Recognition of Inspired Scripture and Early Christian Worship

[qui_est_ce]

In another thread, How early were Scriptural Works considered Scriptural the assertion was made that Scripture came from what was read at mass by the early Christians. The OP asserted that what the early Christians practiced was not the Liturgy in the Catholic understanding.

In order not to derail the above referenced thread, my question is two-fold:

-was the FOCUS of the first Christian “gatherings” mass (Eucharist, Liturgy) or was it the Word (Preaching)?

-did Scripture spring from these celebrations?

I look forward to a lively discussion on this topic.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The issue is really the canon of scripture. In ancient times, there were many documents that some people considered scripture, but were not recognized by everyone. For example, in the time of Christ, the Saducees only accepted the first five books of the Old Testament. The Essenes, if we can accept the conjectures of those studying the Dead Sea Scrolls, accepted some books that until recently were totally unknown.

The New Testament canon was not proclaimed until the late 4th Century, and by that time, there were dozens and dozens of books that some people wanted in the Bible (there are about 40 known “Gospels.”)

The Church accepted the Septaugent (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) as defining the Old Testament, and selected documents that were routinely read at mass for the New Testament.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Scripture says the faithful devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the** breaking of bread** and the prayers… (Acts 2:42)…which sounds a lot like a Liturgy, which you can really see in Scripture if you read The Lamb’s Supper. (EWTN link to Scott’s Lamb’s Supper talk)

Another interesting point. Even though the risen Jesus spoke of OT Scripture to the disciples, it was not until Jesus gave them the Eucharist (Lk. 24:30) that they were able to recognize Him “in the breaking of the bread” (Lk 24:35)

And you can see this evidenced in the early Church.

 

[qui_est_ce]

The issue is really the canon of scripture. In ancient times, there were many documents that some people considered scripture, but were not recognized by everyone. For example, in the time of Christ, the Saducees only accepted the first five books of the Old Testament. The Essenes, if we can accept the conjectures of those studying the Dead Sea Scrolls, accepted some books that until recently were totally unknown.

The New Testament canon was not proclaimed until the late 4th Century, and by that time, there were dozens and dozens of books that some people wanted in the Bible (there are about 40 known “Gospels.”)

The Church accepted the Septaugent (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) as defining the Old Testament, and selected documents that were routinely read at mass for the New Testament.

Thank you. The OP of the other thread disputes this, thereby implicitly maintaining the 27 books of the NT were already recoginized as inspired inerrant in the the church (small c) at the Apostolic era.

Since he was very strict about keeping “on topic” (dismissing any evidence from after 200) and maintaining that a negative “speculation” need not be defended, I started this thread.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Thank you. The OP of the other thread disputes this, thereby implicitly maintaining the 27 books of the NT were already recoginized as inspired inerrant in the the church (small c) at the Apostolic era.

Since he was very strict about keeping “on topic” (dismissing any evidence from after 200) and maintaining that a negative “speculation” need not be defended, I started this thread.

Go here:

earlychristianwritings.com/muratorian.html

The “Muratorian Canon” dates to the second half of the 2nd Century (usually considered from around 170 - 200 AD)

This document discusses books suitable to be read in Church – it does not correspond in several books to our current canon. Clearly, there was considerable debate about what today we call the New Testament.

Clearly the 27 books of the NT were not all recognized as inspired inerrant in the the church in those days.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Go here:

earlychristianwritings.com/muratorian.html

The “Muratorian Canon” dates to the second half of the 2nd Century (usually considered from around 170 - 200 AD)

Thanks.

 

[Todd_Easton]

-was the FOCUS of the first Christian “gatherings” mass (Eucharist, Liturgy) or was it the Word (Preaching)?

St. Paul mentions that Christians assembled as a Church to celebrate “the Lord’s Supper” (1 Corinthians 11:20) and he mentions the importance of “the public reading of scripture,” “preaching,” and “teaching.” (1 Timothy 4:13) He also mentions that his own letters should be read to the brethren. (1 Thessalonians 5:27; Colossians 4:16)

St. Justin Martyr, writing about A.D. 155, describes the typical Sunday gatherings of Christians in some detail in his First Apology, chapter 67 (Also see chapters 61, 65, 66). He mentions both the public reading of the “memoirs” of the apostles or the writings of the prophets followed by instructions and exhortations by “the president” and the celebration of the Eucharist.

So, it seems, the Word and the Eucharist have always been important parts of the early Christian gatherings.

 

[qui_est_ce]

St. Paul mentions that Christians assembled as a Church to celebrate “the Lord’s Supper” (1 Corinthians 11:20) and he mentions the importance of “the public reading of scripture,” “preaching,” and “teaching.” (1 Timothy 4:13) He also mentions that his own letters should be read to the brethren. (1 Thessalonians 5:27; Colossians 4:16)

St. Justin Martyr, writing about A.D. 155, describes the typical Sunday gatherings of Christians in some detail in his First Apology, chapter 67 (Also see chapters 61, 65, 66). He mentions both the public reading of the “memoirs” of the apostles or the writings of the prophets followed by instructions and exhortations by “the president” and the celebration of the Eucharist.

So, it seems, the Word and the Eucharist have always been important parts of the early Christian gatherings.

That is a great link. It certainly looks like what we do at mass today, in the same order. As early as 67, they were already gathering on Sunday to worship together.

 

[PC_Master]

Thank you. The OP of the other thread disputes this, thereby implicitly maintaining the 27 books of the NT were already recoginized as inspired inerrant in the the church (small c) at the Apostolic era.

Actually, I rather explicitly stated that this was not, and is not, my contention by any means. You’ve assumed something, creating a bit of a straw man, if you ask me.

However, to be on topic – what do we have in historical evidence that shows where the focus of early church gatherings was? We know they read from scripture (presumably both old and new testament works), broke bread together, prayed together, and received spiritual instruction. But where is there a “Mass” in all of this?

 

[qui_est_ce]

However, to be on topic – what do we have in historical evidence that shows where the focus of early church gatherings was? We know they read from scripture (presumably both old and new testament works), broke bread together, prayed together, and received spiritual instruction. But where is there a “Mass” in all of this?

It sounds to me as if you have never been ot mass before. This follows the order of the mass as we use today. The mass was not invented in the middles ages.

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place,

worship on Sunday the first day of the week as opposed to the Sabbath, in community begins.

and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits;

The readings.

then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.

the homily

Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended,

Eucharistic prayer

bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability,19141914 We all sing hymns, “according to our ability.” and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given,19151915

Eucharist

Or, of the eucharistic elements. and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit;

Eucharistic ministers are given the body of Christ at the end of mass to bring to the sick and shut-ins.

I’ll have to research which exact prayer were being used, it is my understanding the the 4th Eucharistic prayer is the most ancient. In either case, the above quote from Justin Martyr is a description of the order of the mass as we celebrate it today.

 

[PC_Master]

Perhaps I should clarify what I was asking for – I wasn’t asking for similarities to the current Mass. I was asking for any actual liturgy or ritualized practice as such.

 

[Crumpy]

I have a book on my shelf by Mike Aquilina on the Mass of the Early Christians, but I haven’t looked at it in a long time. It may contain the information requested in the OP.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Perhaps I should clarify what I was asking for – I wasn’t asking for similarities to the current Mass. I was asking for any actual liturgy or ritualized practice as such.

What is your definition of Liturgy?

 

[PC_Master]

Dictionary.com helps with some good definitions. I’ve highlighted the one I think most applies in this instance:
1.a form of public worship; ritual.
*** 2.a collection of formularies for public worship.***
3.a particular arrangement of services.
4.a particular form or type of the Eucharistic service.
Does this clarify what I’m talking about? I’m talking about a particular ritualized form (which often consists of very specific readings, prayers, etc).

 

[qui_est_ce]

Dictionary.com helps with some good definitions. I’ve highlighted the one I think most applies in this instance:
1.a form of public worship; ritual.
*** 2.a collection of formularies for public worship.***
3.a particular arrangement of services.
4.a particular form or type of the Eucharistic service.
Does this clarify what I’m talking about? I’m talking about a particular ritualized form (which often consists of very specific readings, prayers, etc).

Well, ritual, by definition is something the evolves over time. The descriptions of early Christian worship follow Jewish Liturgy, with reading the Word, preaching from the reading. But differs in that Christian liturgy included Eucharist, Agape.

 

[PC_Master]

So then, it wasn’t liturgy, nor was it ritualized.

(Also, since you’re claiming they just followed a Jewish liturgy, it seems you might present what this liturgy was.)

 

[qui_est_ce]

Well, ritual, by definition is something the evolves over time. The descriptions of early Christian worship follow Jewish Liturgy, with reading the Word, preaching from the reading. But differs in that Christian liturgy included Eucharist, Agape.
PC Master;3677621:

So then, it wasn’t liturgy, nor was it ritualized.

(Also, since you’re claiming they just followed a Jewish liturgy, it seems you might present what this liturgy was.)

Please read my post again. It was a liturgy, based on Jewish liturgical ritual, with the addition of the Eucharist.

with reading the Word, preaching from the reading. But differs in that Christian liturgy included Eucharist, Agape.

The early Christian Church used the Greek word Eucharist for both the Consecration and the worship service.

We know the early Christians gathered to celebrate the Eucharist. Writings from St. Irenaeus of Lyons Against Heresies which were quoted to you in the previous thread showed that they believed in the Real Presence, although the word Transubstantiation had not developed yet. In approx 385, St. Ambrose used the term Missa, which replaced the Greek Eucharist for the worship service.
Catholic Encyclopedia:

He writes to his sister Marcellina describing the troubles of the Arians in the years 385 and 386, when the soldiers were sent to break up the service in his church: "The next day (it was a Sunday) after the lessons and the tract, having dismissed the catechumens, I explained the creed [symbolum tradebam] to some of the competents [people about to be baptized] in the baptistry of the basilica. There I was told suddenly that they had sent soldiers to the Portiana basilica. . . . But I remained at my place and **began to say Mass [missam facere coepi]. **While I offer [dum ofero],…

wiki:

This article is about the history and the current form of Ambrosian Rite; for an explanation of the form of this Rite used before the Vatican-II, see Traditional Ambrosian Rite.
Ambrosian Rite (also sometimes called the Milanese Rite) named after Saint Ambrose, bishop of Milan in the fourth century, is a Catholic liturgical Western Rite different from the Roman Rite.

It is practiced among some five million Catholics in the greater part of the Archdiocese of Milan, Italy (excluding, notably, the areas of Monza, of Treviglio, of Trezzo sull’Adda and a few other parishes), in some parishes of the Diocese of Como, Bergamo, Novara, Lodi and in about fifty parishes of the Diocese of Lugano, in the Canton Ticino, Switzerland.

Although at various points in its history the distinctive Ambrosian Rite has risked suppression, it survived, and was reformed, after the Second Vatican Council partly because the then Pope, Paul VI was sympathetic, having been the Archbishop of Milan. In the 20th century it also gained prominence and prestige from the attentions of two other scholarly Archbishops of Milan: Achille Ratti, later Pope Pius XI, and the Blessed Ildefonso Schuster, both of whom had been involved in studies and publications on the rite before their appointment.

NewAdvent:

…the whole series of actions and prayers did not depend solely on the improvisation of the celebrating bishop. Whereas at one time scholars were inclined to conceive the services of the first Christians as vague and undefined, recent research shows us a very striking uniformity in certain salient elements of the service at a very early date. The tendency among students now is to admit something very like a regulated Liturgy, apparently to a great extent uniform in the chief cities, back even to the first or early second century. In the first place the fundamental outline of the rite of the Holy Eucharist was given by the account of the Last Supper. What our Lord had done then, that same thing He told His followers to do in memory of Him. It would not have been a Eucharist at all if the celebrant had not at least done as our Lord did the night before He died. So we have everywhere from the very beginning at least this uniform nucleus of a Liturgy: bread and wine are brought to the celebrant in vessels (a plate and a cup); he puts them on a table – the altar; standing before it in the natural attitude of prayer he takes them in his hands, gives thanks, as our Lord had done, says again the words of institution, breaks the Bread and gives the consecrated Bread and Wine to the people in communion.
But we find much more than this essential nucleus in use in every Church from the first century. The Eucharist was always celebrated at the end of a service of lessons, psalms, prayers, and preaching, which was itself merely a continuation of the service of the synagogue. So we have everywhere this double function; first a synagogue service Christianized, in which the holy books were read, psalms were sung, prayers said by the bishop in the name of all (the people answering “Amen” in Hebrew, as had their Jewish forefathers), and homilies, explanations of what had been read, were made by the bishop or priests, just as they had been made in the synagogues by the learned men and elders (e.g., Luke 4:16-27).

Also read Clement I’s letter to the Corinthian’s approx 95 AD.

 

[PC_Master]

All of your responses and links have yet to show any actual liturgy (ritualized form of worship). Neither have you provided a copy of the supposed Jewish liturgy that was being followed with some alterations. You’ve provided a couple of references that may or may not indicate the use of liturgy, but which are dated 3 centuries after the earliest Christians. This just doesn’t help much.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Dictionary.com helps with some good definitions. I’ve highlighted the one I think most applies in this instance:
1.a form of public worship; ritual.
*** 2.a collection of formularies for public worship.***
3.a particular arrangement of services.
4.a particular form or type of the Eucharistic service.
Does this clarify what I’m talking about? I’m talking about a particular ritualized form (which often consists of very specific readings, prayers, etc).
qui est ce;3680805:

It was a liturgy, based on Jewish liturgical ritual, with the addition of the Eucharist.The early Christian Church used the Greek word Eucharist for both the Consecration and the worship service.

We know the early Christians gathered to celebrate the Eucharist. Writings from St. Irenaeus of Lyons Against Heresies

which were quoted to you in the previous thread showed that they believed in the Real Presence, although the word Transubstantiation had not developed yet.

Also read Clement I’s letter to the Corinthian’s approx** 95 AD.**

All of your responses and links have yet to show any actual liturgy

(ritualized form of worship). Neither have you provided a copy of the supposed Jewish liturgy that was being followed with some alterations.

Are you asking for a worship aid?

You’ve provided a couple of references that may or may not indicate the use of liturgy, but which are dated 3 centuries after the earliest Christians. This just doesn’t help much.

You are right, I can’t help you much. Clement died in 95 AD, Irenaeus was born in approx 130. But you focus on a 3rd century development that sprang from these. The Church is not static. It is the mustard seed, the tiniest of all seeds that becomes the largest of trees. I pity your refusal to comprehend this under the pretext of intellectual correctness. I say pretext, because you believe the Bible is the inspired-inerrant word of God on much less historical evidence (especially for the Old Testament) than exists for the truth of the teachings of the Catholic Church. Sorry. Maybe if you really cared enough to learn the truth, you’d do your own homework, that way you could find as many references to liturgy as you’d need.

 

[HamtramckSteve]

All of your responses and links have yet to show any actual liturgy (ritualized form of worship). Neither have you provided a copy of the supposed Jewish liturgy that was being followed with some alterations. You’ve provided a couple of references that may or may not indicate the use of liturgy, but which are dated 3 centuries after the earliest Christians. This just doesn’t help much.

The paramount ritualized Jewish celebration is the Passover seder, which forms the basis for the Christian Mass.

I would suggest contacting the Association for Hebrew Catholics, run by the wonderful Rosalind Moss and her son(?) for more info than one can digest in a month on the links between the Christian Mass and the Passover Seder.