists and no one would ever know it. It's beautiful ritual and a nice way to make a living, and as long as one recites the formulas one's real beliefs don't seem to matter that much. I myself once investigated the Armenian Church, which in my opinion has the most beautiful liturgy and ritual of all the churches, but it is strictly a national church where Armenian ethnicity is worshiped more than anything else. Also, Armenians tend to be left politically (at one church I attended the priest after the service started passing out bumper stickers for a local liberal Democrat (Armenian) politician. Furthermore in a talk with one priest I was told the Armenian Church was very tolerant and he knew a priest who was homosexual; he himself couldn't understand why anyone would be that way, but hey, it doesn't really seem to matter. However, if one were to pick one's religion on aesthetic grounds alone, the Armenian Church can't be beat.

And since the Armenians are the ultimate chrstian nationalists, doesn't it seem like they would be more active in the public arena defending the idea of a chrstian nation? Yet other than for Armenia and the other ancient homelands they seem totally bereft of any such arguments.

We do know, objectively, which ancient chrstian church is the most conservative. Everyone agrees that it is the Ethiopian, with its long, unmodified rituals and fasting practices and where most people don't take communion at all because they feel they are unworthy (mostly it's old women who take it). Plus, in America Ethiopia is an icon of "Blackness" and therefore disqualified and leftist by definition. And it's true that Haile Selassie supported the leftist civil rights movements. Also, Robert Welch, the founder and long time head of the John Birch Society, considered Ethiopia a Communist country and Haile Selassie a Communist dictator, and claimed that the Communists ruled Ethiopia primarily through the church. But then, he claimed a lot of things.

As surprising as it may sound, the Ethiopian is actually the second largest church in the world with the word "Orthodox" in its name (the biggest is the Russian).

Have any of these Europeanist palaeos ever been to a traditional, pre-modern Regular Baptist service in the Appalachians? That's probably the best example of traditional American folk religion still in existence. It's not liturgical, but watch a few on YouTube and see if it isn't exotic in its own way.

And my final point is this: chrstianity began as a "Protestant reformation" in Judaism. It was a rebellion against the rituals and ceremonial commandments of the Torah, and they were indisputedly given directly from the mouth of G-d! Liturgical chrstians are being hypocritical when they accept the original Protest puritanism when they speak in such glowing tones of liturgy and sacramentalism. If liturgy and sacrament were so important, why invent a new religion (whose rituals and holidays are of post-Biblical origin? It's especially maddening to hear them justify their rituals by invoking Leviticus, which only authorizes Jewish rituals and which these same chrstians insist has now been totally nullified ("fulfilled"). It is the nullification-of-the-Torah argument which almost all chrstians of all kinds agree. What's the good of nullifying one ritual if you're just going to replace it with another--and not a Biblically authorized ritual but a post-Biblical one one that developed slowly over time?

Nullification taken to its logical conclusion ends in low church Protestantism. Liturgicalism taken to its logical conclusion leads back to Judaism. "How long halt ye between two opinions?"

Unfortunately Noahides don't have a ritual of any kind (just prayer, study, and keeping the various commandments), but one could always convert to Orthodox Judaism (permitted, but not encouraged). True, the current Jewish ritual has very little pageantry (just men standing around praying), but that's because that's no really THE Jewish ritual. THE Jewish ritual took place in the Holy Temple and will resume when it is rebuilt. And when that day comes, I'm sure the world will see something that out-classes even the Armenians!!!

[MHGinTN]

IF you have been born again why are you teaching the Org fables regarding mary and striving to sustain salvation and Purgatory? These are contrary to the Gospel of God’s Grace in Christ Jesus. Do you not realize that your teaching is giving a prideful soul an ‘exception clause’ which does not have eternal Life contract? Paul addressed your type of ‘teaching’ as an ‘other religion’. That you cannot discern that has me convinced that you have not been born into God’s Family ... yet.