The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
That latin friend, Deacon Eric, Pastor Freed, Sebastian, Deepu
5,836 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
2 members (byzanTN, 1 invisible), 65 guests, and 31 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,152
Posts414,830
Members5,836
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
StuartK #330441 08/20/09 06:42 PM
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,225
Likes: 1
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,225
Likes: 1
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 #330442 08/20/09 06:45 PM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,437
Administrator
Member
Offline
Administrator
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,437
Originally Posted by danman916
[I guess that my main argument comes in that there are those who very strongly assert that versus populum is something absolutely foreign to Christianity until 50 years ago by appealing to arguments of which I have demonstrated could very well have been a development in the 2nd century or later.
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


Everyone baptized into Christ should pass progressively through all the stages of Christ's own life, for in baptism he receives the power so to progress, and through the commandments he can discover and learn how to accomplish such progression. - Saint Gregory of Sinai
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450
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.


Last edited by danman916; 08/20/09 07:03 PM.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
Quote
If we are to grant that, then one must also grant that we cannot recreate in detail knowing that ad orientam was the norm everywhere either.

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

StuartK #330447 08/20/09 07:04 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
Quote
That would be an ad hominem argument.

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 #330448 08/20/09 07:07 PM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,437
Administrator
Member
Offline
Administrator
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,437
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


Everyone baptized into Christ should pass progressively through all the stages of Christ's own life, for in baptism he receives the power so to progress, and through the commandments he can discover and learn how to accomplish such progression. - Saint Gregory of Sinai
StuartK #330449 08/20/09 07:09 PM
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450
Originally Posted by StuartK
Quote
If we are to grant that, then one must also grant that we cannot recreate in detail knowing that ad orientam was the norm everywhere either.

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


StuartK #330450 08/20/09 07:11 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
Quote
Why are you making an appeal to Greco-Roman culture when the ritual meal of passover (from which the Eucharist comes from) was specifically Hebrew in origin?

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.

StuartK #330451 08/20/09 07:23 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
Quote
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?

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.

Quote
If memory serves, Christians were kicked out of the synagogue and anathematized after the destruction of the temple.
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.

Quote
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.

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 #330452 08/20/09 07:24 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,666
Likes: 12
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,666
Likes: 12
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

StuartK #330463 08/20/09 09:10 PM
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450
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.


danman916 #330464 08/20/09 09:24 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
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.

StuartK #330472 08/20/09 11:18 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
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.

Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,225
Likes: 1
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,225
Likes: 1
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...

#330524 08/21/09 07:30 PM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,437
Administrator
Member
Offline
Administrator
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,437
Administrator's Note:

Part of this thread was split from another thread and joined to this one. Posters are reminded to keep the discussion on-topic or the moderators will close it from any further discussion.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator


Everyone baptized into Christ should pass progressively through all the stages of Christ's own life, for in baptism he receives the power so to progress, and through the commandments he can discover and learn how to accomplish such progression. - Saint Gregory of Sinai
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  Alice, Father Deacon Ed, theophan 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2022 (Forum 1998-2022). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5