Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Presbyterians invented Gospel singing?

Expand Messages
  • thebishopsdoom
    ... No, but I know where they got that. We find our first (extraBiblical) references to worship song in the congregations amongst the earliest sources, around
    Message 1 of 9 , Sep 4, 2003
      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, kim White
      <sewingkim@y...> wrote:
      >
      > Dear Dan Fraas,
      >
      > I thought singing in church was started by Martin
      > Luther. The church was against singing in church
      > Martin disagree and started to write Hymms for the
      > congretion.
      > I could be wrong but I saw this on a two hours PBS
      > video on Martin Luther.
      > Kim
      No, but I know where they got that.
      We find our first (extraBiblical) references to worship song in the
      congregations amongst the earliest sources, around the end
      of the 1st century. Ignatius records his bringing into his church the
      form of antiphonal chanting of the Psalms, which he claims to have
      gotten the idea of from a dream he interpreted as a prophetical
      vision. The reference makes no intimation that anything was new but
      the antiphonal method of singing the Psalms.
      From there, there are enough scattered references to ascertain:
      1. the psalm lesson was most probably sung in the churches in the
      city of Rome at least by the third century during the mass of the
      presanctified (the portion of the service prior to the introducing of
      the preface to the Lord's Supper).
      2. from probably as early as the 2nd century, most Christians started
      the Lord's day and in some places (and soon thereafter most places)
      every day with either Psalm 63 or 51, and soon thereafter with
      psalms 148-150 as well. This was true in both the East and the West.
      There developed also other set psalms for various occasions. These
      fixed songs were called the cathedral or secular (i.e., non-monastic)
      office. Not that no other psalms were ever sung, but other singing
      was done on a more individual basis, people singing aloud or to
      themselves at work, etc. By the fourth century, a 2nd form of
      psalmody had developed and become popular in the monasteries and
      among many of the people outside of the monasteries, which began at
      Psalm 1 and went thru the psalms in a cycle, ending at 150 and
      starting at 1 again. Various cycles were proposed, singing all 150
      psalms either in a week, a month, or even in a day. By the 5th
      century a number of churches seem to have followed a blend of the two
      forms of office - going thru the psalter plus having select psalms
      for select occasions. These offices were in the daily morning
      prayers. In the evening, Psalm 141 was sung in some places, Psalm 104
      in others. In the (probably late) third century in the east, a
      noncanonical song called the phos hilaron was added to the evening
      office in most locations, traditionally claimed to have been composed
      by Athenogenes on the occasion of his martyrdom. In the 3rd
      century also, the Gloria in Excelsis was sung in the east (possibly
      still in the form it appears in Luke, withoutr emandations), and both
      east and west were singing Exodus 15 I think during Easter season.
      3. In the east, gnostic hymnody and eventually arian hymnody had
      created a counter growth of anti-gnostic and anti-arian hymnody.
      While a number of scholars believe a large number of these were
      intended at first for no more than private instruction or
      edification, or to counter arian processions in the streets, these
      quickly entered the services of the churches, first in Syria from
      what I gather, and the method of hymnody spread to the churches from
      Syria eastwards (Persia, India, etc.). In the 4th century, if not
      sooner, they spread further West, though not yet touching the Western
      church itself that I am aware of, just more broadly expanded in the
      middle east and mediterranean region. It is possible that nonBiblical
      texts were sung outside of gnostic circles in Eygpt in the 3rd
      century as well, but this depends on an obscure reference to
      the "psalmody" of a certain Nepos (and whether it was new songs, a
      new form of singing psalms, or a new method of psalm cycles), and
      whether or not a certain Oxyrhynchus fragment with a certain hymn on
      it with a tune set in a musical notation that dates to probably no
      later than the late 3rd century was from an orthodox Coptic source or
      from a gnostic source. The fragment preserved leaves no definitive
      answer. There are scattered references at least in the 4th century to
      extraBiblical texts being brought into the churches after people
      claimed to receive the words in a prophetic vision (e.g., the
      Trisagion). It is unclear to what extent such practices may have also
      existed in the 3rd century or before.
      4. The 4th century brought the introduction of doxologies at the end
      of psalms. It also brought debates on method of singing, inspired
      versus uninspired texts, and congregational versus choral or
      individual cantor singing. Due to possibly some council (Laodieca
      perhaps), congregational singing waned through the west for perhaps a
      few decades, some churches discontinuing music altogether it would
      appear, though some have argued that it continued in some country
      churches, while the city churches tended to drop out the music or at
      least congregational singing. It was brought back to the west via
      Ambrose, via Hilary, via John Chrysostom. In the churches, Ambrose
      restored congregational psalmody to the mass, at gatherings outside
      of the mass, he also incorporated the anti-arian hymnody and composed
      some dozen and a half or so hymns of his own. The practice of both
      Psalmody and uninspired hymnody spread thru the West from Ambrose's
      diocese in Milan. The 4th century also saw the growth of other
      Biblical texts being sung, as well as the growing popularity of
      appending Biblical song texts with uninspired additions (as in the
      Gloria in Excelsis Deo). This latter practice eventually developed
      into "tropes" - antiphonally sung uninspired comments interspersed
      into Psalm texts. Psalm texts interspersed with such additions are
      called "farced Psalms." I am aware that in the Ethiopic church, this
      became (by early middle ages?) almost the exclusive method of
      Psalmody.
      5. Thru the middle ages, in the west at least, there were differences
      in what was sung (some places only recited the doxologies but other
      churches sung, some recited the Sanctus while others sung, some
      recited the Trisagion while others sung, some recited the prayers
      while others sung, some used more extensive extraBiblical songs while
      some rejected all songs not regarded as inspired by God). But while
      it was not universal, the emphasis of the day was on choral
      performances, and not all churches had even any congregational
      singing. By Luther's day, congregational singing had far waned in
      favour of ministers and professional choirs.
      What Luther introduced in Germany was, or perhaps rather
      reintroduced, was congregational singing. There were other parts of
      Europe where this practice had not been entirely lost, but the
      history of the reformation seems to show that it was not the more
      common practice in the western churches until reintroduced by the
      reformers, and then by the Roman churches in response to the popular
      support for the practice.
      That's about all I care to offer on short notice.
      -thebishopsdoom
    • Dan Fraas
      Perhaps, but who made Martin Luther? God. Riley ... nodeId=62692&command=displayContent&sourceNode=62244&contentPK=688422
      Message 2 of 9 , Sep 4, 2003
        Perhaps, but who made Martin Luther? God.

        Riley
        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, kim White
        <sewingkim@y...> wrote:
        >
        > Dear Dan Fraas,
        >
        > I thought singing in church was started by Martin
        > Luther. The church was against singing in church
        > Martin disagree and started to write Hymms for the
        > congretion.
        > I could be wrong but I saw this on a two hours PBS
        > video on Martin Luther.
        > Kim
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > --- Dan Fraas <fraasrd@y...> wrote:
        > > Well, if you trace gospel songs back to the Psalms,
        > > then I guess
        > > you'd have to trace the Psalms back to David and
        > > Asaph, and the Holy
        > > Spirit, who proceeds from the father. So you'd have
        > > to say that God
        > > the father invented gospel singing, not
        > > Presbyterians.
        > >
        > > Riley
        > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com,
        > > "puritanstorm"
        > > <john@f...> wrote:
        > > > From WorldNetDaily:
        > > >
        > > >
        > >
        > http://www.thisisnorthscotland.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?
        > > >
        > >
        >
        nodeId=62692&command=displayContent&sourceNode=62244&contentPK=688422
        > > > 4
        > > >
        > > > AMERICAN ACADEMIC BELIEVES GOSPEL SINGING OWES
        > > ORIGIN TO SCOTS
        > > >
        > > > SARAH BRUCE
        > > >
        > > > 16:28 - 01 September 2003
        > > >
        > > > An American professor of music believes his
        > > country's gospel
        > > > tradition owes its existence to the solemn
        > > psalm-singing of the
        > > > Scottish Hebridean churches.
        > > >
        > > > The passion of black church music - a discipline
        > > that nurtured such
        > > > superstars as Whitney Houston, Tina Turner and
        > > Aretha Franklin -
        > > was
        > > > always assumed to come from the days of American
        > > slavery.
        > > >
        > > > But Professor Willie Ruff, of Yale University, has
        > > put forward the
        > > > theory that the style of leading the congregation
        > > on each line of
        > > > the lyrics owes more to the Free Church of
        > > Scotland's style of
        > > psalm
        > > > singing.
        > > >
        > > > Prof Ruff, 71, said that modern-day Afro-Americans
        > > had always
        > > > assumed that their gospel style had been brought
        > > from Africa when
        > > > their ancestors were sold into slavery in the US.
        > > >
        > > > But he claims his research has shown this is a
        > > misconception, and
        > > > the musical traditions came from Scottish slave
        > > owners who brought
        > > > their religious practices and psalms with them
        > > across the Atlantic.
        > > >
        > > > Prof Ruff said: "We as black Americans have lived
        > > under a
        > > > misconception. Our cultural roots are more
        > > Afro-Gaelic than Afro-
        > > > American. We got our names from the slave masters,
        > > we got our
        > > > religion from the slave masters and we got our
        > > blood from the slave
        > > > masters."
        > > >
        > > > The professor, who has played with Duke Ellington
        > > and Dizzy
        > > > Gillespie, found his curiosity was aroused when he
        > > heard a
        > > > Presbyterian congregation in Alabama singing in
        > > the same style as
        > > > his own Baptist church, and wondered if it had
        > > come from the white
        > > > Presbyterians. Research on the history of North
        > > Carolina showed
        > > > Highlanders had settled there in the 1700s, and
        > > anecdotal evidence
        > > > of African slaves speaking Gaelic convinced Prof
        > > Ruff he had to
        > > > visit Scotland.
        > > >
        > > > He found himself in Stornoway, listening to the
        > > precentor lead a
        > > > congregation by singing each line and having them
        > > repeat the
        > > > haunting psalm melodies.
        > > >
        > > > The idea of rhythmic black gospel music having its
        > > roots in solemn
        > > > Presbyterian Scotland is proving hard to swallow -
        > > Glasgow
        > > > University sources said it was "plausible" and
        > > "intriguing", but
        > > one
        > > > American gospel leader simply said: "Gospel music
        > > is black music."
        > > >
        > > > Prof Ruff added: "There will be Scots who are
        > > uncomfortable with
        > > the
        > > > relationship and the involvement in the slave
        > > trade. But the Scots
        > > > are like anyone, and there were many who were
        > > abolitionists and who
        > > > set up schools for black children after
        > > emancipation."
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
        > __________________________________
        > Do you Yahoo!?
        > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
        > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
      • kim White
        Dear Doom, Thank you for the info and corrections in the time lines of pslams for me. It makes better since putting it into the times frames for me. I can see
        Message 3 of 9 , Sep 4, 2003
          Dear Doom,

          Thank you for the info and corrections in the time
          lines of pslams for me. It makes better since putting
          it into the times frames for me.
          I can see Luther putting more singing to the common
          man his main goal that the gospel was for everyone not
          just the priest and heirarchy of the church. I think
          Martin Luther is glad the sermon in the Catholic
          church is no longer in Latin.
          I remember the sermons in latin as I was a kid.
          Kim













          --- thebishopsdoom <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
          > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com,
          > kim White
          > <sewingkim@y...> wrote:
          > >
          > > Dear Dan Fraas,
          > >
          > > I thought singing in church was started by Martin
          > > Luther. The church was against singing in church
          > > Martin disagree and started to write Hymms for the
          > > congretion.
          > > I could be wrong but I saw this on a two hours
          > PBS
          > > video on Martin Luther.
          > > Kim
          > No, but I know where they got that.
          > We find our first (extraBiblical) references to
          > worship song in the
          > congregations amongst the earliest sources, around
          > the end
          > of the 1st century. Ignatius records his bringing
          > into his church the
          > form of antiphonal chanting of the Psalms, which he
          > claims to have
          > gotten the idea of from a dream he interpreted as a
          > prophetical
          > vision. The reference makes no intimation that
          > anything was new but
          > the antiphonal method of singing the Psalms.
          > From there, there are enough scattered references to
          > ascertain:
          > 1. the psalm lesson was most probably sung in the
          > churches in the
          > city of Rome at least by the third century during
          > the mass of the
          > presanctified (the portion of the service prior to
          > the introducing of
          > the preface to the Lord's Supper).
          > 2. from probably as early as the 2nd century, most
          > Christians started
          > the Lord's day and in some places (and soon
          > thereafter most places)
          > every day with either Psalm 63 or 51, and soon
          > thereafter with
          > psalms 148-150 as well. This was true in both the
          > East and the West.
          > There developed also other set psalms for various
          > occasions. These
          > fixed songs were called the cathedral or secular
          > (i.e., non-monastic)
          > office. Not that no other psalms were ever sung, but
          > other singing
          > was done on a more individual basis, people singing
          > aloud or to
          > themselves at work, etc. By the fourth century, a
          > 2nd form of
          > psalmody had developed and become popular in the
          > monasteries and
          > among many of the people outside of the monasteries,
          > which began at
          > Psalm 1 and went thru the psalms in a cycle, ending
          > at 150 and
          > starting at 1 again. Various cycles were proposed,
          > singing all 150
          > psalms either in a week, a month, or even in a day.
          > By the 5th
          > century a number of churches seem to have followed a
          > blend of the two
          > forms of office - going thru the psalter plus having
          > select psalms
          > for select occasions. These offices were in the
          > daily morning
          > prayers. In the evening, Psalm 141 was sung in some
          > places, Psalm 104
          > in others. In the (probably late) third century in
          > the east, a
          > noncanonical song called the phos hilaron was added
          > to the evening
          > office in most locations, traditionally claimed to
          > have been composed
          > by Athenogenes on the occasion of his martyrdom. In
          > the 3rd
          > century also, the Gloria in Excelsis was sung in the
          > east (possibly
          > still in the form it appears in Luke, withoutr
          > emandations), and both
          > east and west were singing Exodus 15 I think during
          > Easter season.
          > 3. In the east, gnostic hymnody and eventually arian
          > hymnody had
          > created a counter growth of anti-gnostic and
          > anti-arian hymnody.
          > While a number of scholars believe a large number of
          > these were
          > intended at first for no more than private
          > instruction or
          > edification, or to counter arian processions in the
          > streets, these
          > quickly entered the services of the churches, first
          > in Syria from
          > what I gather, and the method of hymnody spread to
          > the churches from
          > Syria eastwards (Persia, India, etc.). In the 4th
          > century, if not
          > sooner, they spread further West, though not yet
          > touching the Western
          > church itself that I am aware of, just more broadly
          > expanded in the
          > middle east and mediterranean region. It is possible
          > that nonBiblical
          > texts were sung outside of gnostic circles in Eygpt
          > in the 3rd
          > century as well, but this depends on an obscure
          > reference to
          > the "psalmody" of a certain Nepos (and whether it
          > was new songs, a
          > new form of singing psalms, or a new method of psalm
          > cycles), and
          > whether or not a certain Oxyrhynchus fragment with a
          > certain hymn on
          > it with a tune set in a musical notation that dates
          > to probably no
          > later than the late 3rd century was from an orthodox
          > Coptic source or
          > from a gnostic source. The fragment preserved leaves
          > no definitive
          > answer. There are scattered references at least in
          > the 4th century to
          > extraBiblical texts being brought into the churches
          > after people
          > claimed to receive the words in a prophetic vision
          > (e.g., the
          > Trisagion). It is unclear to what extent such
          > practices may have also
          > existed in the 3rd century or before.
          > 4. The 4th century brought the introduction of
          > doxologies at the end
          > of psalms. It also brought debates on method of
          > singing, inspired
          > versus uninspired texts, and congregational versus
          > choral or
          > individual cantor singing. Due to possibly some
          > council (Laodieca
          > perhaps), congregational singing waned through the
          > west for perhaps a
          > few decades, some churches discontinuing music
          > altogether it would
          > appear, though some have argued that it continued in
          > some country
          > churches, while the city churches tended to drop out
          > the music or at
          > least congregational singing. It was brought back to
          > the west via
          > Ambrose, via Hilary, via John Chrysostom. In the
          > churches, Ambrose
          > restored congregational psalmody to the mass, at
          > gatherings outside
          > of the mass, he also incorporated the anti-arian
          > hymnody and composed
          > some dozen and a half or so hymns of his own. The
          > practice of both
          > Psalmody and uninspired hymnody spread thru the West
          > from Ambrose's
          > diocese in Milan. The 4th century also saw the
          > growth of other
          > Biblical texts being sung, as well as the growing
          > popularity of
          > appending Biblical song texts with uninspired
          > additions (as in the
          > Gloria in Excelsis Deo). This latter practice
          > eventually developed
          > into "tropes" - antiphonally sung uninspired
          > comments interspersed
          > into Psalm texts. Psalm texts interspersed with such
          > additions are
          > called "farced Psalms." I am aware that in the
          > Ethiopic church, this
          > became (by early middle ages?) almost the exclusive
          > method of
          > Psalmody.
          > 5. Thru the middle ages, in the west at least, there
          > were differences
          > in what was sung (some places only recited the
          > doxologies but other
          > churches sung, some recited the Sanctus while others
          > sung, some
          > recited the Trisagion while others sung, some
          > recited the prayers
          > while others sung, some used more extensive
          > extraBiblical songs while
          > some rejected all songs not regarded as inspired by
          > God). But while
          > it was not universal, the emphasis of the day was on
          > choral
          > performances, and not all churches had even any
          > congregational
          > singing. By Luther's day, congregational singing had
          > far waned in
          > favour of ministers and professional choirs.
          > What Luther introduced in Germany was, or perhaps
          > rather
          > reintroduced, was congregational singing. There were
          > other
          === message truncated ===


          __________________________________
          Do you Yahoo!?
          Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
          http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
        • thebishopsdoom
          ... Well, it wasn t just the hierarchy per se, but the choral performances in general had weakened further the participation of the common man as anything more
          Message 4 of 9 , Sep 4, 2003
            --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, kim White
            <sewingkim@y...> wrote:

            > I can see Luther putting more singing to the common
            > man his main goal that the gospel was for everyone not
            > just the priest and heirarchy of the church.
            Well, it wasn't just the hierarchy per se, but the choral
            performances in general had weakened further the participation of the
            common man as anything more than a spectator at worship. In my haste,
            I may oversimplify some things here, so bear with my infirmity here.
            One of the difficulties coming thru the middle ages, again, not
            necessarily everywhere, but a common problem, is that the average
            Christian did things on his own, but in corporate worship, he was
            heavily reliant upon others to do most everything for him. Not only
            did others offer up his praise for him (with respect to the singing;
            there was some congregational participation at least in the
            liturgical prayers surrounding the mass), but in the mass, a
            corruption had been introduced and spread whereby the eucharist was
            effectual not to the individual by faith, nor was the requirement
            something along the lines of looking thru the symbols to the cross of
            Calvary, and pledging himself thereto and requesting of God thru that
            sacrifice (at Calvary, smbolized in the bread and wine) to bestow the
            pardon of sins and sanctification of our nature. Rather,
            increasingly, the effectualness was dependent upon the "priest" and
            him alone. Furthermore, the sacrifice of the mass was increasingly
            seen as more than a symbol of the sacrifice at Calvary, but a fresh
            sacrificing of Christ, or otherwise adding something to Calvary or
            repeating Calvary again as though God needed Calvary repeated, or
            some further sacrifice for our new sins committed daily. As a result,
            the person in many churches in Europe needed only to be a spectator
            and to believe that if the minister followed the liturgical
            formulations properly, everything was already done for the average
            Christian in the congregation, so long as he remained in the
            institutional church, which (in addition to Christian souls believed
            to be in purgatory) were the objects the priest beseached the
            benefits of the sacrifice for. So there was this danger that church
            was to become a spectator sport as it were. If the minister did his
            part, and I stayed in the institutional church and didn't do anything
            to get excommunicated, I had pretty much done my part. (Of course, it
            shouldn't be denied that many souls understood outside of the
            corporate worship service their need for personal experience with God
            and private worship, but like as today many think if they attend
            church on lord's days, they've done their part for God, so too, the
            danger here was that people think that they can just relax and let
            the priest do all the work for them, as long as they try to be moral
            people, or at least, make some contribution to the church if they do
            anything immoral, in the idea that the priest would be bound to
            pronounce a sentence of assurance of absolution to them for their
            good deed, as though the mere work itself was a proof of repentance,
            which is what penance originally was for - to give evidence to the
            church that you had in fact repented by a willingness to satisfy the
            church's demands for proof of repentance). Of course, in saying all
            of this, I am speaking of common errors of that time, I am not
            claiming that these errors were absolutely universal, though the
            church in general was not absent of those things which might foster
            such errors in people's minds (the expressions used in the prayers of
            the mass, and the fact that the mass was held and widely held as
            beneficial to the people regardless of whether the people yet knew
            the latin language to know what was going on, for example, could be
            theorized to have perhaps helped to feed the idea that all that
            mattered was that the minister follow the right formulae, regardless
            of whether I have any idea what he is saying or doing, and if he does
            his job I would be granted blessings by the minister's own work, in
            and of itself).

            >I think
            > Martin Luther is glad the sermon in the Catholic
            > church is no longer in Latin.
            > I remember the sermons in latin as I was a kid.
            > Kim
            Yes, I am sure that he would. To be fair, throughout most of the
            middle ages, the better churches had attempted to teach the people
            latin. And thru the middle ages, many people as a result did in fact
            know latin as a second language. The problem is that since things
            depended predominantly on the right liturgical formulas, and the
            actions and intercession of the minister, it was common for the
            church to do worship in Latin and try to instruct the people on it
            only afterwards if at all. Since it didn't matter whether or not the
            people
            understood the words or what was going on, so long as the minister
            did his job for their benefit, the people really didn't need to know
            latin. That's why they just started everything in Latin from the very
            beginning of bringing the church into a nation, expecting new
            converts to be taught later on about what was actually being saidin
            the latin. As a result, there was less push for vernacular
            translations, and certainly less
            push for vernacular masses. There were some thru the middle ages, but
            they seem to have been in the minority. Likewise, while the church in
            better times and places did attempt to teach the people latin to
            understand what was going on and to read the common translation of
            the Scriptures, it seems apparent that by the reformation the general
            populace in much of Europe did not appear to know latin, and thus the
            popularity of vernacular translations and services at the time of the
            reformation.
            -thebishopsdoom
          • kim White
            Dear Doom, Thank you for the history lesson. It all makes sense. No wonder the middle ages was also called the dark ages too. Kim ...
            Message 5 of 9 , Sep 5, 2003
              Dear Doom,

              Thank you for the history lesson. It all makes sense.

              No wonder the middle ages was also called the dark
              ages too.


              Kim













              --- thebishopsdoom <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
              > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com,
              > kim White
              > <sewingkim@y...> wrote:
              >
              > > I can see Luther putting more singing to the
              > common
              > > man his main goal that the gospel was for everyone
              > not
              > > just the priest and heirarchy of the church.
              > Well, it wasn't just the hierarchy per se, but the
              > choral
              > performances in general had weakened further the
              > participation of the
              > common man as anything more than a spectator at
              > worship. In my haste,
              > I may oversimplify some things here, so bear with my
              > infirmity here.
              > One of the difficulties coming thru the middle ages,
              > again, not
              > necessarily everywhere, but a common problem, is
              > that the average
              > Christian did things on his own, but in corporate
              > worship, he was
              > heavily reliant upon others to do most everything
              > for him. Not only
              > did others offer up his praise for him (with respect
              > to the singing;
              > there was some congregational participation at least
              > in the
              > liturgical prayers surrounding the mass), but in the
              > mass, a
              > corruption had been introduced and spread whereby
              > the eucharist was
              > effectual not to the individual by faith, nor was
              > the requirement
              > something along the lines of looking thru the
              > symbols to the cross of
              > Calvary, and pledging himself thereto and requesting
              > of God thru that
              > sacrifice (at Calvary, smbolized in the bread and
              > wine) to bestow the
              > pardon of sins and sanctification of our nature.
              > Rather,
              > increasingly, the effectualness was dependent upon
              > the "priest" and
              > him alone. Furthermore, the sacrifice of the mass
              > was increasingly
              > seen as more than a symbol of the sacrifice at
              > Calvary, but a fresh
              > sacrificing of Christ, or otherwise adding something
              > to Calvary or
              > repeating Calvary again as though God needed Calvary
              > repeated, or
              > some further sacrifice for our new sins committed
              > daily. As a result,
              > the person in many churches in Europe needed only to
              > be a spectator
              > and to believe that if the minister followed the
              > liturgical
              > formulations properly, everything was already done
              > for the average
              > Christian in the congregation, so long as he
              > remained in the
              > institutional church, which (in addition to
              > Christian souls believed
              > to be in purgatory) were the objects the priest
              > beseached the
              > benefits of the sacrifice for. So there was this
              > danger that church
              > was to become a spectator sport as it were. If the
              > minister did his
              > part, and I stayed in the institutional church and
              > didn't do anything
              > to get excommunicated, I had pretty much done my
              > part. (Of course, it
              > shouldn't be denied that many souls understood
              > outside of the
              > corporate worship service their need for personal
              > experience with God
              > and private worship, but like as today many think if
              > they attend
              > church on lord's days, they've done their part for
              > God, so too, the
              > danger here was that people think that they can just
              > relax and let
              > the priest do all the work for them, as long as they
              > try to be moral
              > people, or at least, make some contribution to the
              > church if they do
              > anything immoral, in the idea that the priest would
              > be bound to
              > pronounce a sentence of assurance of absolution to
              > them for their
              > good deed, as though the mere work itself was a
              > proof of repentance,
              > which is what penance originally was for - to give
              > evidence to the
              > church that you had in fact repented by a
              > willingness to satisfy the
              > church's demands for proof of repentance). Of
              > course, in saying all
              > of this, I am speaking of common errors of that
              > time, I am not
              > claiming that these errors were absolutely
              > universal, though the
              > church in general was not absent of those things
              > which might foster
              > such errors in people's minds (the expressions used
              > in the prayers of
              > the mass, and the fact that the mass was held and
              > widely held as
              > beneficial to the people regardless of whether the
              > people yet knew
              > the latin language to know what was going on, for
              > example, could be
              > theorized to have perhaps helped to feed the idea
              > that all that
              > mattered was that the minister follow the right
              > formulae, regardless
              > of whether I have any idea what he is saying or
              > doing, and if he does
              > his job I would be granted blessings by the
              > minister's own work, in
              > and of itself).
              >
              > >I think
              > > Martin Luther is glad the sermon in the Catholic
              > > church is no longer in Latin.
              > > I remember the sermons in latin as I was a kid.
              > > Kim
              > Yes, I am sure that he would. To be fair, throughout
              > most of the
              > middle ages, the better churches had attempted to
              > teach the people
              > latin. And thru the middle ages, many people as a
              > result did in fact
              > know latin as a second language. The problem is
              > that since things
              > depended predominantly on the right liturgical
              > formulas, and the
              > actions and intercession of the minister, it was
              > common for the
              > church to do worship in Latin and try to instruct
              > the people on it
              > only afterwards if at all. Since it didn't matter
              > whether or not the
              > people
              > understood the words or what was going on, so long
              > as the minister
              > did his job for their benefit, the people really
              > didn't need to know
              > latin. That's why they just started everything in
              > Latin from the very
              > beginning of bringing the church into a nation,
              > expecting new
              > converts to be taught later on about what was
              > actually being saidin
              > the latin. As a result, there was less push for
              > vernacular
              > translations, and certainly less
              > push for vernacular masses. There were some thru the
              > middle ages, but
              > they seem to have been in the minority. Likewise,
              > while the church in
              > better times and places did attempt to teach the
              > people latin to
              > understand what was going on and to read the common
              > translation of
              > the Scriptures, it seems apparent that by the
              > reformation the general
              > populace in much of Europe did not appear to know
              > latin, and thus the
              > popularity of vernacular translations and services
              > at the time of the
              > reformation.
              > -thebishopsdoom
              >
              >


              __________________________________
              Do you Yahoo!?
              Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
              http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.