about the sacraments and the early church

[fineca]

A few short (perhaps silly) questions:

1. How come Jesus gave Holy Communion to the apostles since they had not received absolution from their post-baptismal sins beforehand? Did the order of grace function differently in the times of the apostles? Why, when St.Paul talks about immorality in his letters, does he never tell them to confess their sins and be reconciled? Rather he tells others to rebuke the sinners or excommunicate them or something. The apostles seem not to have realised the sacramental power they had…but then again St.Paul says the ministry of reconciliation has been given to them. So why didn’t they seem to practise confession like we do? Was prayer and repentance enough back then, without the sacrament, but later when the sacrament was more fully understood, it was made obligatory?
2. How could the apostles receive communion, be saved etc. if they were not baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit? For this trinitarian formula is given only after Jesus’ resurrection and the Church doesn’t accept any other formula, before Jesus’s death people were baptized by John or “in Jesus’ name” or in the name of “Christ Jesus”, not in the name of the Trinity.
3. Why did the apostles call the Eucharist the breaking of bread, if they believed that in the Mass bread ceases to be bread and is the Body of Christ?
4. Why did Jesus preach so much about all kinds of other things but not so much at all about sacraments (I do believe he did preach about them quite clearly but he could’ve done it a lot more and a lot more clearly so that people would have no doubt about what was important) if the sacraments are the means through which we receive the graces of salvation? If he came to found a Church, we should think he’d explain what the doctrine of the Church would be and not leave it up to later speculations which he knew would cause great division in the Church.

Thank you
Emil

 

[EtienneGilson]

Those are not silly questions but rather excellent questions. It is important however not to apply our post-scholastic understanding of the sacraments anachronistically.

Modern scholarship in the are is perhaps the best way to answer the questions. There are a number of excellent books on the subject for the sacraments such as Kenan Osborn’s ‘Sacramental Theology: A General Introduction’ or Bernard Cooke’s ‘Sacraments and Sacramentality’. One excellent book on the development of the sacrament of reconciliation is Laudislaus Orsy’s “The Evolving Church and the Sacrament of Penance”.

Personally, of all the sacraments I believe the sacrament of reconciliation has the most interesting history (other than *maybe * the history of the liturgy) and offers the greatest insight into the nature of the sacraments and their possible further development.

A brief exert from Orsy’s book

Also they [The Apostles] were aware that, if anyone sinned, he could be forgiven through the ministry of the Church. But we find no evidence in the New Testament of any well-determined rite for pardon. Consequently, the Church had to develop “sacred signs” for the reconciliation of sinners.

Much of the history of the sacrament of penance is an account of the evolution of such a rite. Surprisingly enough, there were two distinct points of departure: one, right from the beginning, in the churches around the Mediterrean; the other, from the fifth century, in the churches in Ireland.

The Mediterranean system was built on a strong consciousness of the unity of the community. Penance was public. It was done in the midst of the community. Reconciliation, granted by the bishop, was part of public liturgy.

The Irish system was built on an understanding that sin was a break in the relationship with God. The priest had to be a discreet, and often secret, minister of reconciliation between God and his erring creature…

Such different approaches were bound to come into conflict, and they did.

(p.31)

 

[Todd_Easton]

fineca:

A few short (perhaps silly) questions:

1. How come Jesus gave Holy Communion to the apostles since they had not received absolution from their post-baptismal sins beforehand? Did the order of grace function differently in the times of the apostles? Why, when St.Paul talks about immorality in his letters, does he never tell them to confess their sins and be reconciled? Rather he tells others to rebuke the sinners or excommunicate them or something. The apostles seem not to have realised the sacramental power they had…but then again St.Paul says the ministry of reconciliation has been given to them. So why didn’t they seem to practise confession like we do? Was prayer and repentance enough back then, without the sacrament, but later when the sacrament was more fully understood, it was made obligatory?

The Bible doesn’t say very much about the reconciliation of Christians who committed sins after baptism. There was Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11), Simon Magus (Acts 8:9-26), the man in Corinth living with his father’s wife (1 Corinthians 5:1), and others in Corinth who were receiving the Eucharist unworthily (1 Corinthians 11:30-34). Of these Christian sinners, many were simply struck dead as in the case of Ananias and Saphira and some in the Church of Corinth (1 Corinthians 11:30-34). It seems that those Christian sinners who were not struck dead often became sick as in the case of some in Corinth. There is an instruction in the Bible for Christians who are sick to call for the presbyters (priests) of the Church and confess their sins. (James 5:14-16)

The man in Corinth living with his father’s wife was excommunicated from the Church (1 Corinthians 5:2) and only later after an apparant expression of sorrow was he forgiven by Paul *in persona Christi *and reconciled to the Church (2 Corinthians 2:7-10)

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Peace be with you!

fineca:

A few short (perhaps silly) questions:
Certainly not silly questions! These certainly got me thinking!

1. How come Jesus gave Holy Communion to the apostles since they had not received absolution from their post-baptismal sins beforehand? I think that their sins had been forgiven in a different way. They were always in the presence of Jesus himself, so I would think they would hardly be sinning very much during the time of his ministry. Not to say that they went around without sin, but I imagine that following Jesus Christ around one would be more easily able to avoid sin. Also, remember when Jesus sent them out to minister? He breathed on them and said “Recieve the Holy Spirit”. I guess you could look at that as the Apostles (physically) recieving grace and maybe that forgave their sins (since Jesus also said “Whosever sins you forgive are forgiven…”; perhaps by giving them that authority he at the same time forgave their own sins)
2. How could the apostles receive communion, be saved etc. if they were not baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit? For this trinitarian formula is given only after Jesus’ resurrection and the Church doesn’t accept any other formula, before Jesus’s death people were baptized by John or “in Jesus’ name” or in the name of “Christ Jesus”, not in the name of the Trinity. Not sure about this. The simplest answer, of course, would be that Jesus gave them Communion. Also, with reference to my first answer, they recieved grace when Jesus breathed on them, so perhaps that took the place of a Trinitarian baptism–they knew that Jesus was the Son of God and he gave them the Holy Spirit, so if you look into that you can see all Three persons.
3. Why did the apostles call the Eucharist the breaking of bread, if they believed that in the Mass bread ceases to be bread and is the Body of Christ? **Because the *accident ***of the Body was still bread. It’s *substance *changed, but in all appearances, it was bread. So just as in Mass today, it appears that the priest is breaking bread, even though we all know that it is actually the Body of Christ on the altar.
4. Why did Jesus preach so much about all kinds of other things but not so much at all about sacraments (I do believe he did preach about them quite clearly but he could’ve done it a lot more and a lot more clearly so that people would have no doubt about what was important) if the sacraments are the means through which we receive the graces of salvation? If he came to found a Church, we should think he’d explain what the doctrine of the Church would be and not leave it up to later speculations which he knew would cause great division in the Church. Jesus told us that there would be divisions. I think he did preach about the Sacraments (of course, like you said, implicitly) clearly at times, such as when some of the disciples left when he was talking about “eating of the flesh of the Son of Man”. But I think most of this teaching got passed down in the form of Tradition rather than written down in Scripture. That kind of revelation, of course, is the kind that Protestants reject, which is why only the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have all seven Sacraments–they are the only ones that truly recognize Sacred Tradition.

Thank you
Emil
You’re welcome!

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Todd_Easton]

2. How could the apostles receive communion, be saved etc. if they were not baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit? For this trinitarian formula is given only after Jesus’ resurrection and the Church doesn’t accept any other formula, before Jesus’s death people were baptized by John or “in Jesus’ name” or in the name of “Christ Jesus”, not in the name of the Trinity.

Jesus himself, because He is God, was not bound by the sacraments. If He declared someone clean, that person was clean. Jesus declared the Apostles clean in John 13:10.

 

[elvisman]

Todd Easton:

Jesus himself, because He is God, was not bound by the sacraments. If He declared someone clean, that person was clean. Jesus declared the Apostles clean in John 13:10.

EXCELLENT POINT!!

Let’s not forget John 21:25.
The Bible doesn’t mention EVERYTHING Jesus said and did.

“Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ” - St. Jerome