Postscripts From The Catholic Spitfire Grill

So much of the theological discussion that I engage in boils down to those pesky verses in Matthew.

Matthew 16:16-19 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

By what authority do we interpret Sacred Scripture? Does the authority to do that rest in our own understanding; thus, making our faith an exercise in intellectual prowess? Is that where the buzz phrase “saving knowledge” come from? How can we hope to be so sin-free, so pure-of-heart that we can hearly perfectly the Holy Spirit’s leading? If we are right, is it because the other guy is sinful and not listening? Or does the ONE Holy Spirit lead us to different conclusions? Are there really NON-essentials? And if they are non-essential why are they dividing us? And why do some think some things are essential and others think they aren’t? Why doesn’t the ONE Holy Spirit convict us all on the same thing? I don’t want to offend here but it seems pretty clear to me the seductiveness of this type of thinking. “I’m so IN with God that He has lead me to the correct place. And the rest, well, they’re working on it.” And if we ARE sinners, and NOT listening perfectly….to whom do we turn? Even the Jews came to Jesus and asked Him this MOST important question….By what authority do you do this?

Matthew 21:23-27 When he had come into the temple area, the chief priests and the elders of the people approached him as he was teaching and said, “By what authority are you doing these things? * And who gave you this authority?” 24 Jesus said to them in reply, “I shall ask you one question, and if you answer it for me, then I shall tell you by what authority I do these things. 25 Where was John’s baptism from? Was it of heavenly or of human origin?” They discussed this among themselves and said, “If we say ‘Of heavenly origin,’ he will say to us, ‘Then why did you not believe him?’ 26 But if we say, ‘Of human origin,’ we fear the crowd, for they all regard John as a prophet.” 27 So they said to Jesus in reply, “We do not know.” He himself said to them,  Neither shall I tell you by what authority I do these things. (See also Mark 11 and Luke 20)

Those keys are important. Do they represent authority? Or something else? I think too often we look to the New Testament to decide what a passage of scripture means to US….personally. Ya know….like WE were the center of the universe? Sure Sacred Scripture speaks to us…personally. But when it comes to matters of faith and dogma and doctrine, I’m thinking that what Jesus’ words meant to the Apostles is orders of magnitude more important than what they mean to me….personally. Suddenly the Old Testament becomes much more important. The Apostles didn’t have the New Testament to form their thoughts, to mold the dogma and doctrine the gave to the early church and was passed down to us both in the canon and in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. They were shaped by the Old Testament, the Temple, the sacrifices, the Psalms, and the liturgies of Jewish life. In the absence of instuction to the contrary, wouldn’t the logical assumption be that the Apostles would have understood Jesus’ words in the context of Old Testament symbolism? And so….the following exchange on Lifelong Learners.

Posited on Lifelong Learners:

Arthur has my rosary. It’s a long story and not really important how my rosary came to be with him since I’ve never met him. But I’m praying for him, and would like you to pray for him too.

I don’t know a lot about Arthur. He was an inmate in one of the area correctional institutions until just before Christmas. A woman, claiming to be Arthur’s sister contacted the local Catholic chaplain and wanted to know if maybe Arthur might be in prison in our area. Well the chaplain wasn’t particularly hopeful. First, people who attempt to contact prisoners are often con artists of some sort. Second, those in prison are not always easily identifiable to those on the outside because of the use of aliases. Amazingly enough, the chaplain was able to find Arthur…in the prison hospital. He was recovering from a stroke. Anyway the chaplain went to him and told him that someone claiming to be his sister was trying to reach him. Arthur told the chaplain that whoever it was, wasn’t his sister, because his sister was dead. The chaplain suggested that he might like to talk to this person anyway, just in case. I’m smiling because it WAS his sister and he had been misinformed about her death. (Damn rumors.) Arthur had only a few months left on his sentence and the prison chaplain was able to secure an early release for him so that he could go home (~1,000 miles) and spend Christmas with his family. My rosary went with him.

Fast forward to today. We’ve had an update on Arthur. The trip home was eventful. He had another stroke on the way and had to be hospitalized en route. He lost touch with his family, again. This time a social worker was able to reconnect them and his family drove to where he was to pick him up and take him home. He’s been in ill health ever since. Word has come back to the chaplain that he’d like to give him a hug and that while he still hasn’t figured out how to use it, the rosary is still with him. Would you pray for him? Thank you.

Oh my goodness, belly laughs here. From Amateur Catholic “A Poem for Twelfth Night” Here’s a taste…..

Every High-Church Anglican and Catholic
Living in Jolly Olde England
Liked Christmas a lot…

But the Puritans,
Who were infected with Calvinism,
Did NOT!

 Read more here.

From the back cover:

We would willingly allow him to remain in his grave, but as his friends insist on resurrecting him, we have no alternative but to show the disciples of a system which is the child born of a great lie and nursed and fostered in heresy and infamy that Luther by his own works and teachings was a malicious falsifier of God’s truth, a blasphemer, a libertine, a revolutionist, a hater of religious vows, a disgrace to the clerical calling, an enemy of domestic felicity, the father of divorce, the advocate of polygamy, and the propagator of immorality and open licentiousness.

And just because it’s entertaining doesn’t mean it isn’t educational too! Using Luther’s own words, his friends, and the opinions of Protestant historians Msgr. O’Hare drives the truck through those holes left by more sympathetic biographers. Msgr. O’Hare makes no pretense at fairness, only telling the parts of the story which are commonly left untold and they are very interesting indeed. Get it here.

Part of our daily homeschool routine includes reading-aloud from some book(s) of religious value. While formal catechesis and reading from the Catechism itself is very valuable, it is usally less than gripping material. I have found that in addition to formal reading and discussion from the Catechism that religious biographies provide a way to illustrate the Catechism in a powerful way. We are currently reading from Saint Francis Solano: Wonder-Worker of the New World and Apostle of Argentina and Peru by Mary Fabyan Windeatt and I came across this gem of an idea.

“A saint is a chalice.”

“What?“

“A saint has emptied his heart of earthly things so that it may hold Christ. Therefore, he has made himself like a chalice. And having done this, he has no will but Christ’s will in within him–which is the will of God the Father.” (page 14)

Dear Lord, make me like a chalice.

So in response to a request that I prove that the early church that was meeting in homes used the Liturgy and took Holy Communion seriously I posted the following:

Once again I find myself in theological waters that I am NOT trained to swim in. If in what follows I have made errors of expression or theology, I would beg my brothers and sisters in the Catholic faith to correct my errors. I would ask that these errors be held against me alone and not the Catholic Church as a whole. I have labored to check my understanding against as many official Catholic teachers/documents (and reference them) as possible. I believe that I have represented Catholic teaching on this subject accurately; however, should I be in error please blame ME and not the Catholic Church.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HouseMouse No, definitely not ‘our own ideas.’ I am saying, we respond the best way we know in truth and in spirit. There is much evidence in the early church that the Lord’s Supper was much as protestants celebrate it today…with ‘typical’ food (bread and wine) as opposed to ‘holy’ and special foods (like the shew bread that was used in the Tabernacle.) And by 300 AD or so….we see in historical documents that the RCC began to function much as it does today.

Well I was certainly told that as a Protestant but I have to say after reading primary sources, that the basis for that opinion appears primarily to be mostly what I imagined it to be like and not at all in keeping with the actual historical record. I am certainly open to altering that opinion. Could you point me to some primary sources?

Quote:

Originally Posted by HouseMouse But St. Paul did not appear in scripture wearing priestly robes, burning incense or performing the Eucharist as a ceremony. He was a missionary - traveling and preaching and starting new groups of believers.

Well Sacred Scripture doesn’t say that he didn’t use those things but I’m willing to spot you that he didn’t. However, we see them ALL in the worship of heaven pictured in Revelation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HouseMouse Regarding Communion, Paul admonished believers (I’d have to look for ref.) who were showing up ready to scarf, without a prepared heart. Protestants (and I am certain RCs are as well!) are encouraged to spend some time preparing for the Lord’s Supper by examining their hearts for unforgiveness, etc. I wouldn’t dream of taking communion without spending time before God making sure I am not angry and harboring unforgiveness. …or in need of another’s forgiveness. To do so is very dangerous according to scripture. This is the New Covenant church. We are never instructed to follow the old covenant law. We are not Jews. Jews are/were free to continue meeting in the Temple (if the nonbelieving Jews would allow them), but they were not required to do so. The early church consisted of small groups (Acts) meeting in various homes.

Meeting in homes is not necessarily inconsistent with liturgical worship.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HouseMouse Everything ABOUT the old covenant rules and regulations and descriptions pointed to Christ (as you know). Now that Christ has come, it is all about HIM - St. Paul called the Law a ’school book’ towards understanding grace.

Exactly. But the same God that prescribed ceremony and ritual, indeed FILLED the lives of ancient Israel with it, didn’t do away with all of that. He transformed it. He made it new! (Revelation 21:5 The one who sat on the throne * said, “Behold, I make all
things new.”) The Catholic mass is FULL of Christ, beginning to end. I did a very long explanation of the Mass a while back, may I be so bold as to ask you to read it? The Mass is so much more than “a rule book” Jesus didn’t do away with ceremony, He transformed it. Just as the Old Covenant worship prepared the Apostles (and eventually the church) for the Eucharistic celebration of the Church, the Mass prepares us for the final transformation of worship that we see pictured in Revelation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HouseMouse In 70 AD, with the destruction of the Temple, that about settled it. Jesus had instructed the believers to flee to the mountains and to go outside of the city. During the attack on the City of Jerusalem, it would have been a very normal reaction to go BACK within the city walls for protection. Any believers who had disobeyed the instructions of Jesus, would have been destroyed with the Jews and others who had gone back into the city. Millions died - it was truly the first Holocaust. We actually have just studied this in our home group, The Last Days According to Jesus, by RC Sproul. We hadn’t realized that millions and millions of Jews died during that attack in 70 AD. It must have been massive. Even the gold in the Temple melted down inbetween the bricks of the foundation.. ..and true to Jesus’ words, every last stone was removed (later) as people retrieved the hardened gold (stolen from God’s Temple, of course.) So, my point is, the ‘church’ consisted - by the design and instruction of Christ during his last days on earth - of small groups, largely meeting in homes, under ground. Not publicly! This is my understanding.

Before I get to the bulk of my answer I would just like to ask this question (again): Why would meeting in small groups in homes necessarily mean that the early church was not liturgical?

Quote:

Originally Posted by HouseMouse If you could state ‘the reverse?’ (above,) I’d be happy to get you scripture - I’m not sure exactly what you mean? Are you saying, we are not free to worship God as protestants do - sans the official ‘rules’ of the RCC? Just consider the book of Acts. Worship there involved meeting together in fellowship, prayer and the meeting of each others needs, supporting the widowed (which included any single woman led family) and orphans, and going out to preach the good news. The Eucharist is not mentioned. Different groups of believers responding separately (to the same Christ) in love and truth, is the norm. I think it is critical to separate the Church (both RC and protestant components) from Jesus Christ, the Bride Groom, Himself. The church is not perfect - Only Jesus Christ is. We aren’t to follow the church, we ARE the church. We are to follow Jesus. HTH…

I have to disagree strongly that the Eucharist is not mentioned in Acts. Perhaps the word `Eucharist’ is not mentioned but then neither is the `Trinity’ or other theological words that describe what is understood from a careful reading of Sacred Scripture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acts 2:42-47 42 * They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers. 43 Awe came upon everyone, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. 44 All who believed were together and had all things in common; 45 they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one’s need. 46 Every day they devoted themselves to meeting together in the temple area and to breaking bread in their homes. They ate their meals with exultation and sincerity of heart, 47 praising God and enjoying favor with all the people. And every day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved.

Verse 42 and 46 both speak of their devotion “to the breaking of the bread.” This in a nutshell is the Eucharistic celebration.

This is why I think so.

First, I believe (and the RCC teaches) that Sacred Scripture from beginning to end is unified. The OT is not done away with by the NT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catechism of the Catholic Church 122 Indeed, “the economy of the Old Testament was deliberately so oriented that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, redeemer of all men.” “Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional, ” the books of the Old Testament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God’s saving love: these writings “are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way.” 123 Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism) . The unity of the Old and New Testaments 128 The Church, as early as apostolic times, and then constantly in her Tradition, has illuminated the unity of the divine plan in the two Testaments through typology, which discerns in God’s works of the Old Covenant prefigurations of what he accomplished in the fullness of time in the person of his incarnate Son. 129 Christians therefore read the Old Testament in the light of Christ crucified and risen. Such typological reading discloses the inexhaustible content of the Old Testament; but it must not make us forget that the Old Testament retains its own intrinsic value as Revelation reaffirmed by our Lord himself. Besides, the New Testament has to be read in the light of the Old. Early Christian catechesis made constant use of the Old Testament. As an old saying put it, the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New. 130 Typology indicates the dynamic movement toward the fulfillment of the divine plan when “God [will] be everything to everyone.” Nor do the calling of the patriarchs and the exodus from Egypt, for example, lose their own value in God’s plan, from the mere fact that they were intermediate stages.

emphasis added

When I see the Almighty on the throne in heaven in Revelation 21:5 and hear Him declare “Behold, I make all things new.” I am left with the expectation that just as the Old Covenant was not done away with by the coming of the Messiah but rather was renewed and transformed, so too will the things of this present age come to a perfect fulfillment in the coming Kingdom that is glimpsed in Revelation. Just as the Liturgy is drawn from Sacred Scripture and serves to explain it, there is a similar relationship between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. I look to the Old Testament/Old Covenant for the prefiguring of what is to come in the New Covenant. It sets the stage and establishes a pattern. It helps to explain what is to come. The New Covenant is understandable ONLY when it is intimately connected to the symbolism, the language and the liturgy of the Old Covenant. Similarly I believe that the perfection of all things as revealed in Revelation is understandable only when it is intimately connected to the symbolism, the ceremony, and the teachings of both Old and New Covenant. The Liturgy of the Eucharist or the Catholic Mass provides the bridge between the symbolism and ceremonies of the Old Covenant and the symbolism and ceremonies depicted in the New Covenant and the perfection of worship in Heaven.

Quote:

In the earthly liturgy we share in a foretaste of that heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the Holy City of Jerusalem toward which we journey as pilgrims, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God, Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle. from the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Vatican II document)

I know that this may seem like a trivial statement but Jesus was a devout Jew. He was steeped in the ceremonies and practices and scriptures of the Jews. His uncle (Zechariah) was a temple priest. His parents were devout and presumably raised Jesus in an atmosphere of Jewish ritual and prayer. Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day (Luke 2:21), presented in the Temple (Luke 2:22), and went annually to Jerusalem for the Passover (Luke 2:41). Jesus was consumed with zeal for His Father’s house. (Luke 20:45; Matthew 21:12; Mark 12:15) Yes at times Jesus spoke against the abuse of ritual and legalism but I see no indication that he tossed out the baby with the bathwater so to speak. For example, He healed on the Sabbath. Then declared that He could do so not because the Sabbath wasn’t to be properly observed, but because He was the Creator of it and was entitled to care for his charges as were the leaders entitled to care for theirs (animals). The apostles were also observant, devout Jews and they all spoke the same ceremonial and cultural language. They understood the Old Covenant patterns that had been laid down. Everything Jesus said and did and taught would be understood within that framework and where God wanted something radically different (i.e. new Christians were not bound to Jewish dietary and circumcision laws) there needed to be significant new teaching by Jesus or Divine intervention to the contrary (like Peter’s vision in Acts 10:9-16).

So when I read the Old Testament what patterns do I see? First, I see that worship was to be sacrificial and that God was very particular about the guidelines given to men. Abel’s sacrifice was accepted and Cain’s was not (Genesis 4:1-7). The theme of sacrifice is repeated in the Passover. The pattern of seriousness in ceremony and observance is repeated and amplified by the numerous instructions and warnings given in Sacred Scripture and evidenced in Jewish culture by the seriousness with which even modern observant Jews approach the Passover. While in the desert, God gives the law and instructions regarding the sacrifices that are expected as acts of worship from His people. And even though the instructions are copious with specific instructions regarding garments, furniture, furniture placement, decorations, construction, etc. there is still much that isn’t written in Sacred Scripture (traditional knowledge….and a parallel to Liturgies) regarding ceremonial procedures and prayers used in the actual Temple rituals. God made it clear that His rules and not man’s personal ideas were to be foremost. [Nadab and Abihu being killed by fire from heaven for offering strange incense is mentioned four times in Leviticus 10:1-2, Numbers 3:2-4a, Numbers 26:60-61, and 1 Chronicles 24:1-2; Saul loses kingship because he failed to wait for Samuel before offering a sacrifice in 1 Samuel 13: 1-13; an additional altar nearly causes civil war in Joshua 22:13-16; and God threatened to kill Moses for failing to circumcise his son in Exodus 4:24-26]

These are the scriptures and the culture and the life that formed the men that met in the Upper Room on the night before Jesus’ crucifixion. These are the men that Jesus specifically commissioned to form and lead His Church. On that evening Jesus, in the middle of an old and ancient and established Jewish Liturgy, takes the ceremony and transforms it in preparation for its fulfillment the following day. He instructs them to prepare for the ceremony (Matthew 26:18-19) and at the outset, He marks this ceremony as something special and different. He says to them “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer, for I shall not eat it [again] until there is fulfillment in the kingdom of God.” (Luke 22:15) Then comes the transformation of all of the teaching of Melchizedek, of Passover, of manna, and the sin sacrifice into the Sacrament that would sustain the new Church in the years until the Second Coming just as Manna did in the wilderness for the Jews. It is clear both from Sacred Scripture (I won’t reiterate that part here because I have already done much of it previously in this thread) and from the earliest church writings that these men believed that the Eucharist was the Real Presence of Jesus.

St. Ignatius, a disciple of the Apostle John wrote this in 110 AD:

Quote:

Take not of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God….They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ. (Letter to the Smyrnaeans )

and

Quote:

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

St. Justin Martyr wrote in 150AD

Quote:

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66).

St. Iraneus wrote in 190 AD

Quote:

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

and

Quote:

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).

I won’t belabor this particular point. It isn’t hard to find quotes from the Early Church Fathers to support the universality of the belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. I have sometimes said that one of the reasons one sees such depth of reverence in Catholic Churches and Orthodox Churches is that we believe that Jesus is really and truly present in the Blessed Sacrament. I do not wish to imply that churches which do not believe and teach this are not reverent but rather that the reverence somehow seems qualitatively different. I say this not of only from my own experience in Orthodox, Protestant, and Catholic churches but from what I have been told by many friends in relatives of various faith traditions as being true from their own experiences. Is it logical to believe that these Apostles, so steeped in a culture of ceremony and ritual who clearly taught their students that Jesus, the Lord and Savior, the Perfect Sin Sacrifice was truly and actually present in the Eucharist would then treat it without ceremony and ritual? To believe that even the earliest Eucharistic celebrations were not adaptations of the Liturgy that Jesus used to institute the Sacrament in the first place staggers the imagination! The pattern was set in the Old Testament and reinforced by the culture in which the Apostles lived, learned and taught. There is no teaching or evidence of Divine Revelation to the contrary. Sacred Scripture indicates that the early Church was centered around and took Eucharistic celebrations seriously (they were DEVOTED to the breaking of the bread) and that failure to do so was the equivalent of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord!! (1 Corinthians 11:27)

Additionally, the Eucharistic Liturgies of the present are themselves prefiguring worship in Heaven as pictured in the Book of Revelation. Now I’d like to take credit for my deep theological study and say that I put this list together myself but I didn’t. Scott Hahn in The Lamb’s Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth discusses in detail how the Revelation is best understood through the Liturgy. He made this list (which I found very interesting) of the parts of your average Catholic Mass and where they are found in the picture of Heaven found in the Book of Revelation.

Sunday worship: Revelation 1:10
A high priest: Revelation 1:13
An altar: Revelation 8:3-4; 11:1; 14:18
Priests (presbyteroi): Revelation 4:4; 11:15; 14:3; 19:4
Vestments: Revelation 1:13; 4:4; 6:11; 7:9; 15:6; 19:13-14
Consecrated celibacy: Revelation 14:4
Lamp stands, or Menorah: Revelation 1:12; 2:5
Penitence: Revelation 2 and 3
Incense: Revelation 5:8; and 8:3-5
The book, or the scroll: Revelation 5:1
The Eucharistic Host: Revelation 2:17
Chalices: Revelation 15:7; ch 16; 21:9
The Sign of the Cross (the tau) Revelation 7:3; 14:1; 22:4
The Gloria: Revelation 15:3-4
The Alleluia: Revelation 19:1, 3, 4, 6
Lift up your hearts: Revelation 11:12
The “Holy, Holy, Holy”: Revelation 4:8
The Amen: Revelation 19:4; 22:21
The “Lamb of God”: Revelation 5:6 and throughout
The Prominence of the Virgin Mary: Revelation 12:1-6; 13-17
Intercession of angels and saints: Revelation 5:8; 6:9-10; 8:3-4
Devotion to St. Michael, archangel: Revelation 12:7
Antiphonal chant: Revelation 4:8-11; 5:9-14; 7:10-12; 18:1-8
Readings from Scripture: Revelation ch 2-3; 5; 8:2-11
The priesthood of the faithful: Revelation 1:6; 20:6
Catholicity or universality: Revelation 7:9
Silent contemplation: Revelation 8:1
The marriage supper of the Lamb: Revelation 19:9, 17

Not only are these things found in the Catholic Liturgy most of them are found and/or prefigured in the Old Testament. Scott Hahn also points out that the Liturgy is not just in the details of Revelation but in the overall scheme as well. The first half of Revelation has an emphasis on readings which closely parallels the first half of the Catholic Mass known as the Liturgy of the Word. The first three chapters form a sort of penitential rite, which Hahn points out, echoes the words of the Didache “First confess your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure.” The words of the Revelation itself assumes that it will be read aloud in the liturgical assembly. (Revelation 1:3) The last half of Revelation (beginning in chapter 11) describes the pouring of the seven chalices and the marriage supper of the Lamb which parallels the second half of the Catholic Mass known as the Liturgy of the Eucharist. And notice too, that the Apostle John who many scholars believe was the disciple that reclined on Jesus breast at the Last Supper falls on his face in reverence and worship at the Lamb of God. The same Lamb of God that is present in the Eucharist as the Catholic priest holds up the consecrated host and says:

Quote:

This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to his supper. (Rev. 19:9)

The reverence and seriousness with which we are to approach the Lamb of God in the liturgy of the Eucharist are all modeled for us by the Apostle John himself in the worship shown to us in Revelation. Should we have any expectation that the other Apostles took the “breaking of the bread” as described in Acts and Corinthians any less seriously than the Apostle John did in Revelation?

Worship is established in the Old Covenant, fulfilled in the New; and perfected in Heaven and liturgy is intimately tied into it all at every step along the way. The Old Testament prepared the way both in theology and in the culture that embraced it. The Apostles moved forward to establish the new liturgy and teach its significance and meaning the new church. It is reflected in Sacred Scripture and it shows up early in the historical record as left to us by the ECF’s.

Justin Martyr writing at approximately 150 CE describes the liturgy which already bears a remarkable resemblance to the liturgy as it exists today.

Quote:

Chapter 65. Administration of the sacraments. But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to ãá½³íïéôï [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion. Chapter 66. Of the Eucharist. And this food is called among us Åὐ÷áñéóôá½·á [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn. Chapter 67. Weekly worship of the Christians. And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome (circa 215 AD) also describes early Christian liturgical practices. From the same time period as Hippolytus are other formal liturgies (St James used in the Jerusalem church, St. Mark, and St. Peter) claiming Apostolic lineage.

Taken all together, the unified picture of Sacred Scripture alone leads me to expect to find liturgical worship centered about the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist in the early church. It doesn’t matter if they worshipped in homes, in catacombs, under a tree, or in the wilderness while traveling to a new unreached place; the liturgy was an intimate part of that worship. When you add in the historical record, the picture only becomes clearer and more convincing.

If I may round this out with a few book recommendations?

The Lamb’s Supper: The Mass a Heaven on Earth by Scott Hahn: This is the book to read if you want to learn more about what ancient theologians believed was contained in the Book of Revelation.

The Mass of the Early Christians by Mike Aquilina: This is kind of a dry book but full of good information and a good jumping off point for further historical research about worship in the early church.

God is Near Us: The Eucharist, The Heart of Life by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger A collection of Pope Benedict XVI’s homilies, letters, and lectures about the Eucharist. It’s full of insight into what Catholics believe about Holy Communion but it is written by a Catholic (get it? The Pope’s Catholic?) for Catholics. He doesn’t spend any time at all explaining the roots of the belief only the upper branches.

The Teachings of the Church Fathers John R. Willis S.J. (ed.) What the Early Church Fathers said about all kinds of things and referenced to the work that they are found in so you can go read it in context if you’d like.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church Don’t let someone tell you what Catholics believe. Read it for yourself. A searchable on-line copy is available here.

The Apostolic Fathers volume I and II from the Loeb Classical Library. It contains both the work in the original language and the translation. Look smart….underline the Greek.

And the Ancient Christian Writers series….multiple volumes.

Also the writing of the Early Church Fathers are widely available on the internet. I have found that Googling a phrase from most quotations will pull up the document itself.

In a current discussion on an internet forum in which I participate. We have debated the Real Presence, and the formality of Holy Communion in the Catholic Liturgy.  One Protestant contributor had the following to say:

I’ve had very sweet communion experiences in the past….sans the official Bread and Wine, and not in the official Church Building. I recall a group of college friends who had just experienced a wonderful time of praise and prayer, and we desired communion. All we could come up with was Pepsi and Ritz crackers, there in the dorm. We deliberated….would it be ‘wrong’ to share communion together with ‘unofficial’ foods? The young man (grad student) who seemed most mature in the Lord assured us that with pure hearts, God would be pleased with our desire to commune with Him and each other, in forgiveness and purity of heart.

As might be suspected there was some…er…disagreement from the Catholic contributors. I posted the following about the Real Presence and Worship:

Quote:

Originally Posted by HouseMouse Anyone else here ever take this as literally as we do, here? And please, my orthidox friends….I’ll try to word this as respectfully as I can….and I -do- respect your great love of Our Great Lord Jesus. I really do! I only wish, like children of the perfect King that we are, we could stop trying to pressure everyone else to copy our own patterns of worship.

Unfortunately, I do not believe that worship is what WE define it to be. It isn’t “our patterns of worship.” We are not capable of defining what worship should be. The OT is full of examples of what happens when we try to do that. Cain and Abel (Genesis 4). The Golden Calf (Exodus 32). Strange Incense. (Leviticus 10:1-3 and someplace in Numbers I think Nadab and Abihu get multiple mentions). King Uzziah (2 Chronicles 26:16-23)

The OT is FULL of God telling the people of Israel to worship Him the way HE told them to and them not doing it. Why do WE get to decide “our patterns of worship” under the New Covenant? It just doesn’t make any sense to me. I believe that Jesus DID give the Apostles explicit instructions. The OT certainly gives me reason to believe that God had some definite ideas about worship…right down to ceremonial aspects and dimensions. And I know that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Why should worship in the New Covenant be up to us when it wasn’t in the Old Covenant. When Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman, He didn’t say, “It’s ok. You just worship God in your own way.” instead His Answer indicates that worship was going to be transformed in the New Covenant, but I certainly don’t see any indication that it’s going to be left up to us to decide.

What was it that Jesus said to his Apostles in those days after His Resurrection but before his Ascension? Bet it was important. And since the didn’t write it down I’ve got to assume that they made it available to us in other ways. In what they DID, in the worship of the Early Church and in those Apostolic Traditions that have been handed down to us.

There’s the difference. You have a different idea of what the variables are and I question our authority to decide for ourselves. There was authority in the OT to conduct worship….where is it in the NT? The individual? Or the Church? Who has the keys of stewardship? To whom were they passed down to?

If it is, then it went off the rails RIGHT away. The earliest Christians believed in the Real Presence. The early Church Fathers wrote about it. The men who were so filled with the Holy Spirit that they were able to properly discern what belonged in the canon of Sacred Scripture believed that those same scriptures clearly taught the Real Presence. In the early church only those the Church called ‘heretics’ rejected the Real Presence.

And if the Church so soon went off the rails doctrinally, then it seems to contradict the promise Jesus made in Matthew 16:18 “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.”

Now this may surprise you but I am going to agree with you here. If Jesus is not actually present in the Eucharist, if even traces of the Bread and Wine remain; then, it is idolatry. Pure and simple. And the earliest Christians and all of the Christians across time and space who believe in the Real Presence (and I am certain they are in the majority) are guilty of idolatry. Myself included.

Unless that “stuff” IS the Savior and then it all changes dramatically.

You are certainly welcome to interpret the words of Christ in your own way. I know that many Christians agree with you. I also believe that stopping to thank Jesus for that which sustains me is appropriate at every occasion of eating and drinking. I do however, believe that Jesus drew a rather firm line between ordinary eating and drinking and partaking in the Sin Sacrifice.

Quote:

Agreed

Quote:

The Catholics on this forum have been blasted repeatedly for affirming our beliefs that there is a difference between our ordinary daily communing with Our Lord and Sacramental Communion. God is always available to us. He bestows His Graces abundantly everywhere and at all times. He is not limited by the Sacraments but He HAS marked the Sacraments as special channels of his Grace. To live without the Sacraments is not to live without the Grace of God; He is not bound by them; however, it is to live without the Fullness of Faith made possible by them. (Yes, I know you disagree and that ok you are still my sister in Christ. However, I cannot fail to witness to the importance of the Sacraments and the Graces that are only available through them.)

Quote:

From my perspective what you had may indeed have been meaningful and sweet. It was however not actually Communinon but merely a remembrance of it.

Quote:

The Bible only contains the words of God. JESUS IS the WORD that proceeded from the mouth of God (John 1). And YES, we are to EAT Him.

Quote:

Again, I agree with you. If Jesus is not truly present in the validly consecrated Bread and Wine then it is idolatry. But if the Bread and Wine become the presence Lamb of God, how can that be idolatry? Every knee should bow and every tongue confess that we are in the Presence of the LIVING SAVIOR!!

Quote:

This issue cannot help but divide us. It divides the disciples who left Jesus from Him in John 6. If the Bread and Wine do not actually become the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord then I am guilty of horrendous idolatry. But….if the early church fathers, the martyrs, the saints that have gone before us are right and the Eucharist is the Real Presence how can I not be concerned for those who reject Him? I just don’t see a lot of room for compromise on this. If the RCC is wrong about the Eucharist, then the gates of Hell HAVE prevailed. Where then, is the authority that was passed down from Peter that we migh see thet fulfillment of Jesus’ promise to him?

Quote:

I do. I think “Do this in memory of me….” did just that. I think it is confirmed in scripture when the disciples knew Jesus in the breaking bread in the account of meeting Jesus on the Road to Emmaus. I see it in the witness in the Church of Acts that DEVOTED themselves to the breaking of the bread (Acts 2:42) and further confirmed in the witness of the ECF’s. Wouldn’t the instructions Jesus gave the Apostles in the time between his Resurrection and Ascension be reflected in what they did and taught? (I didn’t particularly think this was a great book but it does make the historical point that the Eucharist was the center of the worship of the early church The Mass of the Early Christians by Aquilina)

Quote:

Is it what we “feel” about God or the ritual that is important? Or giving back to God what He has asked of us, instructed us….not because it is easy, or because we understand, but because THIS is what God has commanded. That is how I view child-like faith. It is doing what I am told whether or not I think it is best for me because God instructed it. As a convert I will tell you that I GRIEVED (seriously) over the forms of the services I left behind. I didn’t “feel” at ALL like I had worshipped properly when I left Mass. I cried out to God in agony for years before He finally blessed me with understanding. Worship isn’t about what we understand. It is giving back to God what He commands. Period. I believe Sacred Scripture is clear “Do this in memory of me.” Furthermore I cling to the promise of Emmaus that I will know Him in the breaking of the Bread and I imitate those earliest sister and brothers in faith who devoted themselves to the breaking of the bread.

Quote:

Unless that demand is a reflection of the instructions God himself gave us. It is pharasaical only if the demand comes from human origin and not God-given authority.

Quote:

But let us not forget Nadab and Abihu, Cain, the people who touched the Ark and died, Uzziah, and Saul who offered a sacrifice inappropriately, and Aaron and the Golden Calf. I would say that David’s dancing naked in the streets was praise and not worship. I believe that the praise we offer to God can take many forms but that worship is determined by God. Praise is part of our worship but not worship itself. And so even in Eucharistic celebrations you will find variations in the music offered and the decorations, but the heart and soul of the matter is worship what Jesus said to “Do in remembrance of Him.”

I hope ducking isn’t necessary. You are my sister in Christ and I know you disagree. My hope in this post is not to anger anyone but rather to defend what I believe. In the end we can’t both be right. I DO recognize that it might be ME that is the one that is wrong.

The general response to this was that the Catholics have “pharisaically” attempted to impose a rule book without any scriptural backing whatsoever. My response to that in the next part…..