Is the mass biblical?

ucseae1

Some discussions on a thread about the mass. Is it biblical?

martinedwards

there is a lot of Bible in a mass.

regardless of denomination, church today is nothing that the 1st century worshippers would recognise, so to say is what we do today in RC, CofI, Methodist or Presby biblical?.....

again, each will have a lot of Bible IN it, but there's very little in the instructions given in the NT about the person in charge being a celibate bloke in a dress, having his handbag on fire, or having any musical instruments in the room.

there is nothing about having wafers..... Jesus used bread & wine, and it was wine, and not ribena like some denominations that have issues with alcohol use.......

Oh yeah, and church is the PEOPLE, not the Building. 1st century Christians would be horrified with the amount we spend nowadays on maintaining buildings, as they met in homes, or in public spaces.

Manach

Looking at the fons et origino, then the creation of the Church had various tangenteral effects. The crafting of the new testament, the coalescing of the structure and the gathering together to commerate the first mass. Given the Greco-Roman-Judeo milleu from which this sprang, when some form of communal worship developed in a centralised place, the size depending on factors such as how vigorous the local Roman Governor was.

uck51js9zml2yt

martinedwards wrote: »

there is a lot of Bible in a mass.

regardless of denomination, church today is nothing that the 1st century worshippers would recognise, so to say is what we do today in RC, CofI, Methodist or Presby biblical?.....

again, each will have a lot of Bible IN it, but there's very little in the instructions given in the NT about the person in charge being a celibate bloke in a dress, having his handbag on fire, or having any musical instruments in the room.

there is nothing about having wafers..... Jesus used bread & wine, and it was wine, and not ribena like some denominations that have issues with alcohol use.......

Oh yeah, and church is the PEOPLE, not the Building. 1st century Christians would be horrified with the amount we spend nowadays on maintaining buildings, as they met in homes, or in public spaces.[/quthemqThere's a lot remimisent of Judaism with the concept of repeating the sacrifice, the separation of the clergy from the populace, the secret rituals only perfomed by them.
An idea compounded by the use of a language unknown to the majority of the people.

When we look at the new testament and see those activities that are common to the church meeting,the mass is nowhere near it.
Granted the NT does not define every aspect of the Church gathering, it does say what should be evident.

Peregrinus

The mass is biblical, yes.

Rock up to a Jewish synagogue some time and attend the sabbath evening service. Borrow a prayer book with parallel texts and you will recognise

- introductory rite
- confession
- hymn of praise
- reading(s) from the Hebrew scriptures
- singing of a psalm
- sermon
- concluding prayer

You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to recognise that here we find the first half of the mass - the Introductory Rites and Liturgy of the Word.

Not being Jewish, you don't get to see the next bit, but the congregation will go home for the Sabbath meal, at which the head of the household will take some bread, pray over it, break it and pass it around, before doing the same with some wine. Are we recognising anything yet?

Right. The early Christians, as we know, were Jewish, and they continued to participate in Jewish congregations for some time. But they took the Sabbath meal ritual and emphasised it, investing particular signficance in it because they remembered the words and actions of Jesus the night before he died and, before very long, because they understood it not merely as a commemoration of the passover but as a re-presentation of the sacrifice of Christ.

One consequence of this was that they didn't celebrate it in families, but in the larger community. They still met in private houses, while the Christian community was small enough to allow this, but it wasn't long before that ceased to be practical. Plus, it had some problems to which Paul refers, with the owners of the houses used sometimes trying to dictate who would be invited and who would not, etc.

Between one thing and another, the breaking of the bread soon came to be celebrated not in houses, but in public spaces - first rented or borrowed, but in time built by the community specifically for this purpose.

An associated development was that Christians were, in time, excluded from Jewish congregations, or they withdrew from Jewish congregations, and no longer attended synagogue services. They then began to celebrate what would have been the synagogue services along with the breaking of the bread - joining the Liturgy of the Word to the Liturgy of the Eucharist to make something that looks strikingly like the Mass we know.

Once the ritual moved out of private houses, it was presided over not by householders but by the bishop or, as the community grew in size, by presbyters whose particular ministry was to assist the bishop in this regard.

Another aspect of this transition was the increasing formalisation of the breaking of the bread; it ceased to be associated with an actual meal, and became a symbolic meal only. It also involved new prayers which included a good deal of explicit reflection on the specifically Christian signficance of the breaking of the bread as a commemoration of Christ and a representation of his sacrifice.

So, yes, the mass is biblical. And much of it stems from the Old Testament, not the New. But it did undergo significant transition as Christianity came to understand itself and to separate itself from Judaism, and this process was only partly complete when the New Testament texts were written, so it's not fully reflected in the NT texts.

Thinkingaboutit

Jeremiah Straight Raffle wrote: »

martinedwards wrote: »

there is a lot of Bible in a mass.

regardless of denomination, church today is nothing that the 1st century worshippers would recognise, so to say is what we do today in RC, CofI, Methodist or Presby biblical?.....

again, each will have a lot of Bible IN it, but there's very little in the instructions given in the NT about the person in charge being a celibate bloke in a dress, having his handbag on fire, or having any musical instruments in the room.

there is nothing about having wafers..... Jesus used bread & wine, and it was wine, and not ribena like some denominations that have issues with alcohol use.......

Oh yeah, and church is the PEOPLE, not the Building. 1st century Christians would be horrified with the amount we spend nowadays on maintaining buildings, as they met in homes, or in public spaces.[/quthemqThere's a lot remimisent of Judaism with the concept of repeating the sacrifice, the separation of the clergy from the populace, the secret rituals only perfomed by them.
An idea compounded by the use of a language unknown to the majority of the people.

When we look at the new testament and see those activities that are common to the church meeting,the mass is nowhere near it.
Granted the NT does not define every aspect of the Church gathering, it does say what should be evident.

You seem to know first century Christians so perfectly. Time machine? More likely a Protestant re-imagining of Christian history and Tradition. Virginity was prized to an extraordinary degree among early Christians. Men and women would take the utterly un-Roman choice of turning from marriage and carnal love. Perhaps some women took this choice to emancipate themselves from the authority of father and husband, but it was taken by great numbers of men and women. It is mentioned even in the Acts of the Apostles (1 Corinthians 7:34 etc). This makes the snide reference to men in dresses particularly foolish.

uck51js9zml2yt

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

Jeremiah Straight Raffle wrote: »

You seem to know first century Christians so perfectly. Time machine? More likely a Protestant re-imagining of Christian history and Tradition. Virginity was prized to an extraordinary degree among early Christians. Men and women would take the utterly un-Roman choice of turning from marriage and carnal love. Perhaps some women took this choice to emancipate themselves from the authority of father and husband, but it was taken by great numbers of men and women. It is mentioned even in the Acts of the Apostles (1 Corinthians 7:34 etc). This makes the snide reference to men in dresses particularly foolish.

I'm not sure why you quoted me never mind went on to talk about virginity.
As for Protestant imagining, you must be referring to Martin , but then protestant imagining is no different to RC imaginings !

La Fenetre

Scott Hahn, a former Presbyterian minister and Professor of Theology at Chesapeake Presbyterian Seminary, and now a Catholic, gives an excellent video talk on the Mass and Scripture. It's about 25 mins long.

For anyone interested search for :

Dr. Scott Hahn The Bible and the Sacrifice of the Mass

Dubl07

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

Jeremiah Straight Raffle wrote: »

You seem to know first century Christians so perfectly. Time machine? More likely a Protestant re-imagining of Christian history and Tradition. Virginity was prized to an extraordinary degree among early Christians. Men and women would take the utterly un-Roman choice of turning from marriage and carnal love. Perhaps some women took this choice to emancipate themselves from the authority of father and husband, but it was taken by great numbers of men and women. It is mentioned even in the Acts of the Apostles (1 Corinthians 7:34 etc). This makes the snide reference to men in dresses particularly foolish.

I wouldn't take anything Paul wrote about females to be gospel. He was an utter misogynist. None of my female friends or family would let him through the gate let alone over the threshold.

La Fenetre

Dubl07 wrote: »

I wouldn't take anything Paul wrote about females to be gospel. He was an utter misogynist. None of my female friends or family would let him through the gate let alone over the threshold.

I doubt they are like Priestesses of Corinth that Paul had to contend with.
In Paul's day, one of the several pagan temples in Corinth was dedicated to the Greek goddess Aphrodite. Men were required to regularly 'worship' Aphrodite by having sex with one of the 1000 temple Priestesses, who had to be paid handsomely for their 'ministry'.

ucseae1

Peregrinus wrote: »

The mass is biblical, yes.

Rock up to a Jewish synagogue some time and attend the sabbath evening service. Borrow a prayer book with parallel texts and you will recognise

- introductory rite
- confession
- hymn of praise
- reading(s) from the Hebrew scriptures
- singing of a psalm
- sermon
- concluding prayer

You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to recognise that here we find the first half of the mass - the Introductory Rites and Liturgy of the Word.

Not being Jewish, you don't get to see the next bit, but the congregation will go home for the Sabbath meal, at which the head of the household will take some bread, pray over it, break it and pass it around, before doing the same with some wine. Are we recognising anything yet?

Right. The early Christians, as we know, were Jewish, and they continued to participate in Jewish congregations for some time. But they took the Sabbath meal ritual and emphasised it, investing particular signficance in it because they remembered the words and actions of Jesus the night before he died and, before very long, because they understood it not merely as a commemoration of the passover but as a re-presentation of the sacrifice of Christ.

One consequence of this was that they didn't celebrate it in families, but in the larger community. They still met in private houses, while the Christian community was small enough to allow this, but it wasn't long before that ceased to be practical. Plus, it had some problems to which Paul refers, with the owners of the houses used sometimes trying to dictate who would be invited and who would not, etc.

Between one thing and another, the breaking of the bread soon came to be celebrated not in houses, but in public spaces - first rented or borrowed, but in time built by the community specifically for this purpose.

An associated development was that Christians were, in time, excluded from Jewish congregations, or they withdrew from Jewish congregations, and no longer attended synagogue services. They then began to celebrate what would have been the synagogue services along with the breaking of the bread - joining the Liturgy of the Word to the Liturgy of the Eucharist to make something that looks strikingly like the Mass we know.

Once the ritual moved out of private houses, it was presided over not by householders but by the bishop or, as the community grew in size, by presbyters whose particular ministry was to assist the bishop in this regard.

Another aspect of this transition was the increasing formalisation of the breaking of the bread; it ceased to be associated with an actual meal, and became a symbolic meal only. It also involved new prayers which included a good deal of explicit reflection on the specifically Christian signficance of the breaking of the bread as a commemoration of Christ and a representation of his sacrifice.

So, yes, the mass is biblical. And much of it stems from the Old Testament, not the New. But it did undergo significant transition as Christianity came to understand itself and to separate itself from Judaism, and this process was only partly complete when the New Testament texts were written, so it's not fully reflected in the NT texts.

Thanks, That is an excellent post.

uck51js9zml2yt

Dubl07 wrote: »

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

I wouldn't take anything Paul wrote about females to be gospel. He was an utter misogynist. None of my female friends or family would let him through the gate let alone over the threshold.

So you'd also ignore his command that men love their wives !

Still not sure why these posts about women are directed at me but this is boards:D

martinedwards

dunno where the women rant came from.... there's nothing in my post about women either.....

I stand by the rest of my comments. 1st century Christianity was a house church movement, with daily meetings in public areas when they could use them, or at the riverside when indoors wasn't available. but definitely no big buildings with a big thermometer outside to display how much is needed for the roof fund!

as to the Mass? like I said, a load of scripture in it, just like the C of I liturgy, and the Presby service I was at for a baptism on Sunday.

There is NO mention of musical instruments in the NT, so whether that means they didn't use them, or they were so obvious that they didn't merit a mention is up for discussion. Personally, I'm all for them, but not a fan of the silly dresses that clergy of all denominations wear.

And as for the celibacy thing, Peter's Mother in Law is mentioned in Matt 8:14, so he was definitely married. No mention of the other disciples or Jesus himself either being, or not being married. Personally, I reckon Jesus was single........

Culture at the time dictates that women were lesser beings (well wrong obviously) so there is little said about them other than they got on with their wifely duties.

but none of this has anything to do with the original post.....

Peregrinus

martinedwards wrote: »

but none of this has anything to do with the original post.....

You’re too hard on yourself. I think some of it does.

martinedwards wrote: »

as to the Mass? like I said, a load of scripture in it, just like the C of I liturgy, and the Presby service I was at for a baptism on Sunday.

Yup. But the mass (and many other Christian liturgies) are biblical not just in the sense of involving the proclamation of scripture, but in the sense of being rituals that are rooted in biblical precedents and principles.

martinedwards wrote: »

1st century Christianity was a house church movement, with daily meetings in public areas when they could use them, or at the riverside when indoors wasn't available. but definitely no big buildings with a big thermometer outside to display how much is needed for the roof fund!

You’re skipping an intermediate stage. After Christian ceremonies and liturgies became too big or too complex to hold in private houses, but before the Christians started building churches, they went through a period when liturgies were typically celebrated in public spaces that were available for community purposes. Most Graeco-Roman cities had them; you could book them or hire them or just turn up and use them. They were called “basilicas”, and Christians later borrowed both the name and the floor-plan for their purpose built-churches.

The earliest purpose-built churches that survive today date from the third century, but Christian were certainly celebrating their liturgies in large public buildings from the late first century. The just didn’t own the buildings.

martinedwards wrote: »

There is NO mention of musical instruments in the NT, so whether that means they didn't use them, or they were so obvious that they didn't merit a mention is up for discussion. Personally, I'm all for them, but not a fan of the silly dresses that clergy of all denominations wear.

At a guess, the early Christians didn’t use instruments in their liturgies. We know the Jews didn’t, and Greek Christians still don’t (and never did). Instrumental accompaniment seems to have been an innovation of Western Christianity in the Middle Ages.

As for clerical dress, this goes in waves. The liturgical vestments used by Orthodox and Catholic priests are based on Byzantine court dress of the fourth century. Monastic robes are based on standard respectable dress from the later Middle Ages. Protestant divines, for a long time, wore clerical garb based on the clothes that would have been worn by a professional man - a lawyer or a doctor - in the sixteenth century. The black clerical suit evolved in the early twentieth century. An evangelical pastor today is likely to wear a business suit, while his congregation have largely abandoned suits for casual trousers and open-necked shirts.

There’s an obvious pattern here. From time to time clerical dress is “rebased” to whatever is standard, but comparatively high-status, dress at the time. It then gets “fossilised” while fashions move on, until it gets rebased again.

What did congregational leaders wear in the early church? We don’t know - nobody bothered to write it down. But a wild guess says they wore clothing which was standard for the time, but erred on the side of conservativeness and indicated a claim to social standing. Think “Sunday best”.

martinedwards wrote: »

And as for the celibacy thing, Peter's Mother in Law is mentioned in Matt 8:14, so he was definitely married. No mention of the other disciples or Jesus himself either being, or not being married. Personally, I reckon Jesus was single........

Celibacy doesn’t seem to have been a thing until the development of monasticism. Paul, as we know, counselled celibacy as the better option, but that’s mainly because he thought the world was about to end. Once Christianity passed through that phase, we have no reason to think that bishops or priests were expected to be celibate until (a) monasticism arose, and (b) monasticism began to influence models of priestly ministry. Even Paul, who as we have just noted approved of celibacy, doesn’t seem to have linked it to ministry; in 1 Timothy his instruction is that a bishop should be the husband of one wife (i.e. should not be divorced), not that he should be unmarried.

La Fenetre

martinedwards wrote: »

I stand by the rest of my comments. 1st century Christianity was a house church movement, with daily meetings in public areas when they could use them, or at the riverside when indoors wasn't available. but definitely no big buildings with a big thermometer outside to display how much is needed for the roof fund!

Indeed, much out it of necessity. Up until the early 4th century, you were putting you and your family's lives at risk being a Christian in the Roman empire and many Christians were executed in sporadic persecutions depending on what notion the emperor of the day took.
It's not that long ago that we had to use the Mass rocks for many years in this country for the same reasons, and I'd say Syrian Christians are back to the house churches, if they are lucky, for good reason too. These things come and go, depending on the times you live in and where.

Safehands

ucseae1 wrote: »

Thanks, That is an excellent post.

Not unusual for Peregrinus. His posts are usually excellent.

katydid

Dubl07 wrote: »

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

I wouldn't take anything Paul wrote about females to be gospel. He was an utter misogynist. None of my female friends or family would let him through the gate let alone over the threshold.

I don't think he was. He was a man of his time, in a patriarchal society. True, he said that thing about women not speaking in church, but he also wrote with great respect to and of his followers, making respectful references to some of the women.

The thing is that we have to take him in the context of his time, as an individual expressing his opinions; the RCC seems to base its argument against equality for women on that one phrase from his many writings, rather than on anything Jesus ever said!