Posted on 08/20/2014 2:14:15 AM PDT by markomalley
As you may know, the Catholic Faith was illegal in the Roman Empire prior to 313 AD, when the Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan permitting the Christian Faith to flourish publicly. Prior to that time, Church buildings as we know them today were rare—Mass was usually celebrated in houses.
Now be careful here; these “houses” were usually rather sizable, with a central courtyard or large room that permitted something a little more formal than Mass “around the dining room table.” I remember being taught (incorrectly) that these early Masses were informal, emphasized a relaxed, communal quality, and were celebrated facing the people. Well, it turns out that really isn’t true. People didn’t just sit around a table or sit in circle—not at all. They sat or stood formally, and everyone faced in one direction: east.
In the drawing (to the right) you can see the layout of an ancient house church (actually more often called a Domus Dei (House of God)) drawn based on an excavated 3rd century house church in Dura-Europos (located in what is now today’s Syria). Click on the diagram for a clearer view. The assembly room is to the left and a priest or bishop is depicted conducting a liturgy (facing east) at an altar against the east wall. A baptistery is on the right and a deacon is depicted guarding the entrance door. The lonely-looking deacon in the back of the assembly hall is there to “preserve good order,” as you will read below. The photograph below shows the baptistery of the Dura-Europos house church.
What is remarkable about these early liturgies is how formal they were despite the fact that they were conducted under less-than-ideal circumstances. The following text is from the Didiscalia, a document written in about 250 AD. Among other things, it gives rather elaborate details about the celebration of the early Catholic Mass in these “house liturgies.” I have included an excerpt here and interspersed my own comments in RED. You will find that there are some rather humorous remarks in this ancient text toward the end.
Now, in your gatherings, in the holy Church, convene yourselves modestly in places of the brethren, as you will, in a manner pleasing and ordered with care. [So these "house liturgies" were NOT informal Masses. Good order and careful attention to detail were essential.] Let the place of the priests be separated in a part of the house that faces east. [So even in these early house Masses, the sanctuary (the place where the clergy ministered) was an area distinct from where the laity gathered. People were not all just gathered around a dining room table.] In the midst of them is placed the bishop’s chair, and with him let the priests be seated. Likewise, and in another section let the lay men be seated facing east. [Prayer was conducted facing east, not facing the people.] For thus it is proper: that the priests sit with the bishop in a part of the house to the east and after them the lay men and the lay women, [Notice that men and women sat in separate sections. This was traditional in many churches until rather recently, say the last 150 years.] and when you stand to pray, the ecclesial leaders rise first, and after them the lay men, and again, then the women. Now, you ought to face to east to pray for, as you know, scripture has it, Give praise to God who ascends above the highest heavens to the east. [Again, note that Mass was NOT celebrated facing the people as some suppose of the early Church. Everyone was to face to the east, both clergy and laypeople. Everyone faced in the same direction. The text cites Scripture as the reason for this. God is to the east, the origin of the light.]
Now, of the deacons, one always stands by the Eucharistic oblations and the others stand outside the door watching those who enter [Remember, this was a time of persecution and the early Christians were careful to allow only baptized and bona fide members to enter the Sacred Mysteries. No one was permitted to enter the Sacred Liturgy until after having been baptized. This was called the disciplina arcanis, or "discipline of the secret." Deacons guarded the door to maintain this discipline.] and afterwards, when you offer let them together minister in the church. [Once the door was locked and the Mass began, it would seem that the deacons took their place in the sanctuary. However it also appears that one deacon remained outside the sanctuary to maintain "good order" among the laity.] And if there is one to be found who is not sitting in his place let the deacon who is within, rebuke him, and make him to rise and sit in his fitting place … also, in the church the young ones ought to sit separately, if there is a place, if not let them stand. Those of more advanced age should sit separately; the boys should sit separately or their fathers and mothers should take them and stand; and let the young girls sit separately, if there is really not a place, let them stand behind the women; let the young who are married and have little children stand separately, the older women and widows should sit separately. [This may all seem a bit complicated, but the bottom line is that seating was according to sex and age: the men on one side, the women on the other, older folks to the front, younger ones to the back. Also, those caring for young children were to stand in a separate area. See? Even in the old days there was a "cry room!"] And a deacon should see that each one who enters gets to his place, and that none of these sits in an inappropriate place. Likewise, the deacon ought to see that there are none who whisper or sleep or laugh or nod off. [Wait a minute! Do you mean to tell me that some of the early Christians did such things? Say it isn't so! Today, ushers do this preserving of good order, but the need remains.] For in the Church it is necessary to have discipline, sober vigilance, and attentive ear to the Word of the Lord. [Well that is said pretty plainly—and the advice is still needed.]
It appears that truly liturgical worship is approved in Heaven.
No, my friend, I sort of get it. Thank you for taking the time to respond.
Going to have to think about it for a while though. These things - though they be a matter of life and death - can be taken slowly.
Though I sometimes long for the ornamentality and beauty of physical things (as the Jews had), I’m content with the heavenly things God has granted His children in this life (i.e. Jesus’ priesthood and intercession, etc.), and to wait on Him to bring me into the full enjoyment of the promised heavenly things after this life is over. (The physical things seem so shabby in comparison, don’t they?)
So I’ll suppress my shallow desires for dim copies of the physical kind, and instead follow Jesus when He says to “worship in spirit and in truth.”
What is seen in the liturgy is simply a preview of what will take place in Heaven.
It is okay to ask questions.
Post 23 God does give us hints how worship will take place in Heaven and also that we see on earth is simply a preview.
Actually, there are a number of ways to pray, beautiful and sincere and God-pleasing ways, taught by precept and by example in the Bible.
The Psalms illustrate this: some grandly liturgical, some intensely private and personal (and yet sung in public, with instructions for the musicians).
You have Jesus going off my himself to pray in the mountains; also praying in the Temple and carefully observing the Temple Holy Days.
You have contemplative prayer ("Be still and know that I am God") and you have prophetic rants against the Almighty (Jeremiah: "You duped me! And I let myself be duped!")
Yes, agreed, you are thinking rightly when you say "I’ll suppress my shallow desires for dim copies of the physical kind," but nobody should think that liturgical prayer is shallow or dim.
It IS physical --- and spiritual --- just as WE are physical and spiritual. God does not scorn our senses, our yearning for the "taste and see." He creaed these yearnngs. He became incarnate to fulfill them. And liturgical prayer --- just like prayer n your closet that makes your knees ache --- is prayer incarnate.
I like how you communicate.
Context, context, context:
(KJV)Ezekiel 8:15-17
Then said he unto me, Hast thou seen this , O son of man? turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than these. [16] And he brought me into the inner court of the Lord’s house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the Lord , between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the Lord , and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east. [17] Then he said unto me, Hast thou seen this , O son of man? Is it a light thing to the house of Judah that they commit the abominations which they commit here? for they have filled the land with violence, and have returned to provoke me to anger: and, lo, they put the branch to their nose.
So we see here God is exposing false worship occurring right in the heart of the true temple. They prayed to the east because in truth they worshipped the sun. This passage is not a good one to justify directional prayer.
I suspect the facility at Dura, if indeed it suggests praying to the east, was coming under the influence of pagan practices. One cannot assume that the late-appearing practices of one house church were normative from the beginning, or even normative for all Christians of that later period. Only God knows all the worship offered to Him in the name of Jesus during that period. No doubt much of it was done in secret, nondescript settings of which we have no known physical record today.
Which is why it is impossible to establish a norm apart from Scripture. We know what we were explicitly told to do to worship God as Christians. Building a liturgical layer on top of that, involving practices clearly more aligned with pagan beliefs than Christian, is a bridge too far. It is a danger to the soul. We have no right to assume we can add to God’s directives for worship. Consider what happened to Nadab and Abihu, who offered “strange fire” to God. No matter how sincere their offering might have been, it was not according to the word God had given, and so was rejected by God. That’s a risk I’m not willing to take.
Peace,
SR
Perhaps he would be so kind as to favour us next with a learned monograph on the Filioque Clause?
If I may quote a Roman friend:
Bravissimo caro Monsignore, ma che cazzo fai?
Only chrstians face east as a matter of principal. Moslems face Mecca and Jews face Jerusalem. Both just happen to be east of here.
Thank-you and God Bless!
BINGO! We have a winner!
Can you please cite in English what the Latin saying means. Thank-you and God Bless.
At a time when we are seeing the world go crazy, articles like this one give me confort.
Plus also it would not surprise me if Msgr. Pope may have had over the years done by maybe leading pilgrimage tours to the lands made famous by the Bible and it may have helped him as well.
Rather, to correct you, we should all thank God for the gift of the sun and sunrises.
Real Romans, BTW, speak neither Latin nor Italian unless necessary, but Rugantino, their very pungent dialect.
Did a translation:
“Bravissimo dear lord, what the h*** are you doing?”
This reminds me of some of what St. Justin Martyr has written. The entire Mass was thee — well almost all of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
