Difference in the Church after 70 A.D

[jrdjr]

I’m new here and had this question in mind. I looked into previous forums but didn’t find the answer to this. My question is:
From the time that Jerusalem was overthrown in 70 A. D. until about the 3rd Century, there seems to be a major change in how the church in the world looked and worshiped etc. This I have not been able to reconcile since becoming Catholic and I sure can’t explain it to my non-catholic family and friends. The church, when organized and formed by Christ, was a poor church. There was no pomp and circumstance as it is often referred to. Simplicity as well as anonymity was the calling card of the day because of the attacks on Christians as well as the fact that the church was not wealthy. There were no robes, golden chalices, statues of gold, and all of the other things that we are so used to seeing today and days gone by. What happened to the church for it to change from its humble beginnings? How does one explain these things to those who are not used to such things? Where did the poor, humble church go and why all of the Romish pomp? The church adopted the same look as that of the Roman Caesars in many eyes. Thanks for any comments. jrdjr

 

[Tantum_ergo]

“Romish pomp?” Oh please. Look at any church in the Western World (for that matter, look at Buddhist and Hindu temples and Jewish synagogues) and virtually every one has been made to reflect beauty (not wealth per se but beauty)–read your Bible to see how God commanded the gold, the silver, the decorations, the vestments etc involved in the Ark of the Covenant or how Solomon created the Temple. . .

and rather ask yourself was there ever a religious group (and if you want to go right to 70 AD that is fine) that did NOT attempt to make every one and every thing involved in worship of God (and/or gods) beautiful???

Groups like the Essenes then or the Shakers more currently were anomalies. And even the Shakers strove for beauty, just for them beauty was more in simplicity. That is fine, but not everybody sees that beauty must ONLY be in simplicity.

As for the wealth, do you know of any 2000 year old group which has not amassed gifts? The gold in a chalice was and is a DONATION, a free gift, not to “Father X” or “some building” but to God almighty.

Surely you aren’t presuming to tell the millions of people who have worshipped God throughout the centuries that because you believe Christ and his followers ‘never had anything’ (and actually, how do you know that? Joseph of Arimithea was not a poor man for example and Jesus certainly worshipped at Jewish temples esp. at Jerusalem where there was much ornamentation etc.)–that there should not be gold, etc.? So who does it belong to? Are you demanding the Pope ‘give it away?’ It isn’t his (read Pope John Paul’s will-- he had NOTHING to leave!!). Even if every drop of your so-called wealth was given away somehow (bought up by Bill Gates?), do you know how much would actually go to an individual poor person? Not much. . .and once it’s gone, what then? Who are we to deny the gifts of millions to GOD and demand it go somewhere else?

 

[JLM316]

as catholics, we believe that during the mass, the priest takes the place of Jesus at the last supper to transform bread and wine into Jesus Himself - its a mystery that God Himself becomes present in our midst. Now we must ask if it is God Himself - shouldn’t things be as beautiful as can be. Visit some of the cities of this country and you will find beautiful old churches that were built by very hardworking simple people who knew that a church is the house of God, a sanctuary, a place were we can kneel and pray before Himself because He is present. They toiled brick by brick in a labor of love to build magnificent churches so that we would have a place to escape the world and be at peace with God. Don’t think of it merely as a gathering place, or a place for people. It is a Holy Place, to escape and be a peace in His presence because God lives there - At the end of the mass the priest puts Jesus inside the box in front of the church so that we can be in His presence, and talk directly to Him in front of Him in the Holy Place. so if He is there, -should it not be beautiful? Many old folks have the tradition of making the sign of the cross everytime they pass a church - even if they are driving past in the car. This is being done because we acknoweldge that we are passing the place where God is. I remember as a kid being told- that it is God’s House. I personally know of someone who turns down his radio in the car when passing a church so as to not disturb the Lord. If you believe He is there- nothing is good enough for the place- of course we know He is everywhere including inside each of us, - but the real presence is physical - its a mystery.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

From the time that Jerusalem was overthrown in 70 A. D. until about the 3rd Century, there seems to be a major change in how the church in the world looked and worshiped etc. This I have not been able to reconcile since becoming Catholic and I sure can’t explain it to my non-catholic family and friends. The church, when organized and formed by Christ, was a poor church. There was no pomp and circumstance as it is often referred to. Simplicity as well as anonymity was the calling card of the day because of the attacks on Christians as well as the fact that the church was not wealthy. There were no robes, golden chalices, statues of gold, and all of the other things that we are so used to seeing today and days gone by. What happened to the church for it to change from its humble beginnings? How does one explain these things to those who are not used to such things? Where did the poor, humble church go and why all of the Romish pomp? The church adopted the same look as that of the Roman Caesars in many eyes. Thanks for any comments. jrdjr

That the Holy Grail would have been a simple wooden drinking vessel is a Protestant canard. Almost certainly it would have been a Jewish kiddush cup - often the most valuable object that a family possessed - a very similar in shape to a modern chalice.

The Church did start off with only about twelve members. However they were not the poorest members of society by any means. St Peter and Andrew seem to have owned some sort of fishing concession on the Sea of Galillee, Matthew was a tax collector, Lazarus, Mary Magdalene,and Joseph of Arimathea all had money. As far as we know, no one was in the super-rich class, but as membership expanded St Peter seems to have controlled relatively significant sums, enough to justify employing full time managers.

 

[jrdjr]

Thanks JLM316 for your kind reply. I just got back from Mass and went directly to the forum. Your reply makes very much sense to me and went straight to the question that I submitted. Thank you. Your kindness that is in your reply I know I can share with others who ask these types of questions.
Tantum ergo, I want to respond to you with this. I was submitting a question that has come up to me when I have shared my faith. You replied in an accusatory way when I plainly stated that I was wanting to explain our church’s form of worship and the change in the church from around 70 A.D. which would be after the persecutions of that time. My question was from my own wonderings and from many questions I have had from others. I wasn’t talking about the church today. After 2000 years one would understand that things have changed and that the church, as many other religious organizations, have more and do more with what they have been blessed with. My question was a very simple one.
Sorry you didn’t realize this. So when my 70 year old mother, with whom I have been talking to regarding the church, asks her simple questions regarding the history of the catholic church and how did the church change into the “POMP” that is displayed in historical writings and portrayals in art, and asks them from her hospital bed that is set up in her living room because she can’t walk and is on dialysis three times a week, and only earns about $600.00 a month because she lost her husband in November 2006, and only asks such things because of what she was taught or heard and read, I will definitely not use your answer because it is crude and would never help her to see that the Catholic church is Christ’s church. jrdjr.

 

[jrdjr]

Malcom, thanks for replying. I saw a show on Discovery or Geographic Explorer that went into a search for the Holy Grail. Come to think of it that show might have been on the History Channel.
Anyway, it showed a kiddush cup. I can’t remember what it was made from but it looked kind of like a marble or alabaster type material. This make so much more sense than what has been historically depicted as a gold goblet of some sort.
When did the robes come into being with the church? I love them and I love the meanings behind the varying colors, but how would I explain this to my mother? She remembers Fulton Sheen and remembers the programs that showed the pope and all of the “pageantry”. She is just a simple elderly woman who still looks at things from the way she was brought up and with the limited understanding she has of such things. I didn’t look at such things when I became Catholic. I looked at the doctrine first. This is what moved me. But, explaining things to an old country girl is rather hard for me when I don’t have the answers myself. I apologize if these questions have been asked over and over again. Thanks for your kindness. jrdjr.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Dear OP: Sorry that you found me and my answer offensive. I do not believe that I responded in a ‘crude’ way at all, but thanks for letting me know your opinion. I am glad that you found ‘other’ replies helpful, and wish only the best to you and yours.

As someone well versed in Church history, my main focus was merely to point out (and perhaps I did so in a less than stellar way as I was getting ready to go out to mass with my own aged and poor mother to our small rural church) that there was no ‘change’, either at 70 AD or ‘after 300’, as some worry. I would have liked to go on further; that’s why I came back to this post, to try to make it clearer and hopefully to relieve any person’s worries. Sorry again that you found what I said offensive.

 

[YinYangMom]

Truly start your search in old testament writings.
God was very, very specific about what a worship area should look like when he designd the tent which would house the tabernacle (of which he was also very specific) which would house the Word (the 10 commandments on stone). He even designed the garments the Levitical priests would wear as well as the rituals which were to be followed upon entering and exiting the area, including the smells and such.

God spoke quite clearly then about the reverence, rituals, adornment He expects from his people.

Now consider that Jesus, in the Real Presence, is the Word made flesh. Certainly He is due as much as the Written Word was prescribed, if not more. However, because the early church was persecuted they were not free to establish those things as richly as they should have. Still they established the liturgy which we follow today which was developed around AD 150, thanks to St. Justin Martyr.

According to the Blest Are We textbooks our parish uses to teach religious education the development of all the things you addressed developed once Christians were free to live and express their faith. Summarizing from the text used for 8th grade (not directly quoted, but edited by me for space):

• After Constantine ended the persecution of Christians and legalized Christianity in AD 313 they were finally able to worship in public, hold office, and build churches. Constantine moved his capital from Rome to Constantinople. The Eastern Church developed its style of liturgy rich in the senses and architecture featuring large domes with windows at it’s base to allow light in to represent heaven. They adorned their churches with icons of gold and silver and decorated mosaics depicting biblical scenes.

The Western Church in Rome developed its liturgy and architecture according to that influence. The first church buildings there were basilicas, the official Roman government buildings. Later the basilicas evolved into the Gothic churches of the Middle Ages. As Christianity spread beyond Rome the liturgical prayers and rituals began to adapt to the cultures into which Christianity was being introduced, but the celebration of the Paschal mystery remains the same.*

It seems to me the answer is that the early, early church did not choose to be as simple, and basic as it was. That was a matter of outside pressure due to the persecution. Once that ended the church was able to develop into what was fitting for Our Lord and His mission.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

There, YinYangMom has said exactly what I ‘should’ have said. Thanks, YYM! And God bless!

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Malcom, thanks for replying. I saw a show on Discovery or Geographic Explorer that went into a search for the Holy Grail. Come to think of it that show might have been on the History Channel.
When did the robes come into being with the church? I love them and I love the meanings behind the varying colors, but how would I explain this to my mother? She remembers Fulton Sheen and remembers the programs that showed the pope and all of the “pageantry”. She is just a simple elderly woman who still looks at things from the way she was brought up and with the limited understanding she has of such things. I didn’t look at such things when I became Catholic. I looked at the doctrine first. This is what moved me. But, explaining things to an old country girl is rather hard for me when I don’t have the answers myself. I apologize if these questions have been asked over and over again. Thanks for your kindness. jrdjr.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says that priestly vestments developed from ordinary 1st century dress. Just as today lawyers are the only people to wear wigs, whilst in the eighteenth century every gentleman would do so.

Personally I don’t believe this. There is a throwaway line in the gospels about Jesus’ garment being woven in a single piece. He was wearing a priestly robe. I suspect that priests have always celebrated Mass with special garments.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

I am not catholic and you are overlooking a very simple fact of life back then. Up to about 70 Chrisitanity was viewed as a Jewish sect and some christians, not all still went to temple. From that time christians were booted out of the temple, and frankly went underground. look up catacombs of rome for example. Now under Constine, christianity became a recognised religion and came out of hiding. Now, look for the documents related to this and you will find that church lands, buildings were restored. Also, look in BAR, there was a first century church who’s foundation indicates a large building.

 

[rwoehmke]

The Catholic Encyclopedia says that priestly vestments developed from ordinary 1st century dress. Just as today lawyers are the only people to wear wigs, whilst in the eighteenth century every gentleman would do so.

Personally I don’t believe this. There is a throwaway line in the gospels about Jesus’ garment being woven in a single piece. He was wearing a priestly robe. I suspect that priests have always celebrated Mass with special garments.

The first century garments they are talking about would not have been the dress of slaves or the ordinary man, but those of people who owned houses and had servants/slaves etc. They would have probably been quite ornate particularly for special occasions. I would theorize that the middle ages probably brought about, perhaps not much change in the basic garments, but an increase in the ornate decoration as people became more and more “reverent”. In the East in Constantines Court I suspect that ornateness started even earlier.

 

[jrdjr]

I am not catholic and you are overlooking a very simple fact of life back then. Up to about 70 Chrisitanity was viewed as a Jewish sect and some christians, not all still went to temple. From that time christians were booted out of the temple, and frankly went underground. look up catacombs of rome for example. Now under Constine, christianity became a recognised religion and came out of hiding. Now, look for the documents related to this and you will find that church lands, buildings were restored. Also, look in BAR, there was a first century church who’s foundation indicates a large building.

What is the BAR you were speaking of? I am here to learn and can’t say that I know what this is. Thanks, jrdjr

 

[NotWorthy]

All I can say is if, I’m going to use a chalice to hold the precious blood of Christ, I’m going to use the finest materials I can get my hands on. Because if God doesn’t deserve our best, then who does? I mean, wasn’t the Ark of the Covenant lined with Gold and used the finest Acacia Wood to house the Holy Spirit?!?

BTW, Welcome drdjr to the Forums!!! Stick around and you will really learn to enjoy yourself and learn a lot about our beautiful Faith at the same time.

Good Luck!!!

 

[YADA]

As Christians our religious worship is grounded in our Jewish roots.

Temple worship [sacrifice], passover meal ritual and synagogue word services are the foundation of the mass.

Most scholars believe that the earliest Christian practice was to attend worship in the Temple [Jerusalem] or the Synagogue [for more distant church communities] on the Sabbath and then to gather again on the first day of the week [the Lord’s day - Resurrection day- Sunday - however you want to refer to it] to celebrate the Eucharist. After the Christians were expelled from the Jewish comminity [arund the time of the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 AD], they combined the two services into one. That is why the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is comprised of two parts, the Celebration of th Word and the Celebration of the Eucharist.

As I posted in another thread, several years ago a Jewish lady attended the Easter Vigil as the friend of one of our candidates. SHe had never attended a Catholic Mass before and was astounded at how “at home she felt”, how “familiar the service” was and how many of the readings she “recognised”. In fact even some of the quotes from the New Testament she recognized. The roles of cantor, presider, etc. The prossession, etc.

She spent an hour at the recepetion telling me all this…

 

[Sixtus]

My dear jrdjr

You will never read this as you are not there are you?

You are another classic ‘hit and run’!

But in the unikely case you do choose to revisit:

there were no robes, golden chalices,

The Church prior to the 8th century did not wear much by way of special clothing. So they did not adopt the dress of Caeser.

It became quite popular in around the 8th century for one’s profession to cease adopting changing trends in clothing but for clothing and custom to stand still. Lawyers in Crown Court still wear the garments of that era. They also wear wigs!

statues of gold, and all of the other things that we are so used to seeing today and days gone by.

There are no statues of gold. Of course, this is meant to be allude to the golden calves which were worshipped as idols.
This is your first error in informing us you are not catholic and are in fact a ‘hit and run’.

Where did the poor, humble church go

In fact it was there in the very beginning. Pope St Clement left us a very valuable letter which is part of the Canon. He was very much president over the synod of Bishops in the very early church. In fact the apostle John the Evangelist was still alive. Clement was disciple and scribe to St Peter and 2 Peter is attributed to him.

and why all of the Romish pomp?

That is the second mistake which tells us you are a classic ‘hit and run’. No Catholic worth his salt would say that. I let others here determine the transparent reason why.

But for you my friend: because we are Catholics. When Rome has spoken, the case is closed

Your congregation will in a few more years be gone. The Church of Christ will still be here until the end of time,wating in all her radiance for her Bridegroom to come to collect her for the wedding feast.

 

[StCsDavid]

I’m new here and had this question in mind. I looked into previous forums but didn’t find the answer to this. My question is:
From the time that Jerusalem was overthrown in 70 A. D. until about the 3rd Century, there seems to be a major change in how the church in the world looked and worshiped etc. This I have not been able to reconcile since becoming Catholic and I sure can’t explain it to my non-catholic family and friends. The church, when organized and formed by Christ, was a poor church. There was no pomp and circumstance as it is often referred to. Simplicity as well as anonymity was the calling card of the day because of the attacks on Christians as well as the fact that the church was not wealthy. There were no robes, golden chalices, statues of gold, and all of the other things that we are so used to seeing today and days gone by. What happened to the church for it to change from its humble beginnings? How does one explain these things to those who are not used to such things? Where did the poor, humble church go and why all of the Romish pomp? The church adopted the same look as that of the Roman Caesars in many eyes. Thanks for any comments. jrdjr

I’m not sure that you can say that Christ’s chalice was’nt made of precious materials. That doesn’t square with the tradition of the day. And though not a definitive authority, the visions of Blessed Ann Cathrine Emerick paint a very different picture. Another thing to remember is that the early Church in some ways still considered itself to be Jewish. Paul preached in the synagogues and likely considered himself a Jew, though one whose Messiah had come. It would be expected that once the Christian Jews broke from the synagogue and started their own churches that they would bring with them many of the customs and traditions they grew up with.

“Romish pomp” is a decidedly Protestant term. Type that into your Google search line and see how many disparaging references to the Catholic Church it reveals.

 

[papa_k]

I’m new here and had this question in mind. I looked into previous forums but didn’t find the answer to this. My question is:
From the time that Jerusalem was overthrown in 70 A. D. until about the 3rd Century, there seems to be a major change in how the church in the world looked and worshiped etc. This I have not been able to reconcile since becoming Catholic and I sure can’t explain it to my non-catholic family and friends. The church, when organized and formed by Christ, was a poor church. There was no pomp and circumstance as it is often referred to. Simplicity as well as anonymity was the calling card of the day because of the attacks on Christians as well as the fact that the church was not wealthy. There were no robes, golden chalices, statues of gold, and all of the other things that we are so used to seeing today and days gone by. What happened to the church for it to change from its humble beginnings? How does one explain these things to those who are not used to such things? Where did the poor, humble church go and why all of the Romish pomp? The church adopted the same look as that of the Roman Caesars in many eyes. Thanks for any comments. jrdjr

Basically the Church flourished and matured. That’s what happens with successful institutions. When I see it going the other way then I take it as a sign of lacking faith and secularism.

Probably in 70AD they didn’t have to fear the jews anymore and weren’t afraid to express publically in Jresualem. Definitely in 313AD under Constantine they were allowed to come above ground in Rome, since Rome was not against them anymore. Not having to hide tends to make your outward appearances improve.

 

[papa_k]

The church adopted the same look as that of the Roman Caesars in many eyes. Thanks for any comments. jrdjr

I like to point out that the caesers carried staffs of smiting, or swords. They were rulers, dictators.

The catholic bishops (and the pope) carry a shepherd’s crook, and the symbolism is totally different from a caeser, and intentionally so. It is a humble pastoral role, one traditionally held by a poor provincial boy. They earn modest wages and have no wife. Jesus gave us this example. But the robes are pretty all the same, or they should be. The hats are supposed to look like tongues of fire on Pentecost. It’s neat to get back to the symbolism behind the fancy robes, and how they allude to an unlikely reversal of a tyrant into a servant. Some protestant eyes are blinded to this out of having been separated so long.

 

[jrdjr]

Thank you all for the very interesting posts and replies to my questions. You have been a blessing in helping me to see things better and giving me the answers to share with my family and friends who just do not understand the church. Bless you all!
The rest of this is for SEXTUS:
You must be a very huge pompous ***. You are basically calling me a liar. You my sir are the Liar. You must have a very shallow opinion of others and undoubtedly think alot of yourself.
I am Roman Catholic. I was confirmed in 1999. I belong to St. Stephen in Chattanooga Tennessee. My sponsor was Pat Bagley. I came to the church after suffering a nervous breakdown in 1998 after my sister died in my home in '98 from pancreatic cancer. I had faith that she would life. I was pentecostal at the time and my minister prophecied that she would live and not die. I held onto that prophecy and knew that it would come true. But, she died and 10 months later my faith was shattered and I suffered the breakdown in October. I had to go to Valley Hospital for sessions and therapy for several years. While going that direction I would have to pass by St. Stephen. I finally decided to just stop and check it out. It was as if the Lord lead me there. I went in and sat in front of the huge crucifix and prayed. I did this for several weeks. Finally I got up enough nerve to attend Mass and speak to others about how to become Catholic. It was there that I knew that I had to learn more and then by Easter 1999 I was confirmed.
As stated to another post that wasn’t so kind at first for my questions, I was asking the questions just as they were asked of me. Why would I ask questions then leave? I have been responding to the posts all along. Sometimes I get an email that a new post has occurred but many of the responses I have not been notified of.
I do feel sorry for Catholic Answers for having someone like you, who attacks like a viper, out there responding to posts.
I know there are golden statues. They are over Rome and in the Vatican. My question was what happened from the early church when it was in it’s humble state up to the time when things changed.
I must say this, If there were many members in the church like you, and thank God I do not know of any other than you, then there would not be many members period. If I weren’t a member and was really wondering what these things meant or had read about them from others, and got your response, i would be forever turned away from the Catholic church.
If you really believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church, as I DO, then you would not jump down people’s throats and respond in such an ugly way.
I am glad I am Catholic and I am glad that I don’t take such air headed responses to heart. I know the church is the truth. There are many who don’t and who have honest seeking questions that they want answered. I pray to God they don’t get answered by members like you. jrdjr.