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

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Presbyterians invented Gospel singing?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 9 , Sep 4, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 9 , Sep 4, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- 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 3 of 9 , Sep 5, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          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.