Five myths about worship in the early church

[laszlo]

please read the article, while it is an only source it still does a good job explaining it, and through the thread I have posted a couple of other sources.

The problem is that the article is not source.

Source would be th Bible, the Church Fathers, the Declarations of the Councils. The author declares statements without any attempt to prove them.

 

[benedictgal]

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?

Actually, as this was also the Institution of the Priesthood, since the Apostles would be “doing this in memory” of Jesus, that is to say, celebrating the Holy Sacrifice, it would stand to reason that they would receive in a manner similar to how the clergy receive, since they were ordained as priests of the New Covenant.

 

[benedictgal]

Actually I suspect all 5 were actual practices of the early church. I question your sole source…

I met Dr. Foley at the Society for Catholic Liturgy Conference in Houston this past year. He is quite knowledgeable and is quite renowned. The SCL is a very orthodox group. In fact, it counts Archbishop Augstine DiNoa as one of its member. Archbishop DiNoa serves as the secretary to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. It was an honor to have met Dr. Foley.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Actually, as this was also the Institution of the Priesthood, since the Apostles would be “doing this in memory” of Jesus, that is to say, celebrating the Holy Sacrifice, it would stand to reason that they would receive in a manner similar to how the clergy receive, since they were ordained as priests of the New Covenant.

Read Paul’s correction to the Church of Corinthians, 1 Corinthians chapter 11. There were some that had taken advantage of the meal setting.

I believe it was the growth of the Church, the volume of numbers, that brought about the changes for the Eucharist to be as it is today. Of course those changes slowly changed as the Church evolved to larger and larger states.

 

[benedictgal]

Read Paul’s correction to the Church of Corinthians, 1 Corinthians chapter 11. There were some that had taken advantage of the meal setting.

I believe it was the growth of the Church, the volume of numbers, that brought about the changes for the Eucharist to be as it is today. Of course those changes slowly changed as the Church evolved to larger and larger states.

The Corinthians were confusing the Holy Sacrifice with a meal. Furthermore, it does not say that they were even facing each other. With all due respect, you seem to be inferring something from the text that is not even there.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Corinthians were confusing the Holy Sacrifice with a meal. Furthermore, it does not say that they were even facing each other. With all due respect, you seem to be inferring something from the text that is not even there.

I never said they faced each other, I compared it to a meal setting, similar to the actual Last Supper.

1Co 11:20 When you come therefore together into one place, it is not now to eat the Lord’s supper.
1Co 11:21 For every one taketh before his own supper to eat. And one indeed is hungry and another is drunk.
1Co 11:22 What, have you no houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? Do I praise you? In this I praise you not.

1Co 11:33 Wherefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.
1Co 11:34 If any man be hungry, let him eat at home; that you come not together unto judgment. And the rest I will set in order, when I come.

 

[benedictgal]

I never said they faced each other, I compared it to a meal setting, similar to the actual Last Supper.

With all due respect, there is some confusion in your interpretation. Please note what Pope Benedict XVI wrote on the matter:

Misunderstanding of meal symbolism

This is, of course, a misunderstanding of the significance of the Roman basilica and of the positioning of its altar, and the representation of the Last Supper is also, to say the least, inaccurate. Consider, for example, what Louis Bouyer has to say on the subject:

The idea that celebration versus populum was the original form, indeed the way the Last Supper itself was celebrated, rests purely and simply on a mistaken idea of what a banquet, Christian or even non-Christian, was like in antiquity. In the earliest days of Christianity the head of table never took his place facing the other participants. Everyone sat or lay on the convex side of an S-shaped or horseshoe-shaped table. Nowhere in Christian antiquity could anyone have come up with the idea that the man presiding at the meal had to take his place versus populum. The communal character of a meal was emphasized by precisely the opposite arrangement, namely, by the fact that everyone at the meal found himself on the same side of the table (54f).

In any case, there is a further point that we must add to this discussion of the ‘shape’ of meals: the Eucharist that Christians celebrate really cannot adequately be described by the term ‘meal’. True, Our Lord established the new reality of Christian worship within the framework of a Jewish (Passover) meal, but it was precisely this new reality, not the meal as such, which He commanded us to repeat. Very soon the new reality was separated from its ancient context and found its proper and suitable form, a form already predetermined by the fact that the Eucharist refers back to the Cross and thus to the transformation of Temple sacrifice into the reasonable worship of God.

Furthermore, on the same subject, Fr. Uwe Michael Lang writes that:

When these texts use the phrase versus populum, they do not necessarily mean a visual connection between the people and the sacred action at the altar. It is by no means suggested here that nothing should limit, let alone block, the faithful’s view of the ritual acts of the celebrant. Such an interpretation would have seemed alien to the understanding of the liturgy that was common from Christian antiquity until well into the Middle Ages and is still found in the Eastern Churches. Thus it is hardly surprising to find that even with altars versus populum the sight was significantly restricted, for example, by curtains that were closed during certain parts of the liturgy or already by the architectural layout of the church.25

Both of these are consistent with what Dr. Foley has written.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

With all due respect, there is some confusion in your interpretation. Please note what Pope Benedict XVI wrote on the matter:

Furthermore, on the same subject, Fr. Uwe Michael Lang writes that:

Both of these are consistent with what Dr. Foley has written.

Maybe I’m not making myself clear, but I agree with this. I thought in my last post I conceded I did not mean they sat facing each other?

The writings I provided from Paul to the Corinthians shows they were actually treating as a meal, while some went hungry. At least that’s what I get from him telling them if they are hungry to eat at home.

 

[benedictgal]

Maybe I’m not making myself clear, but I agree with this. I thought in my last post I conceded I did not mean they sat facing each other?

The writings I provided from Paul to the Corinthians shows they were actually treating as a meal, while some went hungry. At least that’s what I get from him telling them if they are hungry to eat at home.

Fair enough.

 

[ElToro]

The Corinthians were confusing the Holy Sacrifice with a meal. Furthermore, it does not say that they were even facing each other. With all due respect, you seem to be inferring something from the text that is not even there.

Everytime you type this phrase (and you type it a lot) it says the exact opposite to many.