www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Ad orientem

I am applying what I have learned in my liturgics course from a very well respected liturgist in my diocese with a Phd. That doesn't make me an expert, but I do trust that what she taught us was accurate.

Who ?

danman916,

You have demonstrated absolutely nothing here except to give opinion as fact without any historical or ecclesiastical references to back it up. I thereby suggest you either give us some real references not opinions or third party say so. Stuart on the other hand has already been willing to make references to his arguments and I am sure would be able to post them once your references are known.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

Father,

I hope that no one is misunderstanding me. I am not implying that there is anything wrong liturgically or theologically with ad orientam.

My first comments were that many latin liturgists today believe that the practice of versus populum was used in the very early Church, probably in the first century. After all, this IS the praxis of the Latin Church today, and if it is wrong liturgically or theologically, I would suppose that my Bishop and the Pope of Rome would not celebrate the liturgy this way. Why would they if this position was contrary or incompatible to Holy Tradition?

I have also offered the observations that the eucharistic celebration stems from the Hebrew passover, and it was first celebrated in Church homes. I also tried to communicate that I do not question Stuart's credentials at all. I would also like to state that I don't question anyone's good will here.

I have also commented that the argument from silence that is offered about versus populum (in that there is no evidence of it being used in the first century) can also be argued about ad orientam. The fact is that the earliest ecclesiastical records we have in writing don't say whether or not there was a universal practice of the presider in terms of liturgical position one way or the other. We know that ad orientam was universal later on, but does that mean that we can definitively state that versus populum was never used in teh beginning?

I have also explicitly stated that I am no expert, but that I do trust my professor. Another poster asked me who this person is, but I am not about to give out a third party's information here on a web forum.

That being said, I did contact her to ask her for some specific references. I fully realize that my words here carry no weight, so there is no reason for anyone to accept my word of someone else. I understand that.

But I am rather surprised at the harsh tone of your last post, father. I have always come here in good will, and I don't mean any disrespect to anyone, nor to the Church. I don't assume anyone here is posting in bad faith, however, it seems that maybe some of you think that I am.

I would rather you be honest with me if that is the case. I will not stay to bother anyone if my posts are unwelcome or unwanted.

Thank you.

Maybe not everywhere--just everywhere we have put a spade in the earth and dug up a second or third century church.

No, it wouldn't. It's a valid observation about the tendency of scholars to read their own contemporary interests and biases into thin or ambiguous evidence, because the theory comes first, and the search for evidence follows. Anyone who has been in academia knows the phenomenon. As an historian I see it constantly in my own discipline.

danman916,

I really suggest you go back and reread your posts. For one thing you are proposing what may be a belief that can not be backed up as fact. In fact you are arguing it as fact, not as a belief that may or may not be verifiable. So as an administrator I am going to make a demand whether or not you may consider it harsh or not, to demand references in order to end this circular argument and to give proper information to those that may be reading and following this thread.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

Ok, I understand that. So can you address the point I have that:

I am speaking about the practice of home Churches that would have occured at a time when jewish Christians would have first gone to synagogue?
If memory serves, Christians were kicked out of the synagogue and anathematized after the destruction of the temple.

2nd and 3rd century Churches occured after the great divorce between Christians and Jews. By the 2nd and 3rd centuries, Christianity became a gentile faith as there were very little Jews converting by that time. It only stands to reason that gentile ideas and concepts would have entered into worship at that time.

it is my understanding that when liturgists consider the first century, the influence of Jewish custom on ritual predominated, which led many to believe in a vs populum position.

But as I said, I will try to obtain some solid references for people. I don't expect anyone to simply take me on my word. You don't know me from Adam.

Apparently you have yet to deal with the extensive hellenization of Jewish culture from the fourth century BC onwards. I recommend you read Erich S. Gruen's Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition, University of California Press (Berkeley) 1998. Contrary to pious myth, even among most Jews, Judea, Samaria and the Galilee had, by the first century AD, adopted many hellenistic practices, including that of reclining at table. There is a reason the Jews were using a Greek Bible, and why the Apostles chose to write in Greek--even to other Jews. But read the book.

Also remember that the Passover supper in the time of Jesus was very different from the Seder celebrated in American homes today. And that Judaism of the first century was not only very different but far more polyvariant than rabbinical Judaism of today.

First, most synagogues, except in large cities, were in fact private homes--just like churches. Second, you make a distinction without a difference. The Hebrew word "synagogue" is a loan word from Greek (synaxis), meaning a gathering, an assembly. The word for church (ekklesia) similarly means an assembly. The ekklesia of the Christians was no different from the ekklesia of the Jews. In other words, the church was the Christian synagogue. Even by the end of the first century, Christians were largely persona non grata among more conventional Jews. Jewish Christians were simply Christians who observed the halachic regulations (i.e., kept Kosher and observed ritual purity laws). They had their synagogue, just as each different Jewish sect had its own synagogue as well. Judaism was not monolithic, and Jewish Christians, for a period (perhaps ending around AD 135) fit in somewhere on a spectrum of Jewish belief.

No, though the largest concentration of Jewish Christians was dispersed when most fled across the Jordan. But Jewish Christians continued to identify themselves as Jews for perhaps another eighty years or so. The decisive break came only with Bar Kochba's rebellion in 135. Bar Kochba ("Son of the Star") had explicit messianic pretensions; he issued coins proclaiming his new age, and required all Jews to acknowledge him as the Anointed One. This, of course, Jewish Christians could not do, the office having been filled already, and so they had no choice but to flee. Other Jews from that point refused to recognize them as Jews. When the infamous benediction against the Galileans was written is disputed, but most of those benedictions date to the third century or later.


So, why won't they recognize precisely how the Jews worshiped? Too much like traditional Christian worship for their tastes? Again, we go back to the problem of historians (and what are liturgists, if not historians?) projecting their interests, their biases, their preconceptions upon past events and practices.

danman916,

In reading your posts I must agree with Father Anthony and Stuart. You are presenting a very circular augment as factual, when a lot of it is easily disprovable. It's not our job to disprove your contentions. It's your job to provide the scholarly references to support your argument. Please do so immediately or withdraw your points.

John, Administrator

i have been asked to wait on posting further until giving "proof", which is a far different expectation than being asked to give evidence of one's claim.

Look, your professor told you some things in class. Surely, there are textbooks that you use? Did she refer to any particular liturgical scholars in her lectures? Have you read anything that supports your position? All you have to do is put a few names and titles down on paper, and then we can evaluate the evidence for your argument. I've got scads of books on early liturgy, first century Judaism, church architecture, and so forth, and none of them substantiate your claims either about early Christianity or contemporaneous Jewish practices--in fact, most flatly contradict them. So we are a little bit curious as to what you were told and by whom that runs so contrary to the current state of liturgical research.

For a useful introduction into early synagogue and church architecture, I recommend Leslie J. Hoppe, The Synagogues and Churches of Ancient Palestine, Liturgical Press (Collegeville, MN), 1994.

Of particular interest to this discussion is Chapter 1-The Synagogue: Preliminary Issues, which covers the origins of the synagogue, synagogue worship, and the internal arrangements of the synagogue, including the transition from broadhouse to basilica to apsidal floor plans between the first century BC and the third century AD.

Chapter 5-The Church: Preliminary Issues, covers the same material for the early church, including the rise and organization of house churches, the transition to specialized worship spaces, the architectural style of church buildings, typical features of church buildings--including orientation from a very early date. One factor Hoppe stresses is the difficulty of discerning the difference between early churches and synagogues because (a) the Christians of Palestine worshiped in assemblies they called "synagogues"; and (b) it was several centuries before the Christians of Palestine developed their own symbolic matrix by which churches could be discerned from synagogues. Churches and synagogues in ancient Palestine were quite similar, yet every church excavated and identified has the classic features of a Christian house of worship, including a nave, a sanctuary (usually at the east end), a narthex (sometimes) and even a tabernacle (in the form of a niche in the east end). Jewish synagogues have the same features, with minor variations (orientation towards Jerusalem, and not simply the East), because both church and synagogue were drawing on a common tradition.

The remainder of the book gives examples and analyses of the most noteworthy synagogues and churches of the first several centuries. It is an excellent introduction to the subject.

A excellent read at Ignatius Insight "When we study the most ancient liturgical practices of the Church"...



http://insightscoop.typepad.com/200...-liturgical-practices-of-the-church.html

Thought I read something here about the same topic...