The Ancient Mass in the “House Churches” was not as Informal as Many Think

Archdiocese of Washington ^ | 8/19/2014 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[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.]

[Mrs. Don-o]

Oh, I agree. But the only PURE and PERFECT sacrifice is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself

And, as Malachi prophesies, He is offered from the rising of the son to its setting, in all the gentile nations: the incense, and the pure and perfect sacrifice. The prayers of the people, and the offering of Christ Himself. And it is happening, in every time zone, on every inhabited continent, in the Sacrfice of thr Mass. As it was foretold by Malachi the prophet.

[LearsFool]

Thank you for the reply. I had a busier day than expected, but now have more time for this interesting discussion. :-)

If I understand you correctly, you believe the "pure oblation" and/or the "incense" in Malachi is the sacrifice of Jesus Himself. I'll have to disagree with you here, since I don't believe that could be the case.

Under the old covenant, the Jews offered sacrifices repeatedly, sacrifices of incense, animals, grains, etc. - which were figures, forms, shadows, "imposed until a time of reformation" (Heb. 9, quote from v. 10). By contrast:

"For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many." - Heb. 9:24-28

Jesus' offering of Himself as a pure and perfect sacrifice has been done. It was done once, not to be repeated.

What we do find in the new covenant is the memorial by which we proclaim that sacrifice on the first day of the week:

"For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come." - I Cor. 11:26

And as servants of our Master, we offer ourselves as "a sweet savor of Christ unto God" (II Cor. 2:15), and "present (our) bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God" (Rom. 12:1). Paul called the Phillippians' gifts to him an "odor of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God" (Phill. 4:18). Peter called Christians "living stones, ...built up a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ."

The duty of saints to offer sacrifices to God has not ceased, though the form of sacrifice has changed. Nor is the purpose of these sacrifices to redeem ourselves from sin (that was done by Christ's sacrifice of Himself), but in gratitude and honor of the almighty and merciful God Whom we serve.

[LearsFool]

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.

I would not want you to rush through this important study - not at all. If I can be of any help, I'll be happy to. :-)

[EC1]

Thank you, my friend. Your offer is happily accepted.

I know enough about various religions to spot not just the similarities, but the gaps too. The similarities vex me more than the gaps. They are global. They came from somewhere. Brain wiring? Common culture? Divine inspiration?

I trust the Lord, but like to make sense of what I can.

[LearsFool]

I trust the Lord, but like to make sense of what I can.

God certainly appeals to our reason as He reveals Himself to us in the Scriptures and the Creation. Paul's letter to the Romans is a masterpiece of rational explanation, and the Bible is filled with logical argumentation. (God made us with reasoning minds, after all, and expects us to use them.)

I have some ideas as to the universality of religion, but haven't studied the subject enough to be convinced.

What vexes me more than the similarities are the differences - the differences which divide those who claim to be servants of Christ. This ought not to be the case.

Christians are warned (II Peter, for instance) against false teachers who would try to lead them astray. And, we're told, many would follow their alluring false doctrines.

But though we may differ on questions (such as the one you mentioned) of which God has not revealed the answers, honest examination and discussion of the Scriptures should unite His saints on matters which He has revealed to us.

[EC1]

Spot on!

The Lord gave us brains for a reason, and it wasn’t just to hold our ears apart. It does cause problems though. For example - I am red colorblind. I know the theory of the color red, but while a rose may be bright red to you, it is a sort of brownish grey to me (It’s an oddly beautiful color). Both of us have equally valid views. It’s what we see.

It’s the same with words. Everyone reads slightly differently. Each word is loaded with meaning for all of us, but the meanings are personal.

No expert on the world’s religions, but I’ve been around enough people in a situation of trust to know that there are massive similarities. It’s like the Lord grabbed someone’s ear and said “Here, let me put this in terms you understand. Make sure you write it down.”

Pretty amazing, that.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thank you for your explanation of your beliefs. I b think yu duscused the matter in a qways that was thoughtful and well-expressed. We agree on a good deal here, especially this: "Jesus' offering of Himself as a pure and perfect sacrifice has been done. It was done once, not to be repeated.... What we do find in the new covenant is the memorial by which we proclaim that sacrifice on the first day of the week"

Wha the Mass --- which was prophesies in Malachi --- does, is no to "repeat" thje sacrifice of Chjrist, not to sacrifice Him over and over, but it is a participation in the One sacrifice, which is presented a evey Mass.

Cahrist's sacrifice happeed one, in a hil outside of Jewuslaem, wih the grievous shedding of his blood, His siffering and death. In anothe sense, it happened timeless,ly, because He is God, Whose acts are outside of time and space. Jesus is "the Lamb who was slain before the foundation of the world." This means before, and thus outside of time.

So what you have a the Mass in Christ, the One Priest, offering Himself, the One Sacrifice, something we can make contact with in the "now" because He has made it possible. In a sense, it's not somethin some priest of the Catholic Church does, or something we do: it';s something CVhjris does. He is the one acting here.

We know this is so because of the ultimate life-and-death seriousness of the Eucharist reality: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the Body and Blood of the Lord."

[LearsFool]

Here I might have to disagree with you a bit, my friend.

Though you and I see a red rose differently, it is the color that it is. You acknowledge the defect in your sight (and I mean no offense when I say that!), the result of which is that you don't perceive its color correctly.

Of course, correct perception of color is of comparatively little consequence - compared to such important things as man's relation to God.

But God has not left us at the mercy of defective faculties, has He? Can His Word be understood only by the educated, the intelligent, the intellectual and scholarly? Is He unable to bridge the mental divide (chasm, even!) between us and Him, so that the wonderful gospel cannot be understood by all?

If the Scriptures cannot be understood, then hasn't God failed in His effort to "communicate" with us? If He speaks in such a way that we can't understand, then He has failed.

But He hasn't. Listen to the apostle Paul:

...how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets... - Eph. 3

I excerpted that because Paul "waxes eloquent" ;-) in his letter to the Ephesians, and it takes some close reading and re-reading to follow his train of thought. And yet it's understandable, just as he claims: "when you read, you may understand".

Paul, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote and wrote and wrote. Why? If his readers couldn't understand, why should the Spirit direct him to write?

"Consider what I say, and may the Lord give you understanding in all things." - II Tim. 2:7

Paul prayed for his readers, that God would grant them understanding. And then he wrote so that they could understand.

"...making mention of you in my prayers: that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe" - Eph. 1:16ff

After Paul prayed for the Ephesian saints, he wrote them this letter so that they could have that very understanding and enlightenment for which he had prayed for them!

One last quote - before this post gets too lengthy:

"'Come now, and let us reason together,' saith Jehovah" - Isaiah 1:18

If we can't understand what He says to us, then His invitation is meaningless, even cruel. And neither you nor I believe that about our God.

[LearsFool]

You must have been either in a hurry or on a cellphone when you typed that post! :-) That's okay, I can still make out your words.

Understanding what you're saying, on the other hand, is not so easy. You seem to delve into speculative matters of the nature of time, which, though interesting theoretical discussions, are of little if any pertinence in Christianity. I say that because I don't find such matters in Scripture - which is in itself sufficient, "that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work." (II Tim. 3:17)

Perhaps I've misunderstood you? If so, would you provide some Scriptural foundation for your position for me to consider?

Meanwhile, I'm happy that we agree on the celebration and proclamation of Jesus' sacrifice in the "Lord's Supper".

[Springfield Reformer]

Another problem with your position is that the wording and grammar of Malachi 1:11 does not require the interpretation you suggest. The conversation between God and the priests is about their failure to present healthy, unblemished sacrifices to God, Who, as verse 14 says in parallel meaning, that God is the great king, and is worthy of only the best offerings. So although the entire sacrificial system does point to the perfection of Christ, the types of that perfection, the animals provided for sacrifice, had to be ceremonially perfect to fulfill their purpose as a type of Christ. Yet these wicked priests were cheating God and defiling the typology by collaborating with the laity to disobey the explicit requirement of the law, that the sacrifice be healthy and unblemished. God required sacrifice that was pure under the law, therefore it was possible for there to be such a sacrifice, even in the type. This means that it is not necessary to conclude that the pure offering spoken of here is Christ in any direct sense.

Furthermore, because, as has been pointed out by others, that incense describes prayer in metaphor, it becomes possible to see the pure offering metaphorically as well. As has been pointed out, our thanksgiving, our devotion to God and His truth and submission to His sovereignty over our life are all accounted as sacrifices well pleasing to and acceptable with God. And as God told Peter, do not call unclean what God has called clean. Note that this is spoken in the context of Gentiles being admitted to God’s salvation and being blessed with the Holy Spirit, and thereby empowered to give the purest offering of praise to God, all without any mention of some bloodless wafer. So these too would qualify as fulfilment of a pure (I.e., ceremonially clean) offering to God.

As to whether Malachi here refers to one offering or many, it is common enough to describe multiple events as a single event occurring in many places, such as Moses being read everywhere. There isn’t one act of Moses being read, but many such acts distributed over many places. We would not be confused by the statement, “in every city you will find a Holiday Inn.” We would not expect there to be only one of a franchise, though we do rightly expect each instance of the franchise to share common characteristics.

And so it is with any pure offering made to God. It is acceptable, because God has made it so through Christ. It is offered in spirit and in truth, because that is what pleases God. And it does not, as with these wicked priests, cheat God, the offering of lame, lipservice worship, which is an insult to His dignity as Sovereign God.

And that’s the decisive point here. God is reprimanding these priests for their failure to obey Him and be faithful representatives of Him to the people of Israel. Verse 11 makes no sense to that conversation if it is twisted into referring to some future act of swapping substances while keeping accidents, more conformant to Aristotle than apostolic teaching. Far more sense is made of this if God here is putting these priests to shame by telling them the offerings of the Gentiles are (or will be) pure and truthful compared to the sham these priests are trying to pull on their Soveriegn King.

That’s one of the key principles of Biblical interpretation, BTW. The conversation has to make sense in its primary context, even if it has a secondary meaning, such as prophecy.

Anyway, lunch break is over.

Peace,

SR

[EC1]

“If we can’t understand what He says to us, then His invitation is meaningless, even cruel. And neither you nor I believe that about our God. “

I have never seen truer words. He’s odd. Can be a little bit elliptical at times. Not His fault - languages change. Words mutate. He’ll be clear enough when he talks right in your ear (that scares the hell out of anyone, certainly frightened me) But the written word gets a bit filtered. He can certainly be stern, but cruel - never.

No offense taken - I get to see colors you don’t, so it’s a fair trade in my book :) Did you know there are at least three colors past Violet?

You minded me of something - stained glass. Our Lord inspired someone to tell the stories in glass form. Objectively it makes no sense. Yet it is the word of the Lord made beautiful, for all to see.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thanks for your patience with my lpses into tpographical incoherence...! Lapses.

Typorgraphica.

Typographical. There.

Rather than launching right into the ol' repartee, let me try telling you a true and recent experience of mine, soon to be grist for an analogy

I'm supposed to deliver parking passes and gate tickets for the Appalachian Fair to a number of parishioners who volunteered to man a pro-life literature table at the Fair. I don't drive. So I had to give instructions like so:

1. [email] No problem, I'll leave the tickets in the Adoration Chapel on the little table at the left. You can pick them up anytime before Saturday. This is all you'll need. [Knowing we all get to the Chapel at least once a week, probably more.]

2. [note] In each ticket envelope I put a note showing how to get to the Fair's designated parking areas, which gate to go in, and how to get to Bldg. 4 where our pro-life table is.

3. [instructions] At the pro-life table I put instructions on how to handle T-shirt and button sales, and best ways to get people to sign the petition. "How to" and "how not to" deal with non-pro-life people who might distract them.

4. [card] I also left a card on the table saying that if they had any questions, they could call me, or Michelle the overall coordinator, and if there were any hassles over the exhibit space they could call the Fair Security office, giving phone number.

Now. Would it make sense if somebody said, "I did pick up the envelope with the tickets, but I couldn't do any more than that because you said that's all I'd need"?

Obviously, that would be nonsense.

Here's what I'm getting at. This is the difficulty with simply saying, without further reflection, that Scripture is in itself sufficient, "that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work." (II Tim. 3:17)

First, Scripture doesn't say that Scripture in itself is sufficient. It says Scripture is "profitable" for "teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness," --- Amen. Yes, it is --- but it dosn't say it's sufficient. The meaning is "with that, along with everything else, you'll be complete" --- NOT "with that ALONE you'll be complete." Paul himself says it needs the the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15).

If this passage actually meant "sufficient," it would mean the Scriptures Timothy knew when he was growing up as a boy -- that's who he's talking to, and what he's referring to --- were sufficient. When Timohy was growing up, many of the Epistles and none of the Gospels had not yet been written!

So if Paul is saying THOSE Scriptures --- the ones Timothy had already leanred --- were "sufficient," he would be saying that the New Testament was not necessary!

But of course, that's not what he meant at all.

So, basically, we have Paul saying to hold fast to Tradition (2 Thess 2:15); and he tells Timothy to "continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it" (2 Tim. 3:14) RIGHT before he tells him the value of the Scipture he learned as a boy; and you have Jesus telling his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and anyone who rejects you, rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ.

All of them got this charge, to transmit Christ's truths by preaching. ALL of them did not leave written Scriptures: (most did not). But they all had this authority to preach and teach. Hence the truths were transmitted by written word, by spoken word, and by the precept and example of the Apostles themselves.

So when you say "Where is THAT in Scriptures" or "How do you get THAT interpretation? Isn't it just speculation?" we can legitimtely say, "The Church handed this down from the days of the APostles. This is how the Church judged the meaning and interpretation down thrugh the centuries."

Jesus Himself said that if there's some kind of dispute, some kind of correction that has to be handed down, you should take it to the Church (Matthew 18:17) and Paul reinforces this strongly, calling the Church "The pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). Back to my little analogy. The Bible itself (like my initial e-mail to my friends) points you to these other resources (the preaching, the example, the rulings of Apostles, the aauthority of the Church) -- it's the Bible itslef which says, "Here's where you can go for the truth."

Please excuse typos.

Now I'm off to some other stuff. A tomato sandwich would be nice... :o) And sorry for the length. I didn't have enough time to write shorter :oO.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Don't have much time to write right now. Thank you for your conscientious and well-expressed points. You might want to have a look at #72.

Have a blessed day.

[LearsFool]

Aha, the old explain-by-analogy trick! I've seen it performed once or twice. If you'll permit me, I'll try my hand at it as well. :-)

You write a brief note to the pro-life volunteers, as follows:

"For some time now you've heard the pro-life argument. And you've even heard me dispute with pro-death people from time to time. That's all good stuff, and you've learned much from it. Hang onto it.

"You'll see and hear more, and will continue to improve as you use what you've learned, and as more of our arguments, approaches, practices, and traditions are documented for future reference.

"Meanwhile, you know what we've taught you to do. Stick to the script, since it is backed by authority. Remember what you've see me and the others do, and be imitators of us.

"We're documenting this as we go, so you'll always have the original to refer back to at any time, should anybody come along with 'new ideas' and try to pull you off-course.

"And just as the first edition was useful to get you this far, this second edition will be every bit as authoritative and will tell you everything you need to know. Bottom line: If it ain't in there, you won't need to know it."

--------------------------

It's interesting how often we find this theme in the NT writings. Peter, for instance:

"And I think it right, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; knowing that the putting off of my tabernacle cometh swiftly, even as our Lord Jesus Christ signified unto me. Yea, I will give diligence that at every time ye may be able after my decease to call these things to remembrance."

He accomplished that goal by writing two epistles. (Some suggest that Mark's gospel is also mainly an account of Peter's experience.)

Luke, also:

"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us, even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus; that thou mightest know the certainty concerning the things wherein thou wast instructed."

And John:

"That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life (and the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare unto you the life, the eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us); that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you also, that ye also may have fellowship with us: yea, and our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ: and these things we write, that our joy may be made full."

Explain to me again, how it is that I can need anything else? /rhetorical

This is what I keep trying to get across to these young Mormon "elders" who knock on my door: The Bible says it's all I need. If it's false, it's altogether useless. But if it's true, then what else do I need?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Except the Bible doesn't say it's all you need.

On the other hand, I've shown many places where it says we need Sacred Tradition (not any-ol' "huma" tradition, but Sacred Tradiion, the kind Paul insisted we "hold fast to") and the teaching authority of the Church:

2 Tim. 3:14,17

2 Thess. 2:15

Luke 10:16

Matthew 18:17

1 Tim 3:15

Throughtout history, many individuals and whole tribes and clans had the Faith, were received in the Church, were saved by Jesus their Savior, without having any access to written Scriptures. Books were extremely few and rare in history before movable type. Not an ideal situation, but nevertheless a true, historical situation. Huge numbers of people were illiterate. Huge numbers of people for many generations periods couldn't get Scriptures in their native tongue. Evennow you can hardly find it in Tuareg or Pashto or many other languages.

St. Stephen deacon, the first martyr, never held a single book of the New Testament in his hand, never laid eyes on it. Every single person mentioned in the Bible lived their Faith without the full OT and NT (with the possible exception of St. John.)

They learned about Our Lord through Oral Tradition --- preaching, teaching, prayers they were taught, songs, liturgy --- and example.

Amirite?

;oD

[LearsFool]

That was a very good, well-written post.

[LearsFool]

Aside from those traditions of the apostles we find in the Scriptures, what other traditions do we need?

[Mrs. Don-o]

The Church is the family of Faith. Continuity is of key importance, since the Church's existence is continuous, not intermittent. Search the historic resources which show us how the early Church believed, prayed, governed and conducted itself, and passed its truths and its way of life on to subsequent generations.

Chains of transmission like St. John - St. Polycarp - St. Irenaeus are crucial.

Look to the principle centers of early Christendom which were founded by the Apostles --- Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, Rome --- and see who their 2nd and 3rd generation teachers were, and what they taught. Early Liturgies, like the Liturgy of St. James (Jerusalem), show us how they conducted public worship.

Apostolic Fathers Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas, Hermas, Epistle to Diognetus, Papias, writings like the Didache-- that's a lot to chew on before you even get to the mid-2nd century!

This is your family!!

Very early resources like the inscriptions in the catacombs of the martyrs of Rome, even what we can learn about the layout of early churches, like the article at the top of this thread about the church at Dura-Europos.

I want to stress continuity, authentic chains of transmission. That's one of the horrible things about the forces of Islam smashing thrugh the cradle-lands of Christianity: the Holy Land, Jordan, Syria, Egypt--- now ISIS thugs have burned as many as 1,500 ancient Christian manuscripts in Mosul alone, and an 1800 year old church --- wiping out not just people, but the whole irreplaceable historic evidence of the Church on the Nineveh plain and beyond, churches founded by St. Thomas and other Apostles.

I'm so sick about this. ISIS knows how EXTREMELY important these things are, the ancient precious legacy of Christianity, and are systematically destroying them. And 90% of "modern" Christianity, 90% asleep, doesn't even know or care that they exist.

Sorry. I got off track. But-- oh, who I mourn that our precious, priceless, irreplaceable Christian roots are being destroyed, and that so many do NOT mourn.

Excuse me, again. I am thinking of how our past is annihilated: by radical Islamists who REALIZE how important it is, and Chrisians who neither know nor care.

[infool7]

and the Devil and his pals chuckle with glee at our grief.

[LearsFool]

Excuse me, again. I am thinking of how our past is annihilated: by radical Islamists who REALIZE how important it is, and Chrisians who neither know nor care.

We can take courage and comfort from the promise that Christ's kingdom will stand forever. ("it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever." Dan. 2) Events which we might perceive as destructive to that kingdom are of no consequence to our King. The decisive battle has already been fought - and won! (Rev. 12)

Let's make sure, though, that we're a part of that remnant that'll be saved from the final destruction coming upon the wicked!

But on to the subject at hand. The traditions established by Jesus and His apostles are authoritative - with that I think you would agree. Do we know what those traditions are? If so, how do we know?

Earlier you cited II Thess. 2:15:

So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours.

So we know the teachings of and traditions established by Jesus and His apostles. We can read all about them in the Bible. (See also post #74)

Obviously not everything they said and did is recorded for us:

Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name. - John 20:30-31

And the book of Acts - though it's commonly called "The Acts of the Apostles", it deals only with SOME of the acts of SOME of the apostles. Yet we find it overflowing with the teachings and practices of Christ's authorized teachers, the apostles, as they went about obeying His command to "go into all the world and preach the gospel."

This they did. And we can read all about the result - and it's exactly as Jesus predicted: some believed and were baptized, and some believed not. Those who believed were added to the church, and we learn about what the church - and churches - were taught (both by word and by epistle) to do:

These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly; but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. - I Tim. 3:14-15

These are Paul's words following his instructions to Timothy regarding the setting in place of elders and deacons. This is something Paul and Barnabas had done in person on their preaching journeys:

And when they had appointed for them elders in every church - Acts 14:23

(Pardon me for getting long-winded, and let me sum this up.)

I can see no lack of instruction, no shortage of example, no need to look anywhere other than the Scriptures to learn about Christ's kingdom and how I enter into His salvation. The apostles and other inspired writers claim to have written what I need. And that's good enough for me.

There are things I have not yet learned from the Scriptures, things which (as someone wrote earlier) take some time to understand, and things which perhaps I will not have time on this Earth to study out. But many things are so simple that we teach them to children. I trust God that He has revealed Himself to us to His own satisfaction. And that's good enough for me.

Jesus' apostles wrote so that the disciples could understand, and so that their Master's teachings could be obeyed. ("And when this epistle hath been read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye also read the epistle from Laodicea." Col. 4:16) We have these writings today. Those writings taught the churches they established what they needed to know. And that's good enough for me! :-)