Was the early church liturgical?

Leevo

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2015
773
284
28
Tennessee
✟28,954.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I am going to post this thread in other Christian Communities forums because I want the views from all sides. Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic.


I am just wondering if the early church was liturgical or not? It doesn't seem to me that it was. What did the early church fathers do for worship? How did the apostles set up their church's? Can you give me evidence and cite your sources for your view?
 

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
I am going to post this thread in other Christian Communities forums because I want the views from all sides. Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic.


I am just wondering if the early church was liturgical or not? It doesn't seem to me that it was. What did the early church fathers do for worship? How did the apostles set up their church's? Can you give me evidence and cite your sources for your view?

Leevo,

What Paul said to the Corinthians about what should happen when they gather is far from liturgical. I'm thinking of 1 Corinthians 14:26 (NIV): 'What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up'.

The church has not only moved away from this model to a pastor-centred or liturgical perspective. This means that the the opportunity for every-person ministry when the church gathers is eliminated so that 1 Cor 14:26 cannot happen.

Oz
 
  • Like
Reactions: Poor Beggar
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi leevo,

I'm not really clear on what liturgical means and do understand that it can be defined differently by different folks. Here's what I got in searching for definitions:

liturgical: of or relating to liturgy or public worship.
liturgy: a fixed set of ceremonies, words, etc., that are used during public worship in a religion.

I really don't know the actual minute by minute practice of the fellowships that met in the first century. I do know that Paul, at one point, did chastise some for being unruly and ill mannered in their handling of the communion practice. I imagine, and yes it is purely imagination, that there was a lot of praying and teaching and that they may have sung hymns, but not certain of any of those practices. I do also rather 'imagine' that there wasn't any fixed set of words that were used in their meetings. Sorry I can't be of more help. Ozpen seems to have given the best passage that explains some of what they did.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If your church service is planned out in advance, if you have any kind of regular order to your service, your service is liturgical. Just sayin'

Hi tangible,

Well, based on that as the definition, I would imagine that it likely wasn't in the very early days of a fellowship gathering, but probably quite quickly became so. People like sameness and knowing what to expect in general and regular meeting formats. If you go to a Lion's club or Rotary club or any other kind of 'club' meeting you can expect the meeting time to be fairly well planned out and the meeting to follow a fairly regular 'flow' pattern.

As I read the whole of the passage from which Ozpen gave us the information on the meetings of the early fellowships, I gather that they may have been a bit disruptive in nature. It seems that Paul is asking them to reign in their meetings a bit. Explaining that when someone has something to say, be it a tongue or a prophesy or a revelation, that only one or two speak at a time. He spends a bit of time in discussing the gift of tongue, explaining that unless those around are able to understand what is being said, that the person should remain silent. In the matter of tongue there has to be either the speaker to explain what he is saying or some interpreter to do so. He says that those in attendance should be silent and pay attention to the speaker.

This is where he also says that women should not speak during these practices. He cautions them to hold their questions and ask of their husbands later. I would imagine that the first fellowships were generally male centered as far as those who were speaking.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,361
3,628
Canada
✟748,024.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Could you perhaps offer some early writings that would support your conviction?

The New Testament. I know that sounds glib but we see a call for disciplined worship but no model or liturgy.

Notes and quotes from chapter 7 of Schaff’s History of the Christian Church. (Schaff had a killer beard!)


THE SACRAMENTARIAN CONTROVERSIES: 101. Sacerdotalism and Sacramentalism.

Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodoxy:

The Catholic system of Christianity, both Greek and Roman, is sacramental and sacerdotal. The saving grace of Christ is conveyed to men through the channel of seven sacraments, or “mysteries,” administered by ordained priests, who receive members into the church by baptism, accompany them through the various stages of life, and dismiss them by extreme unction into the other world. A literal priesthood requires a literal sacrifice, and this is the repetition of Christ’s one sacrifice on the cross offered by the priest in the mass from day to day. The power of the mass extends not only to the living, but even to departed spirits in purgatory, abridging their sufferings, and hastening their release and transfer to heaven.

The Reformed Church:

The Reformers rejected the sacerdotal system altogether, and substituted for it the general priesthood of believers, who have direct access to Christ as our only Mediator and Advocate, and are to offer the spiritual sacrifices of prayer, praise, and intercession. They rejected the sacrifice of the mass, and the theory of transubstantiation, and restored the cup to the laity. They also agreed in raising the Word of God, as the chief means of grace, above the sacraments, and in reducing the number of the sacraments. They retained Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, as instituted by Christ for universal and perpetual observance.

Lutheranism:

The Lutheran Confession is, we may say, semi-sacramental, or much more sacramental than the Reformed (if we except the Anglican communion). It retained the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, with the rite of exorcism, and the corporal presence in the eucharist. The Augsburg Confession makes the sacraments an essential criterion of the church. Luther’s Catechism assigns to them an independent place alongside of the Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer. It adds to baptism and the Lord’s Supper confession and absolution as a third sacrament. At a later period, confirmation was restored to the position of a quasi-sacrament as a supplement of infant-baptism.

Zwingli and Calvin Agree:

Zwingli and Calvin reduced the sacraments to signs and seals of grace which is inwardly communicated by the Holy Spirit. They asserted the sovereign causality of God, and the independence of the Spirit who “bloweth where it willeth” (John 3:8). God can communicate his gifts freely as he chooses. We are, however, bound to his prescribed means. The Swiss Reformers also emphasized the necessity of faith, not only for a profitable use of the sacrament (which is conceded by the Lutherans), but for the reception of the sacrament itself. Unworthy communicants receive only the visible sign, not the thing signified, and they receive the sign to their own injury.

On Things That Differ:

These theories are not isolated; they proceed from different philosophical and theological standpoints, and affect other doctrines. Luther was not quite wrong when he said to Zwingli at Marburg “You have a different spirit.” Luther took his stand on the doctrine of justification by faith; Zwingli and Calvin, on the doctrine of divine causality and sovereignty, or eternal election. Luther proceeded anthropologically and soteriologically from man to God, Zwingli and Calvin proceeded theologically from God to man.

The Roman doctrine of transubstantiation is the outgrowth of a magical supernaturalism which absorbs and annihilates the natural and human, leaving only the empty form. The Lutheran doctrine implies an interpenetration of the divine and human. The commemorative theory of Zwingli saves the integrity and peculiar character of the divine and human, but keeps them separate and distinct. The eucharistic theory affects Christology, the relation of church and state, and in some measure the character of piety. Lutheranism inclines to the Eutychian, Zwinglianism to the Nestorian, Christology. The former fosters a mystical, the latter a practical, type of piety.

Calvin’s View According to Schaff:

Calvin, who appeared on the stage of public action five years after Zwingli’s, and ten years before Luther’s, death, advocated with great ability a eucharistic theory which mediates between the Lutheran realism and the Zwinglian spiritualism, and which passed into the Reformed confessions Luther had to deal with Zwingli, and never came into contact with Calvin. If he had, the controversy might have taken a different shape; but he would have maintained his own view of the real presence, and refused the figurative interpretation of the words of institution.

With the doctrine of the eucharist are connected some minor ritualistic differences, as the use of the wafer, and the kneeling posture of the communicants, which the Lutherans retained from the Catholic Church; while the Reformed restored the primitive practice of the breaking of bread, and the standing or sitting posture. Some Lutheran churches retained also the elevation of the host; Luther himself declared it a matter of indifference, and abolished it at Wittenberg in 1542.

Online source.
 
Upvote 0

Goodbook

Reading the Bible
Jan 22, 2011
22,090
5,106
New Zealand
Visit site
✟78,875.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Well i think it was orderly esp if they were meeting in the synagogue as the early church did, but that quickly changed as the new believers actually got chucked out of synagogues.

I think the ritual and the tradtion of bible reading stayed.
 
Upvote 0

Goodbook

Reading the Bible
Jan 22, 2011
22,090
5,106
New Zealand
Visit site
✟78,875.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Jesus first preached in the synagogue and was reading Isaiah.
I think later as they reached out to gentiles they would hold meetings in peoples homes and they wouldnt have had the tradtion of the synagogue where they read through scripture on a set pattern.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Jesus first preached in the synagogue and was reading Isaiah.
I think later as they reached out to gentiles they would hold meetings in peoples homes and they wouldnt have had the tradtion of the synagogue where they read through scripture on a set pattern.

Hi goodbook,

Yes, Jesus' first teachings were in the synagogue and that is why he said that he was only sent to the children of Abraham. However, the fellowships of believers in Jesus which began to pop up after Pentecost would not have been allowed in the synagogues. When Paul first started his ministry in a new city in the synagogue, it was because he was first going to the Jew. He was trying to convince them that the man Jesus was their Messiah. It wasn't really any kind of Christian fellowship of believers in Christ.

It's like when we go into a harlot house to teach about Jesus, that doesn't make the meeting in the harlot house a fellowship of believers.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0

Goodbook

Reading the Bible
Jan 22, 2011
22,090
5,106
New Zealand
Visit site
✟78,875.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
well thats where the tradtions came from anyway.
What we see as the institutionalised church, came from those tradition as it copied the style of worship the jews had. Old church buildings, like synagogues would face toward Jerusalem. Either that or the freemasons built them.

The spirit filled church are the called out ones and we can worship anywhere. We dont need to stick to a liturgy and be at a certain spot and building once a week, reading a scripture according to some preset calendar. We worship Him in spirit and in truth. Wherever He leads us.
 
Upvote 0

Goodbook

Reading the Bible
Jan 22, 2011
22,090
5,106
New Zealand
Visit site
✟78,875.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Jews in synagogue would read through the bible, it was more like...what passage we up to in the Torah. This was a good thing, Jesus grew up and learned scripture that way. Its only the later rigid traditions that negated what the bible said (and Jesus himself) that was adultery for the jewish people and later even some practises got handed down to gentiles (judaizers).
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
well thats where the tradtions came from anyway.
What we see as the institutionalised church, came from those tradition as it copied the style of worship the jews had. Old church buildings, like synagogues would face toward Jerusalem. Either that or the freemasons built them.

The spirit filled church are the called out ones and we can worship anywhere. We dont need to stick to a liturgy and be at a certain spot and building once a week, reading a scripture according to some preset calendar. We worship Him in spirit and in truth. Wherever He leads us.

Hi goodbook,

I'm in full agreement with the second paragraph, but not so sure of the first. I'm also not so sure in your next post that Jesus learned the Scriptures from the Jews. It has long been my understanding that Jesus knew the Scriptures from their source. We see him early on in his life 'teaching' the Jews about the Scriptures.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0

Goodbook

Reading the Bible
Jan 22, 2011
22,090
5,106
New Zealand
Visit site
✟78,875.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Oh ok but he would have actually read them with his parents who were God fearing Jews of course. Yes Jesus did teach the men who were charged with teaching scriptures at the temple. Im just saying he would have read them.

In syngagues they have a tradition of reading through the whole pentateuch each year.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums