Five myths about worship in the early church

[catholictiger]

interesting article I stumbled upon.

I’m just going to post the 5myths go to the article itself to read everything else.

1. Mass facing the people.
2. Communion in the hand and under both kinds.
3. The vernacular.
4. Lay ministry.
5. The pre- vs. post-Constantinian Church

crisismagazine.com/2011/five-myths-about-worship-in-the-early-church

interesting read IMO.

 

[lauraabarlow]

 

[runningdude]

Meh. The article refutes some myths, encourages others:

Significantly, Benedict XVI, a careful student of the Church Fathers, no longer administers Communion in the hand.

Pope Benedict stated this was because people were saving Hosts distributed by him as souvenirs, a profoundly disrespectful practice that he in no way wanted to encourage. He continues to affirm the licitness of communion in the hand.

 

[rben20]

Great article. Thank you for sharing.

 

[PA650]

interesting article I stumbled upon.

I’m just going to post the 5myths go to the article itself to read everything else.

1. Mass facing the people.
2. Communion in the hand and under both kinds.
3. The vernacular.
4. Lay ministry.
5. The pre- vs. post-Constantinian Church

crisismagazine.com/2011/five-myths-about-worship-in-the-early-church

interesting read IMO.

Much of the rational for the innovations in today’s liturgy in the Roman Rite is due to the heresy of antiquarianism. The Tridentine Mass contains a plethora of apostolic elements that grew organically through the history of the Church unlike the assembled liturgy found in the Missal of Paul VI. Nevertheless, both forms of the Roman Rite are valid with one missal as the Ordinary Form and the other the Extraordinary Form.

 

[catholictiger]

Meh. The article refutes some myths, encourages others:

Pope Benedict stated this was because people were saving Hosts distributed by him as souvenirs, a profoundly disrespectful practice that he in no way wanted to encourage. He continues to affirm the licitness of communion in the hand.

I don’t see how your explanation states that this is a myth.

the reasons may not be behind the church fathers, but he i’m sure studied the church fathers. (he has given audiences on many of them)

and he refuses to give communion in the hand, only kneeling on the toung. I suspect that there was more to his reasoning to people are using it for souvenirs just the main reason.

Please show some other examples of myths they put forward.

 

[Catholic41506]

 

[Transformer]

1. Communion in the hand and under both kinds.

The article lists the above as a myth, but in its text it clearly points out that it is not a myth, and that Communion in the hand and reception under both species were practiced in the early Church (as was, of course, Communion on the tongue).

matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html

This quote in particular I find insulting:

In other words, Holy Communion was probably not administered in the fast-food manner we have today, with a “grab-and-go” system of multiple efficient lines that move from one station to the other, and the communicant touching the Host or Precious Cup with his own hands.

The system used for Communion in most US parishes has nothing to do with fast food. It strives for efficiency, but no more than the system of kneeling on communion rails does, and people move on right after receiving Christ, but they do that when using communion rails too. And as the article itself points out, lay people in the early Church did touch Christ with their own hands in many places.

 

[laszlo]

I feel somewhat uncomfortable with this article.

1. Mass facing the people. The Biblical Masses (either the Last Supper and described by St Paul were ‘among the people’ in diner setup of that time; not facing the people, but neither eastward or leading the people.
2. Communion in the hand and under both kinds. Same as for the previous point. Seder setup, giving the bread and cup as it is received in diner. Certainly the protestants inherited their liturgy from the late renaissance time, the Catholics made the change.
3. The vernacular. The language was the common language, the Greek, there was no attempt to keep the original Hebrew as the language on the last supper. As soon as the spoken language became Latin, so did the Mass (St Damasus)
4. Lay ministry. That may be truth, that those involved in ministry received the orders after Constantin. Before that being cleric was dangerous employment, not all became martyrs, but many were forced to flee, so we had to suppose that at least the viaticum was distributed by laymen. (Tarzicius, was 12 years old, unlikely ordained person)
5. The pre- vs. post-Constantinian Church. There were significant changes after the Church became free, at least in the West The celibacy was required as preselection for the clerics, soon the clerics started to live from the obligatory tithe, churches were built changing the form of the liturgy, so on.

 

[catholictiger]

The article lists the above as a myth, but in its text it clearly points out that it is not a myth, and that Communion in the hand and reception under both species were practiced in the early Church (as was, of course, Communion on the tongue).

matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html

I haven’t done much reading of it, but if it did occur I be shocked if it was the norm. Communion on the toung has always been the norm I would think, and I wouldn’t be surprised if on the hand is a new style of receiving the Eucharist.

This quote in particular I find insulting:

sorry that it came off that way

The system used for Communion in most US parishes has nothing to do with fast food. It strives for efficiency, but no more than the system of kneeling on communion rails does, and people move on right after receiving Christ, but they do that when using communion rails too. And as the article itself points out, lay people in the early Church did touch Christ with their own hands in many places.

who cares about efficiency, the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ, it should be received reverently. Kneeling on the tongue while kneeling is the most reverent way to receive it.

jump to about 27 min left in the audio feed of this link. It explains the fast food mentality

catholicunderground.com/2011/06/cu-episode-166-when-co-ed-just-isnt-okay/

btw I love this podcast check it out its enjoyable.

but Ill explain it the way they did. Its the people not the parish, a small percentage of people go up to the priest or minister, who don’t care to much about going to mass, and they just receive it cause they see others seeing it, and its easy.

Most people don’t have this mentality

I’ve seen this dis-reverence for the Eucharist plenty of times.

examples include

receiving it in the hand with one hand walking away then receiving it

receiving it in the hand holding a young child.

receiving it and moving to dump in the sacred blood.

and some others.

I wish everyone would receive it on the tongue I believe many parishes don’t have much reverence for Christ in the Eucharist.

some things include, talking inside the sanctuary after mass. Not atleast bowing to Christ when walking past the tabernacle, doing loud concerts in the presence of Christ (depending on what they are playing). Dancing in the presence of Christ.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I haven’t done much reading of it, but if it did occur I be shocked if it was the norm. Communion on the toung has always been the norm I would think, and I wouldn’t be surprised if on the hand is a new style of receiving the Eucharist.

Do you think Christ placed the ‘bread’ on the tongues of the Apostles while they were kneeling, or was it more of a meal setting?

 

[catholictiger]

I feel somewhat uncomfortable with this article.

1. Mass facing the people. The Biblical Masses (either the Last Supper and described by St Paul were ‘among the people’ in diner setup of that time; not facing the people, but neither eastward or leading the people.

kinda a week point the last supper was BEFORE the early church.

1. Communion in the hand and under both kinds. Same as for the previous point. Seder setup, giving the bread and cup as it is received in diner. Certainly the protestants inherited their liturgy from the late renaissance time, the Catholics made the change.

did you read the article this was dealt with. Also if we are called to receive it like diner, why is on the tongue the norm in the Catholic church, even the United States.

1. The vernacular. The language was the common language, the Greek, there was no attempt to keep the original Hebrew as the language on the last supper. As soon as the spoken language became Latin, so did the Mass (St Damasus)

again the article deals with this

1. Lay ministry. That may be truth, that those involved in ministry received the orders after Constantin. Before that being cleric was dangerous employment, not all became martyrs, but many were forced to flee, so we had to suppose that at least the viaticum was distributed by laymen. (Tarzicius, was 12 years old, unlikely ordained person)

what would be the point of subdeacons if the lay were inovlved with ministry as you say.

1. The pre- vs. post-Constantinian Church. There were significant changes after the Church became free, at least in the West The celibacy was required as preselection for the clerics, soon the clerics started to live from the obligatory tithe, churches were built changing the form of the liturgy, so on.

this doesn’t deal with the objection.

check out this link
catholicunderground.com/2011/06/cu-episode-166-when-co-ed-just-isnt-okay/

jump to 30 min left in the podcast.

 

[catholictiger]

Do you think Christ placed the ‘bread’ on the tongues of the Apostles while they were kneeling, or was it more of a meal setting?

you are correct but, when they had a mass, that inovlved people coming up to receive the Host the majority of the time it was on the tounge, not what we have today.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

These discussions of ‘everyone should receive on the tongue and while kneeling’ seem to say ‘because I do and no one is as holy as I am’.

The Church has the authority. Leave it to the Church, and like everyone else accept what the Church says is acceptable.

 

[ProVobis]

The article lists the above as a myth, but in its text it clearly points out that it is not a myth, and that Communion in the hand and reception under both species were practiced in the early Church (as was, of course, Communion on the tongue).

The article mentions it wasn’t practiced universally; the myth is that it was a universal practice. In any event two councils eventually condemned the practice in the Latin Rite.

 

[Sarika]

QUOTE=laszlo;8009549
2. Communion in the hand and under both kinds. Same as for the previous point. Seder setup, giving the bread and cup as it is received in diner. Certainly the protestants inherited their liturgy from the late renaissance time, the Catholics made the change.

But the recipients were Priests. It was the ordination night of the Apostles.

 

[ProVobis]

1. The vernacular. The language was the common language, the Greek, there was no attempt to keep the original Hebrew as the language on the last supper. As soon as the spoken language became Latin, so did the Mass (St Damasus)

Sort of. By the time Latin was used more extensively in the liturgy, the language became quite Christianized. For example, where the Romans understand oratio as “a speech,” Christians understood it as “prayer.” The singular form of gratias (“thanks”) become “grace (of God).” And so forth. I wouldn’t consider this Christianized Latin a vernacular normally used in everyday conversation.

 

[archangel04]

I don’t see how your explanation states that this is a myth.

the reasons may not be behind the church fathers, but he i’m sure studied the church fathers. (he has given audiences on many of them)

and he refuses to give communion in the hand, only kneeling on the toung. I suspect that there was more to his reasoning to people are using it for souvenirs just the main reason.

Please show some other examples of myths they put forward.

I have to agree. He could have easily have said communion on the tounge only, but he added kneeling as well. This was not accidental, there is much of a purpose behind his actions.

 

[catholictiger]

These discussions of ‘everyone should receive on the tongue and while kneeling’ seem to say ‘because I do and no one is as holy as I am’.

The Church has the authority. Leave it to the Church, and like everyone else accept what the Church says is acceptable.

I didn’t mean to make my post come off in that way

but this is certain. Communion on the tongue is considered the norm by the Catholic Church, I would think that for most people they should do the norm. But the way it is in many Catholic Parishes is that the norm is on the hand.

Communion on the hand is an exception that has to be approved by 2/3rds by the conference of Catholic bishops and then approved by the Vatican.

Communion on the tongue is the NORM.

Edit: if you don’t believe me, then you don’t know what holy mother church teaches, and what the pope preaches as the norm.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ap1KL2D5ae4

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I didn’t mean to make my post come off in that way

but this is certain. Communion on the tongue is considered the norm by the Catholic Church, I would think that for most people they should do the norm. But the way it is in many Catholic Parishes is that the norm is on the hand.

Communion on the hand is an exception that has to be approved by 2/3rds by the conference of Catholic bishops and then approved by the Vatican.

Communion on the Hand is the NORM.

Edit: if you don’t believe me, then you don’t know what holy mother church teaches, and what the pope preaches as the norm.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ap1KL2D5ae4

The ‘norm’ is what the Church tells us is acceptable, not what we tell each other it ‘should’ be. The Church has the authority to bind and loose, not the laity.