what a difference a little time makes.

Thekla · Sep 4, 2008

thought this was interesting:

We are told by SS. Jerome5 and Epiphanius,6 that our Lord, at his ascension, recommended his church of Jerusalem to St. James; in consequence whereof the apostles, before their dispersion, constituted him bishop of that city. It was probably for a mark of his episcopal authority, and as an ensign of his dignity, that he wore on his head a lamina, or plate of gold, as is recounted by St. Epiphanius.7 Polycrates, quoted by Eusebius,8 testifies, that St. John did the same: others relate the like of St. Mark. It was probably done in imitation of the Jewish high-priest.

katholikos · Sep 4, 2008

Thekla said:
thought this was interesting:

We are told by SS. Jerome5 and Epiphanius,6 that our Lord, at his ascension, recommended his church of Jerusalem to St. James; in consequence whereof the apostles, before their dispersion, constituted him bishop of that city. It was probably for a mark of his episcopal authority, and as an ensign of his dignity, that he wore on his head a lamina, or plate of gold, as is recounted by St. Epiphanius.7 Polycrates, quoted by Eusebius,8 testifies, that St. John did the same: others relate the like of St. Mark. It was probably done in imitation of the Jewish high-priest.

Oooh. I like it. How do you always come up with this good stuff in all these threads? You could almost make me become an EO... ...almost.

sunlover1 · Sep 4, 2008

Ormly said:
sunlover1 said:

Yes, it is and with reason.

Would He find holiness and respect or indifference, carelessness, ignorance, perhaps?

Let me ask: If you knew you were going to actually meet Him, would not you change a few things about what you wore? It isn't so much a issue of what you believe how He views us, how do we view Him? Does He not deserve our best, all honor, glory and our respect? I have seen more than I care to and will never darken the door any church that cheapens God in anyway; attempts, to bring Him down to our level. He is not my buddy. He is my Father.

Since I am also not in favor of a worship team as such, as supposed we need, the wires being a necessary obstacle, both would be removed if I were the pastor.

Sorry Sunlover, They are my thoughts, being one who has come up through the years and who has seen the good, bad and the ugly; one who has seen the decline of worship in the church; worship that has been substituted out for entertainment.

Do you remember what the priest had to do before he when into the Holy of Holies in the OT? Why did they wear bells tied to the bottom of their skirts? Did not God know his heart?

I apologise if I offended you in anyway, but that was my heart. . . . ))

Click to expand...

No Ormly, I am not offended, I am just guarding my heart.
I dont want to put myself under any more condemnation than
we already get put upon us.
I guess you'll be disappointed to hear me say that on occasion,
I worship Him in the buff.. on the bathroom rug, after a shower
if I've been praying and just fall on my knees.
I also pray on the john. Great, the secret's out.
So if I were to "meet Him in person" I guess I have no answer
for you because I dont believe it's my body he's interested in
looking at. I could be wrong.

As far as the priests, that was OT. What did Jesus wear?
I just thought we were to have reverence in our hearts,
never would I have guessed God wanted me to wear a certain
type of clothing when I worship him.

Hope I didnt offend your senses, I was trying to help you
to see where I'm coming from.

sunlover

EDITED TO ADD:
You know that I always value your thoughts,
and I'd appreciate it if you could show me
where my actions are distasteful to the Father,
because I had truly never even felt convicted
in my heart. It had just always seemed to me
that God's seeing our spirit and not at all
interested in our outer garb or physical
appearance. But your words have made me
uneasy and so I'd like to hear your reasoning
(If you choose) Thank you.

squint · Sep 4, 2008

Kristos said:
Sorry to take the thread on a tangent. My only point was that sometimes things aren't what they seem on the outside. Note in Jesus's rampage against the Pharisees, he didn't condemn their action per se, but the spirit of their actions.

Bingo. Glad someone can read and not impose phony emotional uproar.

Uphill Battle · Sep 4, 2008

whatever Squint. you haven't been able to follow the discussion since word one. Take your judgement elsewhere.

squint · Sep 4, 2008

Uphill Battle said:
whatever Squint. you haven't been able to follow the discussion since word one. Take your judgement elsewhere.

uh, what r you on about now?

Uphill Battle · Sep 5, 2008

so Kristos, would you say that it's a case of being in a place of humility so long, that you BECOME prideful about humility? or is it a case of those who aren't really all that humble, assuming a humble mantle?

it's rather interesting to me. I know I'm not very humble... I wonder how any manage it at all.

Kristos · Sep 5, 2008

Uphill Battle said:
so Kristos, would you say that it's a case of being in a place of humility so long, that you BECOME prideful about humility? or is it a case of those who aren't really all that humble, assuming a humble mantle?

it's rather interesting to me. I know I'm not very humble... I wonder how any manage it at all.

I think it could happen both ways.

In one case, certainly it's easy to pretend to be humble for a short time in order to impress others, manipulate, or get praise.

On the other hand, I can imagine that some who have been humble for a very long time and constantly tempted to that into pride, especially when confronted or conflicted with hypocrites or denouncers. I think that is why monks tend to be somewhat isolated because it is so difficult.

I think there might be another type of false humilty, that does come from pride, but from conformity. Sometimes people think they are being humble by not sticking out, by just blending in, but conforming to the world that is not humble cannot make a person humble.

Uphill Battle · Sep 5, 2008

very wise insights, Kristos.

hope this post doesn't chip away at your humility.

Ormly · Sep 5, 2008

They gave me a badge for being humble long time ago. They then took it away from me when I wore it.. . . .((

Sphinx777 · Sep 6, 2008

In 2007 The Crescat started a fun contest to see who could bring the ugliest picture of a liturgical vestment (from pretty much any denomination or otherwise). The contest was a success and some bloggers might be hoping for a follow up in 2008. So here is the official promotional video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZMePoImWRw

Uphill Battle said:

tapero · Sep 6, 2008

MOD HAT

Thread moved from General Theology to Christan History

lionroar0 · Sep 6, 2008

Sphinx777 said:
In 2007 The Crescat started a fun contest to see who could bring the ugliest picture of a liturgical vestment (from pretty much any denomination or otherwise). The contest was a success and some bloggers might be hoping for a follow up in 2008. So here is the official promotional video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZMePoImWRw

Pope george.

Peace

Uphill Battle · Sep 6, 2008

love the look on the face of Ratzinger at the end... priceless.

revanneosl · Sep 6, 2008

The topic that this thread has gotten around to (the nature of & treatment for the sin of false humility) is a fascinating one, but if anybody's still interested in the OP, I have some info to offer.

It began, as I recall, with these observations:

that christians at one time worshipped in ordinary street clothes, but then later began to wear stylized vestments (at least for the clergy);
that christians at one time celebrated their union with one another & with Christ by sharing a full meal, but then later the meal became stylized into a small bite of bread & sip of wine (or only the bread, for the laity, or the bread and wine comingled and then a bit of the mixture given to each person); and
that christians at one time worshipped in each other's houses, but then later purchased or built special buildings to worship in.

I spend an awful lot of my day studying the history of the pre-reformation church (gettin' ready for the dreaded Comprehensive Examinations) so if y'all would like me to, I could give sort of a capsule-version of the history of those three developments.

If not, I don't want to bother you in the middle of what looks like an interesting conversaion about spiritual growth.

Thekla · Sep 6, 2008

the Orthodox still eat ,

but after the Liturgy
(at my last Parish, there was food at practically every event and meeting too)

Uphill Battle · Sep 6, 2008

revanneosl said:
The topic that this thread has gotten around to (the nature of & treatment for the sin of false humility) is a fascinating one, but if anybody's still interested in the OP, I have some info to offer.

It began, as I recall, with these observations:

that christians at one time worshipped in ordinary street clothes, but then later began to wear stylized vestments (at least for the clergy);

that christians at one time celebrated their union with one another & with Christ by sharing a full meal, but then later the meal became stylized into a small bite of bread & sip of wine (or only the bread, for the laity, or the bread and wine comingled and then a bit of the mixture given to each person); and

that christians at one time worshipped in each other's houses, but then later purchased or built special buildings to worship in.

I spend an awful lot of my day studying the history of the pre-reformation church (gettin' ready for the dreaded Comprehensive Examinations) so if y'all would like me to, I could give sort of a capsule-version of the history of those three developments.

If not, I don't want to bother you in the middle of what looks like an interesting conversaion about spiritual growth.

that would be most appreciated.

revanneosl · Sep 6, 2008

1. Vestments

The clothes are really quite easy to explain. We ended up with them due to the conservatism of the clergy.

The formal eucharistic vestments of both the Eastern & the Western churches: the alb, dalmatic, chausable, sticharion, epitrachelion, phelonion, all of it is the formal, dress-up, go-to-town clothing of a gentleman of the 5th or 6th century Byzantine Empire.

What happened was that the lay people changed their clothes over time (silly, fashion-conscious laypeople) and we clergy just kept on wearing our same old clothes year after year after year, at least for doing our mystical signifying.

Eventually enough years went by that the clothes quit being charmingly old-fashioned and became outright strange looking to folks who weren't used to seeing them every Sunday. (Much the same phenomenon that has overtaken the Amish, who started out just trying to be "plain": unpretentious, and now find themselves quaint and conspicuous.

2. The Meal

The meal changed from a full-on potluck dinner into a token or symbolic meal sometime in the 3rd century.

The neato-cool discipline of textual comparison is what enables us to narrow the change down accurately. You see, in the 2nd century book commonly called Apostolic Tradition (which is neither Apostolic, nor traditional: discuss) we see blessings to be said over the oil, olives & cheese written right alongside the blessings over the bread and the wine.
That book was used as a major source for a book written in the 3rd century, commonly called Didascalia Apostolorum and a book written in the 4th century, commonly called Apostolic Constitutions. In both of those books, the blessings over oil, olives & cheese have disappeared, and new instructions are included about how to make sure that you don't have a lot of leftovers of bread & wine after the eucharist.

There are two theories about why the shift from actual meal to token meal took place:

Theory 1: Christianity went through periods of great popularity, even before the Edict of Milan. When there got to be lots & lots of Christians showing up at church on Sunday, it simply became impractical to serve a full meal to all comers - especially since the food was generally provided by the more affluent members of the congregation, and Christianity has always been way way more popular among the poor than among the rich (at least until the rise of the "prosperity gospel" preachers) Some post-apostolic Church Lady just got sick & tired of making ham loaf and cheesy potato cassarole for all those people every week!

Theory 2: As the church developed its theology of the eucharist over time, the fellowship-meal aspect became less and less important, and the mystical-presence-of-Christ aspect became more and more important. When the point of the meal is fellowship, then sitting around popping tidbits into the babies mouths and perhaps wiping a bit of gravy off of one's chin is all to the good. When the point of the meal is that Jesus Himself is actually present in the food & drink then it's natural that people would start being loads & loads more careful about the whole operation.

3. The building

The transition from having church in somebody's house, to having church in a specially set-aside building probably was the first of these three phenomena to take place, and once you think about it, it really makes sense.

First, start with the understanding that once the gospel has begun to spread even a little bit in a given city, you're going to have problems gathering the church together in the home of anybody who isn't at least a little bit well-off financially. There just isn't room in your average plebian hovel.

Now, the patrician class didn't own a house. They owned houses - plural. Aaaaaand once you realize that it's way more convenient to just quit collecting rent on one of your houses so that the church can use it than it is to move all of the furniture in the house you actually live in out of the way each Lord's Day to accommodate the crowd, you can see how some buildings began to be set aside for Christian Worship. Add to that the probability that, when Br. Gaius (the owner of the house) was near death, his Bishop might just casually suggest that the house be deeded over to the community in his will, and voila! A Church!

4. A few caveats:

Of course none of this happend everywhere all at the same time. It happened piecemeal, in different cities at different times. (Those three books I mentioned before, they only tell us what was happening in Antioch, not in Rome or Alexandria or Carthage or Milan or Gaul or anywhere else)

There was certainly some degree of grandiosity being aimed at in some places at some times. What started out as "It's Jesus' dinner, let's use the good china" eventually became "Let's get a really great jewel-encrusted gold chalice - the people love a good show", but hey - that's evangelism! A stirring sermon, a nice building, a well-trained choir, whatever it takes to get 'em in the door to hear the good news of the gospel!

Well - thanks for listening. I'm hoping to teach History of Christian Worship in a seminary some day. It's good to have the chance to try out my act.

Grace & Peace to you.

what a difference a little time makes.

Thekla

Guest

Well-Known Member

Beloved, Let us love one another

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Servant

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Legend

Coffee drinker

Well-Known Member

Mystically signifying since 1985

Thekla

Guest

Well-Known Member

Mystically signifying since 1985

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency