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 history lesson. It all makes sense. No wonder the middle ages was also called the dark ages too. Kim ...
    Message 1 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.


      --- 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
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.