2nd Century Church Service

[Hamalas]

Any thoughts on this article? http://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org...-a-church-service-like-in-the-second-century/

Does he get it right? Or are there things he leaves out/adds in?

 

[reaganmarsh]

I wondered about the believers taking the elements home to have private communion under their own roofs. I can't recall reading that anywhere else before...

 

[Hamalas]

I wondered about the believers taking the elements home to have private communion under their own roofs. I can't recall reading that anywhere else before...

That caught my eye as well.

 

[reaganmarsh]

The rest of the liturgy, more or less, is pretty standard with what I've read elsewhere. There are always some small variations, which I attribute partly to various researchers accessing different sources, and partly to the local/regional traditions and practices which inevitably developed over time. But the take-home communion was something new for me.

 

[jambo]

Justin Martyr records taking the elements to those who were absent. It can be found in his Apologia 1 sections 65 and 66. Bettenson's "Early Christian Fathers" p61-62 also gives the section on communion during the worship service.

 

[reaganmarsh]

Thanks for that note re: Justin's Apologia. It has been a while since I read that work.

It would seem, though, that taking the leftover elements home specifically for serving yourself personal daily Communion would differ from an elder taking the elements for the purpose of serving those who were absent from worship due to illness, age, etc.

I'll have to revisit that section of Apologia. Again, thanks for sharing it.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

While this is certainly interesting, I personally don't see any reason to put any more stock into what the church did in the second century than what it did in the twelfth century, or any other century. The Bible must be our standard for worship.

 

[MW]

Any thoughts on this article? http://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org...-a-church-service-like-in-the-second-century/

The major problem comes in the way of supposing the "church" is singular and uniform in its practice, which means the texts are read with this idea of uniformity, and naturally enough this in turn produces an uniform church service. From an ecclesiastical point of view it looks inviting, but historically it is open to all kinds of criticism.

 

[reaganmarsh]

Any thoughts on this article? http://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org...-a-church-service-like-in-the-second-century/

The major problem comes in the way of supposing the "church" is singular and uniform in its practice, which means the texts are read with this idea of uniformity, and naturally enough this in turn produces an uniform church service. From an ecclesiastical point of view it looks inviting, but historically it is open to all kinds of criticism.

Much more cogently stated than my comment above, but precisely where I was heading. Thank you, sir.

 

[Grimmson]

While this is certainly interesting, I personally don't see any reason to put any more stock into what the church did in the second century than what it did in the twelfth century, or any other century. The Bible must be our standard for worship.

I do, but at the same time I agree that the scriptures must be our standard for worship. I think the recorded practices of the second century are important because they are heirs of the writers of the scripture, who were from the first century. So it lends perspective. The second century church was the means of preserving scripture, so if they had a particular practice in place that we disagree with on scriptural grounds then the obvious question is why did they do it? What would be their interpretation of the same scripture that we disagree with? I am not here to start a fight, but I think these questions should be considered when we read the fathers and be willing to provide them a measure of grace in areas of disagreement. A group, especially in the East, who had a better mastery of the Greek language than any of us. I am not expecting an answer, nor do I want snarky comments. I think it is to easy to read our own traditions into their practices and make judgements accordingly.

And Rev. Winzer is absolutely right considering the issue of uniformity.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

While this is certainly interesting, I personally don't see any reason to put any more stock into what the church did in the second century than what it did in the twelfth century, or any other century. The Bible must be our standard for worship.

I do, but at the same time I agree that the scriptures must be our standard for worship. I think the recorded practices of the second century are important because they are heirs of the writers of the scripture, who were from the first century. So it lends perspective. The second century church was the means of preserving scripture, so if they had a particular practice in place that we disagree with on scriptural grounds then the obvious question is why did they do it? What would be their interpretation of the same scripture that we disagree with? I am not here to start a fight, but I think these questions should be considered when we read the fathers and be willing to provide them a measure of grace in areas of disagreement. A group, especially in the East, who had a better mastery of the Greek language than any of us. I am not expecting an answer, nor do I want snarky comments. I think it is to easy to read our own traditions into their practices and make judgements accordingly.

And Rev. Winzer is absolutely right considering the issue of uniformity.

My point was that heresy began to creep into the church even before the Bible was completed, and so just because something was being practiced by churches in the second century does not neccesarily mean that is something that we have to emulate.