Why Liturgical

[laconicstudent]

Hm, this forum is all too often quiet except for the Jesus prayer, so I thought I'd change it up a bit.

Question is this:

Why, in your opinion, are those Churches regarded as "Apostolic" by this forum, the RCC, EO, OO, Anglican, Old Catholic, all Liturgical in their form of worship?

What made the earlier splits between the "Apostolic" churches different from, say, the Reformation, in that the above groups have kept the Liturgy and Protestants (with some exceptions, I know Tangible will see this thread eventually) have not?


tl;dr:

What factors played into some churches staying liturgical, and some going contemporary?

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

First, it should be noted that Hebrew worship was liturgical and the Christian liturgies are based on that liturgy. We worship in the way that was handed down from the Apostles. The Mass and divine liturgies are based on the liturgies of St. James, St. Mark, St. Thomas, etc.

 

[Rhamiel]

I would even say that some Methodist are Litugical
would not any ordered service with communion be "liturgy"?
even if they are not Apostolic or have valid priests or any of that other stuff, they are still Liturgical

I would say the differance between the splits in the Church and the Reformation is more of a matter of degree, all schism has some heresy involved, there is a point when it is more "heretical" then "schismatic"

 

[RestoreTheRiver]

Every document of the early church shows us a church whose worship was centered in the Eucharist. While there is no question that liturgy has developed in various ways in the eastern and western families of the church, the shape of the liturgy is there from the beginning of the church.

Apostolic Churches are liturgical today because the faith and practice of our Lord and His Apostles was liturgical. As a "three streams" Christian, I must also add that the same edvidence leads us to conclude that Apostolic Churches should also be evangelical and charismatic.

Michael

 

[Rhamiel]

Every document of the early church shows us a church whose worship was centered in the Eucharist. While there is no question that liturgy has developed in various ways in the eastern and western families of the church, the shape of the liturgy is there from the beginning of the church.

Apostolic Churches are liturgical today because the faith and practice of our Lord and His Apostles was liturgical. As a "three streams" Christian, I must also add that the same edvidence leads us to conclude that Apostolic Churches should also be evangelical and charismatic.

Michael

what is three streams?

 

[RestoreTheRiver]

what is three streams?

The coming together of the sacramental, evangelical and charismatic "streams" of the church, which have been separated by our sin.

Michael

 

[Tangible]

(I hope it's OK if I post here - I'll take LS's mention of me in the OP as an invitation.)

In the wide, wide world of Lutheranism, we see an interesting thing happening. Liberal or extremely liberal churches like the ELCA in the US and many European state churches tend to be high-church in their practice of the liturgy. At the same time, they tend to embrace higher criticism of the scriptures, Rationalism, and liberal social activism.

In my own LCMS synod, we have a wide range of liturgical practices with some churches using "smells and bells" high-church style, while some are very minimalistic in their approach to liturgy.

(Some churches in the LCMS have even gone over to contemporary worship styles like what is found in pop evangelical churches. Despite the tacit support they have received from the current LCMS leadership, the consensus in the rank and file LCMS is that this is probably a very dangerous move and may end up causing them to diverge not only in praxis but doctrine as well.)

What is interesting, though, is that it appears that those who are most concerned about orthodoxy do not always practice the higher forms of liturgy, and that high church liturgy is more often found in churches that are not overly concerned about orthodoxy.

My own church is probably somewhere in the high-middle range of liturgical praxis, though personally I would prefer high-church praxis with a strong emphasis on orthodoxy.

If I lived in Tulsa, the church below would definitely be my home.

YouTube - Loving the Liturgy - Grace Lutheran Church

 

[Ave Maria]

I believe that all of the churches mentioned in the OP are indeed liturgical churches.

 

[Historicus]

I would even say that some Methodist are Litugical
would not any ordered service with communion be "liturgy"?
even if they are not Apostolic or have valid priests or any of that other stuff, they are still Liturgical

I would say the differance between the splits in the Church and the Reformation is more of a matter of degree, all schism has some heresy involved, there is a point when it is more "heretical" then "schismatic"

United Methodists are indeed liturgical. The liturgy is identical to that found in Anglican Book of Common Prayer. John Wesley remained an Anglican Priest his entire life, and we maintain the Episcopacy and have Bishops, Presbyters (Elders), and Deacons. There are individual churches who have moved into a more "contemporary" or "evangelical" style of worship, but officially we are liturgical, and range from high church worship, with all the "smells and bells" to a more "low church" style (those of which I spoke that have adopted more contemporary worship styles).

 

[stormcloud]

Not sure about the use of the term "apostolic" in this forum, but the true meaning of the term refers to the authority Jesus gave to the apostles for them to directly (by laying on of hands) pass on to their successors (the bishops with the Pope as the primary bishop and Peter's successor). In other words, for a church to be apostolic, it has to be in communion with the Pope.

 

[RestoreTheRiver]

Not sure about the use of the term "apostolic" in this forum, but the true meaning of the term refers to the authority Jesus gave to the apostles for them to directly (by laying on of hands) pass on to their successors (the bishops with the Pope as the primary bishop and Peter's successor). In other words, for a church to be apostolic, it has to be in communion with the Pope.

Your statement does not meet the tests of history and tradition. Rome is surely a part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. She is just as surely not the whole.

Michael

 

[stormcloud]

What doesn't meet the test of history and tradition, and what comprises the "rest" of the Church?

 

[RestoreTheRiver]

To start at one obvious point, when east and west split in 1054, the filoque was the presenting issue. However, right along with valid concerns about any change in the Creed was the east's insistence that the pope could not change it on his own authority. They contended that such a change could only be made by the whole church together, in an Ecumenical Council. Therefore, a basic issue in the Great Schism was a developed view of papal authority on the part of the west; while the east maintained that ultimate authority did not, and could not, rest with any one bishop.

While the schism remains unhealed, both sides now recognize each other as being the church. Therefore, there is clearly more to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church than the Church of Rome.

Michael

 

[Rhamiel]

What doesn't meet the test of history and tradition, and what comprises the "rest" of the Church?

as for the rules of this subforum, we have to accept the Apostolic nature of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, and the Anglican Communion and can not debate these parts
if you can not do that then go to a differant forum
there is OBOB the Catholic subforum, where I am free to say what i really think about the Anglican church, but not here
follow the rules or go to a place where the rules agree with what you think

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

Even my little Church, the Celtic Communion of Christ has valid apostolic succession via the Utrecht line succession.

 

[MKJ]

Not sure about the use of the term "apostolic" in this forum, but the true meaning of the term refers to the authority Jesus gave to the apostles for them to directly (by laying on of hands) pass on to their successors (the bishops with the Pope as the primary bishop and Peter's successor). In other words, for a church to be apostolic, it has to be in communion with the Pope.

Having apostolic succession only means that you can trace the apostolic lines back. In and of itself it says nothing about those lines validity. I don't think there is any real dispute that all the apastolic churches can do this. As well, validity is not dependent on being in communion with Rome, even according to Rome. The Orthodox tend to think it is dependent on being Orthodox though.

 

[MKJ]

(

In the wide, wide world of Lutheranism, we see an interesting thing happening. Liberal or extremely liberal churches like the ELCA in the US and many European state churches tend to be high-church in their practice of the liturgy. At the same time, they tend to embrace higher criticism of the scriptures, Rationalism, and liberal social activism.

I have noticed this in Anglicanism too. Not always, but more than one might think. The Anglo-Catholics were often the ones who were most enthusiastic about the new liturgies.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

The coming together of the sacramental, evangelical and charismatic "streams" of the church, which have been separated by our sin.

Michael

Ah yes...the convergence movement.

 

[RestoreTheRiver]

Ah yes...the convergence movement.

The very same.

Michael

 

[JJM]

I think that one aspect of the answer lies in the fact that Protestantism is largely anti-clerical. One characteristic feature of Luther was that he rejected the ordained preisthood. Also the principle of salvation through faith alone seems to undermine a true understanding of the sacraments though they may continue to use the word. If human beings are not perfected moraly then Actual Grace seems less important, and if actions cannot impart Saving Grace then the Sacraments cannot be relevant regarding it. While Liturgy is not impossible without a priesthood and a sacramental theology, a priesthood and a sacramental theology are basically [if not completely] impossible without a liturgy. Therefore, groups which maintain these two ideas (if not their reality) maintain a liturgical setting, whereas those who don't do not necessarily do so.