The Liturgy as Interpreter Par Excellence

[Benjamin Burch]

In my time doing Biblical Studies, about 7 years now, I've noticed a general lack of ability for the Church to offer genuinely Christian readings of the Bible - particularly the OT - without being co-opted into some other agenda.

Whether it is Liberal Protestantism and Judaism taking the prophets away from the Church, or whether it is Evangelicalism insisting on breaking the rules of modernity in order to claim some objective meaning of texts, the western church seems to have lost its ability to read the Bible in a specifically Christian way, through the lens of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.

Thus, I want to argue that the Mass offers us such a distinct reading of texts and is - itself - both a hermeneutic and an interpreter of texts and is meant to be so both on the grounds of Scripture and Tradition.

Therefore, I'm attempting to write a paper where I interpret 2 Chronicles 36:14-23 from within its location in the mass, or should I say, where I allow the mass to interpret the text from within this location within the mass.

Here is a little sneak peak for those who might be interested:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bSmJOs10WGb-9MPoGVp74CGP60iQEyA6pVMe5HhInfE/edit

[Jon Bemis]

Thanks for the sneak peek. I liked what you said here:



One of the easiest places to see this is the text of Isaiah 7:14. Jewish and Protestant scholarship assure us that it originally had nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth, regardless of what Matthew would have us believe, while fundamentalists assure us that since, through Matthew, “the Bible tells us so”, this text must surely speak about Jesus, and always did. Both of these readings fail to take seriously the idea that the Bible is scripture and belongs to the Church as a part of the Church’s confession that Jesus Christ is Lord. The Christian faith assures us that Isaiah 7:14 foretells the coming of Jesus of Nazareth because we have come to experience Immanuel, God with us, in the person of Jesus and this experience has been made present to us in the elements of the Eucharist and the spoken Word. Such an understanding only makes sense from the other side of that experience.

I predict you'll get some turf wars going!

[Jim Chabot]

I predict you'll get some turf wars going!

Moderators, could we get this moved to the Post Trad Forum, perhaps the turf wars will be more friendly in that environ?:smile:

[Hans Deventer]

Moderators, could we get this moved to the Post Trad Forum, perhaps the turf wars will be more friendly in that environ?:smile:

Kind of wonder if this should not be on the Pre Trad Forum. But we don't have that forum.

[Hans Deventer]

Thus, I want to argue that the Mass offers us such a distinct reading of texts and is - itself - both a hermeneutic and an interpreter of texts and is meant to be so both on the grounds of Scripture and Tradition.

Thank you, brother. Needed that. Hope to be celebrating Communion on Maundy Thursday. This helps me to find better words to try and describe this indescribable event.

[Hans Deventer]

Just trying to stop a fight before it get's going.:smile:

No guarantees if it stays here.

If people seek a fight, they will always be able to find it. If they seek NazNet's purpose, now that would be another story. :(

[Jim Chabot]

If people seek a fight, they will always be able to find it. If they seek NazNet's purpose, now that would be another story. :(

Exactly my point, glad to see that this is moved to where it may be discussed among those who may benefit.

Hopefully problem solved and it's my hope that you find this discussion pleasant.:smile:

No need to be gloomy Hans. You have more friends than perhaps you realize.:smile:

[John Kennedy]

Kind of wonder if this should not be on the Pre Trad Forum. But we don't have that forum.

With this 'Pre Trad' business, you just piled another load on our backs. Used to be we only had to keep track of pre- and post- mil, then we had to start tracking pre- and post- trib. The only refuge was to convert to a-mil and not have to deal with all the other stuff. Is there any possibility of starting an 'atraditional' forum? Probably not on this side of eternity?

[Benjamin Burch]

:confused: This is hardly post-traditional. :( This is about as traditional as theology gets.

[Larry Parsons]

Ben, are you saying that we may find the true interpreation of 2 Chro.36:14-23 within the RC Mass? Within you blog a question is being ask. Does the mass present it self to the church as an interpretion of the scripture. In my opinion I don't think it does. Since the Mass is mention I have few questions concerning the idea of the RC mass'
1.Isn’t it true that mass is a real sacrifice, performed by RC priest? Isn’t it true that RC mass is a one hour dram that is act out by the priest? Does the New Testament give us any instruction how we should offer mass? Isn’t the Holy Mass the same sacrifice that took place on the cross? Isn’t the Holy Mass a continuation of the sacrifice that Christ made on Calvary? Isn’t it true that doctrine of the mass is based upon assumption? Isn’t it true that RC believe without the mass they would lose their salvation? Is it still true to miss mass is a mortal sin? Far as see the RC Mass has nothing to do with interpreting the scripture for the boody of Christ. Personal I don't see how the mass help us to understand the better. I have other question concerning the RC mass we get to those later
Thanks
Larry

[Benjamin Burch]

Ben, are you saying that we may find the true interpreation of 2 Chro.36:14-23 within the RC Mass? Within you blog a question is being ask. Does the mass present it self to the church as an interpretion of the scripture. In my opinion I don't think it does.

Far as see the RC Mass has nothing to do with interpreting the scripture for the boody of Christ. Personal I don't see how the mass help us to understand the better.

I will argue in this paper that the Mass proposes to do exactly this. You can check the paper now, a rough draft of 2 pages of this section is complete. It will become more complete soon, but you can check it now and find the answer to this.

In short:


The meaning of these texts and these “saving moments” in God’s economy of salvation are only completely comprehended when they are understood as having their fulfillment in the mystery of Christ.# Therefore, the Mass proposes to do a few things: (1) Bring the scripture to life, (2) Bring the scripture into the present, (3) Bring the people into an encounter with the living Christ, the content of the scriptures, (4) position this encounter within a context of words, actions, and symbols which interpret the meaning of the scripture, and (5) place this encounter within its proper trajectory, within its fulfillment in the mystery of Christ’s sacrifice in the Eucharist.


1.Isn’t it true that mass is a real sacrifice, performed by RC priest?


It is a re-presenting of Christ's once-for-all sacrifice in the very real elements of bread and wine which truly become Christ's Body and Blood. All of this is done by God the Father, through the Spirit, mediated by the Priest, whom God has ordained to serve the Church in exactly this capacity.

From the Catechism:


The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:


Isn’t it true that RC mass is a one hour dram that is act out by the priest?

I'm not sure what you mean:

(1) One Hour? I don't know. I'm sure it varies.
(2) Drama? In the Mass the Scriptures and their center - the mystery of Christ in the Gospels - come to life and are made present with the people.
(3) Acted out by the priest? - It is carried out by God the Father, through the Holy Spirit, mediated by the Priest, whom God (and the Church) has ordained for exactly this task.


Does the New Testament give us any instruction how we should offer mass?

Not necessarily, although I rely heavily on Luke 24 for understanding the role of the Mass as interpreter of the Scriptures.


Isn’t the Holy Mass the same sacrifice that took place on the cross? Isn’t the Holy Mass a continuation of the sacrifice that Christ made on Calvary?


From the Catechism:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.



Isn’t it true that doctrine of the mass is based upon assumption?

The doctrine of the mass is based upon the belief that The Word became Flesh, and that all that was assumed in the incarnation was redeemed. Thus, yes, it is based on the doctrine of Christ's assumption of humanity.

Other than that, I'm not sure what you mean.


Isn’t it true that RC believe without the mass they would lose their salvation?

I'm not sure, but I doubt any Catholic theologian would take it so far.



Is it still true to miss mass is a mortal sin?

I doubt it. I don't know for sure.

[Steven Burton]

Ben, are you saying that we may find the true interpreation of 2 Chro.36:14-23 within the RC Mass? Within you blog a question is being ask. Does the mass present it self to the church as an interpretion of the scripture. In my opinion I don't think it does. Since the Mass is mention I have few questions concerning the idea of the RC mass'
1.Isn’t it true that mass is a real sacrifice, performed by RC priest? Isn’t it true that RC mass is a one hour dram that is act out by the priest? Does the New Testament give us any instruction how we should offer mass? Isn’t the Holy Mass the same sacrifice that took place on the cross? Isn’t the Holy Mass a continuation of the sacrifice that Christ made on Calvary? Isn’t it true that doctrine of the mass is based upon assumption? Isn’t it true that RC believe without the mass they would lose their salvation? Is it still true to miss mass is a mortal sin? Far as see the RC Mass has nothing to do with interpreting the scripture for the boody of Christ. Personal I don't see how the mass help us to understand the better. I have other question concerning the RC mass we get to those later
Thanks
Larry

What mass service did you go to? I saw non of this drama when I attended a service.

[Hans Deventer]

Ben, are you saying that we may find the true interpreation of 2 Chro.36:14-23 within the RC Mass?

Larry, are you saying you fit the target group for this forum? http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php/4620-So-what-s-this-forum-about

[Susan Unger]

I doubt it. I don't know for sure.

According to my RC friend, yes it is still a sin to miss Mass.

[Benjamin Burch]

According to my RC friend, yes it is still a sin to miss Mass.

There is a significant distinction between veneal sin and mortal sin. I doubt missing mass is a mortal sin. :) I have no doubts missing Eucharist strains ones unity with the Body and therefore would be viewed as a veneal sin.

[Susan Unger]

There is a significant distinction between veneal sin and mortal sin. I doubt missing mass is a mortal sin. :) I have no doubts missing Eucharist strains ones unity with the Body and therefore would be viewed as a veneal sin.

My friend didn't specify so I only gave what information that I had.

[Kevin Rector]

So I read what you'd written so far, and what I got out of it was effectively that we need to read all scripture in light of the mystery of Christ instead of just separating out discreet portions for critical analysis. Not sure why you would argue the Roman Mass would be the best way to do this over against say an Anglican Service or a Nazarene service, etc. That would be a far more interesting paper to me considering the journey you've been on to find your church home.

[Ryan Scott]

So I read what you'd written so far, and what I got out of it was effectively that we need to read all scripture in light of the mystery of Christ instead of just separating out discreet portions for critical analysis. Not sure why you would argue the Roman Mass would be the best way to do this over against say an Anglican Service or a Nazarene service, etc. That would be a far more interesting paper to me considering the journey you've been on to find your church home.

Yeah, I sort of felt like it was a bait and switch between the title of the thread and the argument in the paper. I might be persuaded that Litrugy is the means by which we interpret scripture (rightly or wrongly) - but to specify a specific form of liturgy probably goes too far.

[Larry Parsons]

There is a significant distinction between veneal sin and mortal sin. I doubt missing mass is a mortal sin. :) I have no doubts missing Eucharist strains ones unity with the Body and therefore would be viewed as a veneal sin.
According to the Baltimore Catechism it is mortal sin not to hear Mass on Sunday unless you have a good reason to miss. It is also a mortal sin if you hinder someone from hearing the Mass. The mass is the most important ceremony of the RC church and everything else hinges on the mass.
Thanks
Larry

[Benjamin Burch]

According to the Baltimore Catechism it is mortal sin not to hear Mass on Sunday unless you have a good reason to miss. It is also a mortal sin if you hinder someone from hearing the Mass. The mass is the most important ceremony of the RC church and everything else hinges on the mass.
Thanks
Larry

Well I guess you are right then, Larry. In that case I am not sure why you even asked me the question at all if you already knew the answer. Anyways I am not really sure what any of this has to do with my paper?

[Benjamin Burch]

Kevin and Ryan,

Thank you for your criticism. It will help me articulate better my thesis and purpose. This paper is meant to argue a point about Christian liturgy using the Roman Rite Mass as a case study. More on what that means in response to each of you specifically tomorrow. I am currently on my iPod and my Mac is at the geek squad. Tomorrow I will get to school and have pc access.

[Benjamin Burch]

So I read what you'd written so far, and what I got out of it was effectively that we need to read all scripture in light of the mystery of Christ instead of just separating out discreet portions for critical analysis. Not sure why you would argue the Roman Mass would be the best way to do this over against say an Anglican Service or a Nazarene service, etc. That would be a far more interesting paper to me considering the journey you've been on to find your church home.

There will be much more to this as it keeps being worked. The series of words, actions, and texts are of paramount importance. That is, the surrounding context of the Mass is the "true" literary context of the text according to the Mass. Also, the specific theological conviction that these things are all made present in the Mass is also of paramount importance for udnerstanding this "context". The meaning of the text - according to the Mass - is not an ancient meaning which then must be "applied" today.

Essentially, this, for me, covers this base:

over against say an Anglican Service

Other Liturgies beyond the Roman Rite Mass (Byzantine Rite, BCP, Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, and Lutheran) would necessarily make a similar claim upon the text by their use of prescribed actions, words, and texts to surround the reading of a given text (be it a First Reading, Psalm, Epistle, or Gospel). Thus, as I said in post #21, this paper is advancing a thesis about the Liturgy with a specific case study done through 2 Chronicles 36:14-23 in the Roman Rite Mass.

Then, in regards to:


or a Nazarene service, etc.

We're left with a similar conundrum as I have set out in the second paragraph of my paper:


One of the easiest places to see this is the text of Isaiah 7:14. Jewish and Protestant scholarship assure us that it originally had nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth, regardless of what Matthew would have us believe, while fundamentalists assure us that since, through Matthew, “the Bible tells us so”, this text must surely speak about Jesus, and always did. Both of these readings fail to take seriously the idea that the Bible is scripture and belongs to the Church as a part of the Church’s confession that Jesus Christ is Lord. The Christian faith assures us that Isaiah 7:14 foretells the coming of Jesus of Nazareth because we have come to experience Immanuel, God with us, in the person of Jesus and this experience has been made present to us in the elements of the Eucharist and the spoken Word. Such an understanding only makes sense from the other side of that experience.

Essentially, without a theologically prescribed context, the context is selected via the theological leanings of one of the ministers, be it the minister of worship or the lead Pastor, or whomever is responsible for either the Homily for the week or for the order of service. The concept of the text becoming "present" could be argued via Karl Barth's theology of the Word of God, but even this is without normalization or regulation, and is once again the responsibility of the theological capabilities of the minister placed in charge of such things.

In fact, in the Liturgy, the Homily is constrained by the interpretation of the text given by the Liturgy. In a non-liturgical service the Homily sets the interpretation itself and is not constrained by an outside reality represented in the Liturgy by both the elements and the Liturgy itself.

Thus, I believe that the paper itself is an argument for Liturgy over against non-liturgical services for precisely the point that in only one of these contexts are the texts of scripture taken out of the hands of the academy on the one hand and the individual on the other and placed directly into the hands of the Church. I would think the argument would need to be made on the other end that the interpretation in a non-liturgical service is coming from anywhere (specifically the Church) other than the individual responsible for the Homily.

[Kevin Rector]

Thus, I believe that the paper itself is an argument for Liturgy over against non-liturgical services for precisely the point that in only one of these contexts are the texts of scripture taken out of the hands of the academy on the one hand and the individual on the other and placed directly into the hands of the Church. I would think the argument would need to be made on the other end that the interpretation in a non-liturgical service is coming from anywhere (specifically the Church) other than the individual responsible for the Homily.

As has been said, "all churches have liturgy, some just write it down." Your statement above is premised on the notion that a preacher in a "non-liturgical" church is not shaped, formed, informed, and even constrained by the history, polity, sociology, liturgy, theology, and tradition of his or her church. The academy and the individual are part of the church (when the academician and person are Christian) so there is no sense that the scripture can be taken out of their hands and placed in the hands of the church. So I fail to see how the premise of your paper stands in light of the reality that all liturgy in the Mass was written and formed by academicians and individuals of the church as some point.

Just some thoughts.

[Ryan Scott]

I can see the difference in degree when it comes to broader traditions - that long-held forms of liturgy have a broad base of commonality that liturgy shaped by a pastor or worship planning team in an individual congregation do not. Like Kevin, however, it seems like the basic principle is the same, even on a smaller, more intimate scale.

I might be more interested to see how liturgy functions as a means of passing an interpretive perspective - both from congregation to congregation and from generation to generation. It seems that the Mass might be more functional as a vehicle for teaching the embodiment of interpretation.

[Benjamin Burch]

As has been said, "all churches have liturgy, some just write it down."

Thus my use of the phrase "prescribed". While I think this statement is helpful in combating some particular, unhelpful criticisms of liturgy, I do not believe this statement in itself is truthful in a helpful way.

Non-liturgical churches are exactly that: non-liturgical.



Your statement above is premised on the notion that a preacher in a "non-liturgical" church is not shaped, formed, informed, and even constrained by the history, polity, sociology, liturgy, theology, and tradition of his or her church.

My statement above understands a wide range to which this is true or untrue, depending upon the existence of significant polity within a particular church.

In no way would a Nazarene service be equal to Willow Creek.




The academy and the individual are part of the church (when the academician and person are Christian) so there is no sense that the scripture can be taken out of their hands and placed in the hands of the church. So I fail to see how the premise of your paper stands in light of the reality that all liturgy in the Mass was written and formed by academicians and individuals of the church as some point.

Just some thoughts.

The Liturgy predates the modern university, where the text was taken out of the hands of the Church. Thus, "academic" is not the term that would or should be used as the study of the Bible changed dramatically with the institution of Biblical Studies in the modern university. The Bible was taken out of the hands of the Church and thus was no longer "scripture", but instead became a collection of "texts" which were placed in the hands of the university.

Likewise, the prevalence of individual, non-denominational Churches who exist simply for the purpose of opposing other groups' interpretations shows us that in no way is the individual's interpretation necessarily anything related to the Church.

[Benjamin Burch]

As has been said, "all churches have liturgy, some just write it down." Your statement above is premised on the notion that a preacher in a "non-liturgical" church is not shaped, formed, informed, and even constrained by the history, polity, sociology, liturgy, theology, and tradition of his or her church. The academy and the individual are part of the church (when the academician and person are Christian) so there is no sense that the scripture can be taken out of their hands and placed in the hands of the church. So I fail to see how the premise of your paper stands in light of the reality that all liturgy in the Mass was written and formed by academicians and individuals of the church as some point.

Just some thoughts.

Likewise, I am not saying non-liturgical = bad.

What I am saying is that, since the development of the modern university on the one hand - supported by liberal protestantism and Judaism - and the reaction of fundamentalism on the other hand, the Church has lost its ability to read and understand the Bible as the Church's book, and to interpret it as a Christian document, particularly the Old Testament.

Our discussions on pacifism, in my opinion, evince this failure by the modern church.

My point is not to say that this is the only way to interpret the Scripture (within a liturgical service). Instead, what I want to do is show the liturgy as a pre-existing remedy to this problem, and thus a way to resurrect a truly Christian way of reading scripture.

[Steven Martinez]

Ben, I think the struggle you have to "prove" is how the specific Liturgy of the RC Mass is somehow devoid of the "academy." For example, if the laity have no input in the creation of the Mass is it truly a Church construct that differs from liberal protestantism? In many ways the distinction of clergy sets up an academy of sorts, especially in the RC where the appropriate title of those who make such decisions is the college of cardinals. The interesting question will be what makes what? Does the Mass make the Eucharist or does the Eucharist make the Mass therefore making the Liturgy?

It seems you are making the same argument as Hauerwas in Unleashing the Scripture but actually giving us a practical solution to the problem. It will be a fun read. Of course I want to know what Wright thinks about it.

[Larry Parsons]

Well I guess you are right then, Larry. In that case I am not sure why you even asked me the question at all if you already knew the answer. Anyways I am not really sure what any of this has to do with my paper?
Ben, I should have been making statement instead of asking questions. I'm sorry for the confusion. I will admit that my knowledge of the RC mass is limit but what I do know of it. And at this point I don't see how it will help the "church" to understand the scripture any better than we do now.
Thanks
Larry

[Steven Burton]

You know from reading about the Orthodox view on this it seem pretty close to what you are arguing here for RCC as well.

[Larry Parsons]

In my time doing Biblical Studies, about 7 years now, I've noticed a general lack of ability for the Church to offer genuinely Christian readings of the Bible - particularly the OT - without being co-opted into some other agenda.

Whether it is Liberal Protestantism and Judaism taking the prophets away from the Church, or whether it is Evangelicalism insisting on breaking the rules of modernity in order to claim some objective meaning of texts, the western church seems to have lost its ability to read the Bible in a specifically Christian way, through the lens of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.

Thus, I want to argue that the Mass offers us such a distinct reading of texts and is - itself - both a hermeneutic and an interpreter of texts and is meant to be so both on the grounds of Scripture and Tradition.

Therefore, I'm attempting to write a paper where I interpret 2 Chronicles 36:14-23 from within its location in the mass, or should I say, where I allow the mass to interpret the text from within this location within the mass.

Here is a little sneak peak for those who might be interested:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bSmJOs10WGb-9MPoGVp74CGP60iQEyA6pVMe5HhInfE/edit

Ben, I was going over your post again and I notice you mention that you have notice the western church is lacking in genuinely Christian reading of the Bible can you explain what you are saying in simple terms. Our Church every Sunday has response Bible reading and most likely the only time some people will read or hear the scripture. Can you tell me why isn’t our reading of the scriptures on Sunday morning Christian?
Thanks
Larry

[Benjamin Burch]

Our Church every Sunday has response Bible reading and most likely the only time some people will read or hear the scripture.

As it is in most Christian Worship Services. Thus, the importance of the interpretive function of the Liturgy.



Can you tell me why isn’t our reading of the scriptures on Sunday morning Christian?

I never said it wasn't Christian. The point is more toward the term "specifically Christian."

That is, what makes your interpretation Christian? I would suggest it is the lead pastor (you, right? :) ) and his ability to interpret the text in a Christian way. It depends on this. In the liturgy, it is a product of the Church and the Church's long and on-going tradition of Christian interpretation, to which the Liturgy is designed to secure.

[Larry Parsons]

As it is in most Christian Worship Services. Thus, the importance of the interpretive function of the Liturgy.




I never said it wasn't Christian. The point is more toward the term "specifically Christian."

That is, what makes your interpretation Christian? I would suggest it is the lead pastor (you, right? :) ) and his ability to interpret the text in a Christian way. It depends on this. In the liturgy, it is a product of the Church and the Church's long and on-going tradition of Christian interpretation, to which the Liturgy is designed to secure.
Our responsive bible reading is lead by a college student and it is done without any interpretation. But I think you are talking about when a pastor take his text does his sermon interpreting the text correct.Right? What I gather from you the Mass has the correct interpretation of the scriptures. If that is what you are saying I don't see how that is possible
Thanks
Larry

[Hans Deventer]

Our responsive bible reading is lead by a college student and it is done without any interpretation. But I think you are talking about when a pastor take his text does his sermon interpreting the text correct.Right? What I gather from you the Mass has the correct interpretation of the scriptures. If that is what you are saying I don't see how that is possible
Thanks
Larry

Larry, once again, if you can't think outside the traditional 1950's style of protestant theology, why are you writing here? This forum has been created with the specific purpose to NOT have this kind of discussion.

[Larry Parsons]

Larry, once again, if you can't think outside the traditional 1950's style of protestant theology, why are you writing here? This forum has been created with the specific purpose to NOT have this kind of discussion.
Are you telling me that I need to accept the R.C doctrine before I am up to date in my theology? Why I'm writing here is because you move the thread and to I'm interested in what else Ben has to say Maybe I should start a another post or send Ben private messages.
Thanks
Larry

[Hans Deventer]

Are you telling me that I need to accept the R.C doctrine before I am up to date in my theology? Why I'm writing here is because you move the thread and to I'm interested in what else Ben has to say Maybe I should start a another post or send Ben private messages.
Thanks
Larry

1. I did NOT move this thread.
2. I am NOT telling you to embrace RC doctrine.
3. I AM telling you that in order to write here, one needs by definition be open to consider other views and not at forehand reject them.

I hope this clarifies?

[Eric Frey]

Larry, I hesitate to jump in here. I have much too much to be doing. What it seems to me that Ben is saying is that churches like the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and even to an extent the Lutherans and UMC provide a structure to their worship that has been shaped by 2,000 years of Christian worship. It is not something some pastor and some worship team thought up to be a neat, fun, relevant way of worshipping. Worship then, is not the pastors worship, it is Christian worship. That is it was composed by Christianity over time and space and is received by the local congregation. This is important because the sermon is always the "pastor's" reading of the text, but having a historically shaped (ie Christian) pattern of worship gives limitations and context to the readings within which the pastor, in her proclamiation, must work. When the pastor creates the liturgy and writes the sermon, she can basically say do anything she wants without limitation or context. The liturgy received (rather than invented) provides accountability to the preacher and makes sure that the interpretation is "Christian" -- consistent with that which has been proclaimed and handed down to us from the apostles.

I think this is what Ben is trying to argue, using the Mass as an example of a Christian liturgy. Please don't get hung up on the Mass...

[John Kennedy]

Larry, I hesitate to jump in here. I have much too much to be doing. What it seems to me that Ben is saying is that churches like the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and even to an extent the Lutherans and UMC provide a structure to their worship that has been shaped by 2,000 years of Christian worship. It is not something some pastor and some worship team thought up to be a neat, fun, relevant way of worshipping. Worship then, is not the pastors worship, it is Christian worship. That is it was composed by Christianity over time and space and is received by the local congregation. This is important because the sermon is always the "pastor's" reading of the text, but having a historically shaped (ie Christian) pattern of worship gives limitations and context to the readings within which the pastor, in her proclamiation, must work. When the pastor creates the liturgy and writes the sermon, she can basically say do anything she wants without limitation or context. The liturgy received (rather than invented) provides accountability to the preacher and makes sure that the interpretation is "Christian" -- consistent with that which has been proclaimed and handed down to us from the apostles.

I think this is what Ben is trying to argue, using the Mass as an example of a Christian liturgy. Please don't get hung up on the Mass...

So you're saying what Ben was saying? I mean, I agree wholeheartedly with you, I just didn't understand exactly what Ben was saying. Would it be fair to assert that the liturgy can have a profound effect on the proclamation of the word?

[Larry Parsons]

Eric Thanks for explaining what Ben is saying. But let me get this straight. If I went to RC Mass or Eastern Orthodox sunday service and I watch the priest perform during their Sunday morning service. Can I say as I watch this action of the priest and the people this is what the Apostles and the Christians did every Sunday morning. I don't know what the Orthodox priest does duing there Sundaymoring service I have been in the UMC where the pastor lite candle and went through all kind of action and we know that RC priest will go through all kinds of action during Mass and they are not suppose to make a mistake. But you are saying what they are during today all over the world the Christians of 1st century did the same on Sunday Morning if this waht you say personally I find this hard to believe.
thanks
Larry

[Eric Frey]

Larry, is it exactly the same? No. It is a development but it is structured the same. The people gather, the word is proclaimed, the Lord's Supper is celebrated, the people are sent out. This much, at least, has been the same since the very first. Most in the orthodox church use the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostem which was composed around the 5th century. The Western Rites trace back to Justin Martyr's Apology (c. 155) and The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (c. 200). Not to mention the Acts accounts where we find the basic pattern of for Christian worship immediately after Pentecost included the apostles' teaching, fellowship, breaking bread, and prayer.

If you are truly interested in pursuing this line of questioning, I would recommend you start with one of the following:

Worship Old and New by Robert Webber (http://www.amazon.com/Worship-Old-New-Robert-Webber/dp/0310479908/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1333637643&sr=1-1)
A Brief History of Christian Worship by James F White (http://www.amazon.com/A-Brief-History-Christian-Worship/dp/0687034140/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1333637675&sr=1-1)
Documents of Christian Worship by James F White (http://www.amazon.com/Documents-Christian-Worship-Descriptive-Interpretive/dp/0664253997/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1333637708&sr=1-1)
Liturgies of the Western Church by Bard Thompson (http://www.amazon.com/Liturgies-Of-The-Western-Church/dp/1258136007/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1333637751&sr=1-1)
Worshipping with the Church Fathers by Christopher Hall (http://www.amazon.com/Worshiping-Church-Fathers-Christopher-Hall/dp/083083866X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1333637809&sr=1-1)
The Shape of the Liturgy by Dom Dix (www.amazon.com/Shape-Liturgy-New-Edition-Gregory/dp/0826479421/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1333637842&sr=1-1)

Oh... lest I forget,

Created to Worship by Brent Peterson (published by NPH) (http://www.amazon.com/Created-Worship-Invitation-Become-Fully/dp/083412792X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333637600&sr=8-1)

[Eric Frey]

...btw, I am not speaking for Ben. I am simply saying what I understand him to be meaning. I could be way off

[Benjamin Burch]

I am a little bit confused as to why

1) What I am saying is confusing
2) I am being asked questions high have nothing to do with what I am saying

What I am saying is this:

In the sixteenth century Protestantism proposed to take the Bible away from the Church and put it above/outside of the Church. This was a product of the intellectual and cultural climate of the sixteenth century. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the Bible was placed in the hands of the modern university who would, as a third party, ensure that the real meaning would be found apart from what the Church had always said. This way the "true" meaning of the Bible could be found and the Modern European States and the Protestant Churches that belonged to them could follow what the Bible really said and break with that yucky tradition stuff.

The result was that the Bible became - in the university - a "text" which was ancient and dead. It was no longer Scripture, which was living and present. As the title of Michael Legaspi's book says so well, we experienced "the death of scripture and the rise of Biblical Studies.

The Bible - particularly the Old Testament - was an ancient Hebrew document which needed interpreted and then it's meaning applied to today in order to make it speak for Christianity. It required the Biblical Scholar.

The response was two-fold and churches have struggled to resist the extremes.
1) Isaiah 7:14 has nothing to do with Jesus, the Church or tradition make than leap
2) Isaiah 7:14 is about Jesus becaus the Bible (Matthew) tells me so and the Bible must be the reliable source against tradition

These manifest themselves in very liberal Protestantism on the one hand and fundamentalism (even inerrant evangelicalism) on the other.

This is a problem. The Bible no longer belongs to the Church, it belongs to the modern university. It is no linter present, it is ancient. It is no longer alive, it is dead. The Old Testament no longer reveals Christ.

So, I am attempting to, based on postmodern literary methods - most specifically ethnographic reading - offer a practical solution to this problem by proposing that Christian Liturgies (which predate the modern university) offer themselves to the Church as interpreters of the Scriptures. Thus I am arguing thatthis is accomplished by the specific use and placement of an order of actions, word, respnoses, and other texts which are placed intentionally in specific places within the chronology of the Liturgies. I am arguing that these words, actions, and texts offer a new literary context for the OT scriptures where they read fundamentally different.

I am using the Roman Rite Mass as a case study to make this argument.

Thus, the Liturgies (and in this case the RRM) take the Scriptures back from the unIversity and interprets it, giving it to God's people to be known with Christ as their meaning.

I am not saying this is the only solution or the exclusive true meanIng of the Scriptures, especially considering there are at least 3 formal liturgies in Christianity that predate the modern university and at least 2 which arise around the same time.

I am simply offering this as a practical solution to the problem I have identified.

[Todd Erickson]

Ben, I think that what was being stated earlier is that when much of the mass was developed, the catholic church, with it's priests, monks, etc. was the sole seat of learning within the Western World, i.e., the church was both the church and the academy. So the mass that was developed, the Liturgy set forth, the worship allowed (Harmony could result in execution for a number of centuries) all came from this common role, which is why all of our oldest Universities are, in fact, initially religious institutions.

Who taught what the church had decided was appropriate.

My observation from talking to Catholics is that there is just as much instance of folk theology among them as there is among Protestants who lack all liturgy. Thus in practical example, I have not seen a difference caused by Liturgy... it's just a different way of teaching things.

[Benjamin Burch]

It is finished! It probably needed another eye on proof-reading.... I apologize.

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6Q3QdwCL4T5TFBVdW1BQm1obFU

[Hans Deventer]

It is finished! It probably needed another eye on proof-reading.... I apologize.

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6Q3QdwCL4T5TFBVdW1BQm1obFU

Might not make it today, have a wedding to attend, but I'll certainly read it tomorrow!