Difference in the Church after 70 A.D

[DavidB]

The answer to the orignal question can be summed up in one word . . . “Constantine”.

When Constantine adopted the Christian God as his banner and won his wars with the cross of Christ on his shields, he instituted major changes that reshaped the church. He gave bishops political power and great influence in the affairs of state. He authorized civil funds from Rome be used to build cathedrals and churches that deliberately outshown the temples of the pagan gods, afterall, he viewed his new God as a tool for wielding power, as any good Roman would.

Prior to Constantine, Christians were known to shun wealth. Most clergy didn’t even have a salary and would live off the common church fund along with the poor. After Constantine, clergy received salaries, often state subsidized.

David

 

[mikew262]

The answer to the orignal question can be summed up in one word . . . “Constantine”.

When Constantine adopted the Christian God as his banner and won his wars with the cross of Christ on his shields, he instituted major changes that reshaped the church. He gave bishops political power and great influence in the affairs of state. He authorized civil funds from Rome be used to build cathedrals and churches that deliberately outshown the temples of the pagan gods, afterall, he viewed his new God as a tool for wielding power, as any good Roman would.

Prior to Constantine, Christians were known to shun wealth. Most clergy didn’t even have a salary and would live off the common church fund along with the poor. After Constantine, clergy received salaries, often state subsidized.

David

And do we think this is a good thing (post Constantine wealth and grandeur)? Directed at anybody who wants to answer.

 

[jrdjr]

I think the subject of Constantine brings up a whole new batch of questions. I have seen movies regarding him. I also have watched some of the Bob and Penny Lord shows that depict him as being good and sincere in his conversion to the Church and Christ. Others are not so kind in what they say of him. His mother, I know, had a lot to do with finding the “true cross” and alot to do with relics.
Many have given Constantine the credit for “baptizing paganism”. I don’t know if any of that is true or not. This is what I have been told and I think I have even read that as well.
He wasn’t a pope but he gave freedom to be a christian without death. That has got to be one credit to him for sure. After 300 years of persecution this has to be a wonderful thing. I do not understand though, how that he gained so much influence in the church, unless it was because of this freedom of worship that he gave. It seems that many changes that were made in the church were made because of him in some way, true? jrdjr

 

[papa_k]

The answer to the orignal question can be summed up in one word . . . “Constantine”.

When Constantine adopted the Christian God as his banner and won his wars with the cross of Christ on his shields, he instituted major changes that reshaped the church. He gave bishops political power and great influence in the affairs of state. He authorized civil funds from Rome be used to build cathedrals and churches that deliberately outshown the temples of the pagan gods, afterall, he viewed his new God as a tool for wielding power, as any good Roman would.

Prior to Constantine, Christians were known to shun wealth. Most clergy didn’t even have a salary and would live off the common church fund along with the poor. After Constantine, clergy received salaries, often state subsidized.

David

I don’t know the source for this information, and I am not sure you could broadbrush the early Church as “shunning wealth”, but I venture to say they were most likley kept poor under pagan emperors. I also am not sure I agree Constantine changed the Church so much as he allowed it the freedom to fulfill its misison to be what it aims to be. I never read Da Vinci Code, but the commotion it caused a couple years ago included the idea that Constantine more or less invented the Catholic Church, which is an allegation. Of course anyone can make allegations.

However, if the Church had no wealth before the 4th cen under Constantine, then I am wondering why St Lawrence, one of the first treasurers of the RCC, was martyred in Rome under Emp. Valerian in 258 AD for not handing over the riches of the Church to finance the roman wars? If St Augustine is to be trusted at all, the account is that the gold and silver vessels were ordered to be surrendered, and instead he had those items redistributed among the poor, who hardly shunned them! He produced as the “real treasure” of the Church all those poor and indigent souls. But the point being that not handing over the material riches of the diocese of Rome cost him his life.

I have no doubt most early clergy lived off pittance. Even my priest lives pretty humbly in USA and it is 2006. It would be NICE if our bishops had the lattituide they did under Constantine. But I have no idea, you don’t either, whether Constantine used the faith to wield power, since he already had all the power, so I am not sure I would caste aspersions on what looks for objective purposes to be that his interest was the propogation of the faith, for which he did great work.

 

[jrdjr]

I’m sure that the real and true treasure of the church is, in part, the souls of the humble and faitful, poor and broken. But, it seems to me that the really true treasure of the church would be the body, soul and divinity that we all may share in at Mass. This is the treasure of the church, in my mind, and it is beyond any wealth this world can offere.
Seems there must have been some degree of wealth, as you stated, of there to have been silver and gold vessels enough to have been martyred over. If there weren’t, then what would have been the reason in dying for them? I didn’t know anything about St. Lawrence. Actually, I didn’t know anything about St. Lawrence. Thanks for this info.
There are so many things to learn. I have been slack in learning more about the history of the church. Seems that there are so many things to learn. Guess if I had studied more and more since my confirmation in 1999, I would be able to answer the simple questions put to me and not have bothered all of you guys here in this forum. But, I have learned alot myself. Thanks, jrdjr.

 

[papa_k]

I’m sure that the real and true treasure of the church is, in part, the souls of the humble and faitful, poor and broken. But, it seems to me that the really true treasure of the church would be the body, soul and divinity that we all may share in at Mass. This is the treasure of the church, in my mind, and it is beyond any wealth this world can offere.
Seems there must have been some degree of wealth, as you stated, of there to have been silver and gold vessels enough to have been martyred over. If there weren’t, then what would have been the reason in dying for them? I didn’t know anything about St. Lawrence. Actually, I didn’t know anything about St. Lawrence. Thanks for this info.
There are so many things to learn. I have been slack in learning more about the history of the church. Seems that there are so many things to learn. Guess if I had studied more and more since my confirmation in 1999, I would be able to answer the simple questions put to me and not have bothered all of you guys here in this forum. But, I have learned alot myself. Thanks, jrdjr.

Jrdjr, you probably know more than the average cradle catholic. I find converts are among the most motivated, and it shows in you. As to St Lawrence, his account is among the most celebrated in Church history, but there will be all the usual debunking and calling it all into question. They never used to do that until after the reformation. We live a neverending series of having to re-prove everything all the time. The normal version is never sufficient anymore. There’s always some sexier version of the story, some new conspiracy theory. I think to some extent people are so removed from true greatness in our modern world they assume everyone, starting from Mary and Joseph, were regular self-serving louses like this sinner (me), and make it their job to discredit their betters.

 

[rtconstant]

Originally Posted by DavidB
The answer to the orignal question can be summed up in one word . . . “Constantine”.

When Constantine adopted the Christian God as his banner and won his wars with the cross of Christ on his shields, he instituted major changes that reshaped the church. He gave bishops political power and great influence in the affairs of state. He authorized civil funds from Rome be used to build cathedrals and churches that deliberately outshown the temples of the pagan gods, afterall, he viewed his new God as a tool for wielding power, as any good Roman would.

Prior to Constantine, Christians were known to shun wealth. Most clergy didn’t even have a salary and would live off the common church fund along with the poor. After Constantine, clergy received salaries, often state subsidized.

Constantine only allowed the Church and most other religions to function publically without persecution he made no changes in The Church itself. All the other myths are just urban-legend and propaganda.

 

[MarySon]

Regarding vestments, here is what I heard a few days ago

1. Alb – symbolizes the tunic that the Christ was clothed on his way to Calvary
2. Girdle – symbolizes the rope that Christ was tied with
3. Stole – symbolizes the office of the priest
4. Outer vestment – symbolizes the person that presides over congregation

 

[levi86]

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 am inclined to agree with you. The Church does have many liturgical traditions that are ultimately unnecessary, and the Church accepts this. If there was a priest marooned on an island without any of the “pomp” he would still be able to offer the same perfect sacrifice.

Personally I like all that pomp, it reminds me of the incredible cultural wealth of the Church. The true Church has existed for 2000 years; the level of liturgical complexity is a testament to that heritage.

But ultimately does it really matter? Does any of this pomp have any theological consequences? Does it detract from the true faith that has been held for two millennia? No, quite the opposite, each liturgical tradition is a tool to help us focus on our faith.

 

[NotWorthy]

And do we think this is a good thing (post Constantine wealth and grandeur)? Directed at anybody who wants to answer.

Just like anything else man-made. Some will use it for the better good of everyone, and some will take advantage of it in every way possible.

Luckily God does not separate the wheat from the chaff till the end of times, because there was certainly a time when I would have been counted along with the chaff. Hopefully, I’m counted with the wheat, now!!!

 

[JLM316]

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.

Dear jrdr,
I share your outrage about that post. Remember that this forum is also a battleground for our faith. There are folks here who are asking questions like yourself and me, and then are combatants lurking here who are looking to bash our Church. Those who defend it here are a zelous bunch who sometimes don’t know earnest seekers from enemy combatants, and you got hit in the crossfire. Forgive the post of sextus, as we have been forgiven. Mass last sunday focused on the love of Christ - on our commitment to be like Christ - this is your time to do that - when it is a challenge. I stopped myself from responding when I saw the post as I saw no point- apolgetics is a war - and sometimes innocents get caught in the cross fire. Its unfortunate.
questioning is a good thing - and is a healthy thing- folks who want everyone to step in line and blindly follow rules are missing that those who do so - may end up doing it mindlessly with no heart, and I personally believe God does not honor that. Those who belong to a religion because they are made to feel guilty or fearful - are not in it because they love God, but rather because they fear consequences- those who promote that - do not promote Christianity. Our church however is a church of love, peace and understanding - who should be made up of those who not only know it is the truth, but whose lives and actions reflect it.

 

[Verita]

But, it seems to me that the really true treasure of the church would be the body, soul and divinity that we all may share in at Mass. This is the treasure of the church, in my mind, and it is beyond any wealth this world can offere.

And here you have hit upon the exact reason for all the “pomp and circumstance” as you call it.

What you need to know is that there was a real change in how worship of God was conducted. But it didn’t happen in AD 70 or 300. It happened in AD 33. Before that the method of worship was established by God when he gave the directions for building the tabernacle. Have you read that section of the OT? God directed everything to be made of the finest materials. The furniture of the tabernacle was of gold and the structure itsself was made of all sorts of rich and colorful materials. I’ve been inside a full scale replica of the tabernacle and it’s amazing! And I can tell you one thing it definetly doesn’t look like: your average evangelical protestant church. Why did God command all of this? The answer is simple. God really and truly resided inside the tabenacle, within the Holy of Holies. This was the original Real Presence. Only the very best could be used for God’s house.

I remember attending a wedding in a Catholic Church that had statues of angels all around the ceiling. It reminded me strongly of my previous experience inside the tabernacle replica where the walls were also decorated with the images of angels. As a protestant who would attend Mass with my husband, I was originally very uncomfortable by the “pomp and circumstance” of the Church. Then one sunday it hit me like a revelation from above: all of the fancy architecture, the robes, the incense, the ceremoney wasn’t an affectation. It was the continuation of the Old Testament worship in the Temple or the Tabernacle. Suddenly I was inside the Old Testament and experiencing the Mass like never before. (The beginning of my journey to Catholicism.)

But it wasn’t exactly like the OT. As I said before, there was a change, a huge change, in AD 33. Though God truly resided in the OT tabernacle, his presence was inaccessible to the people. Only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies. Jesus changed that. In the Eucharist he is physically present in a Catholic Church and we are no longer cut off from him. All Christians can come into the Real Presence of God in a Catholic Church, they can even partake of him! And when Jesus is physically present, don’t you think that He deserves to be surrrounded by the very best and most beautiful that we can offer him? That is the reason.

The second change in the way Christians worshipped happened as a result of the Reformation. Those churches that rejected the Eucharist no longer had any reason to honor God’s physical presence with their very best. Today, in many protestant churches, including my former church, they believe God’s presence is there, but only “spiritually” or because he is “inside their hearts”. But he doesn’t reside in their churches as he did in the tabernacle or in our Catholic Churches. When they leave, it’s just an empty building. But when Mass ends, it’s still God’s house.

 

[Brendan]

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?

The robes were also there all along. The Early Church was very heavily influenced by Judism. This even went to the extent of maintaining many of the ceremonial robes. The Chasulble that the priest wears at Mass is a reflection of the apron worn by Jewish priests when they performed the ritual sacrifices.

The dalmatics of deacons, on the other hand, were common attite of the Greeks of the Early Church. The garb gets it’s name from the place in Greece where it first became popular Dalmatia (same place Dalmatians come from ) People wore their best clothes to Mass, and the deacon was no exception.

The Churches are decorated because the synogagues and, of course, the Temple were also heavily decorated.

In addition, the very first “churches” were actually peoples homes. The faitful would usually gather at the home of the richest member of the congregation. This was done for two reasons, generally, the upper classes were less likely to be ‘raided’ by Roman soliders. And also, the richer homes were usually the largest ones, the ones where most people could gather.

 

[DavidB]

I don’t know the source for this information, and I am not sure you could broadbrush the early Church as “shunning wealth”, but I venture to say they were most likley kept poor under pagan emperors. I also am not sure I agree Constantine changed the Church so much as he allowed it the freedom to fulfill its misison to be what it aims to be. I never read Da Vinci Code, but the commotion it caused a couple years ago included the idea that Constantine more or less invented the Catholic Church, which is an allegation. Of course anyone can make allegations.

However, if the Church had no wealth before the 4th cen under Constantine, then I am wondering why St Lawrence, one of the first treasurers of the RCC, was martyred in Rome under Emp. Valerian in 258 AD for not handing over the riches of the Church to finance the roman wars? If St Augustine is to be trusted at all, the account is that the gold and silver vessels were ordered to be surrendered, and instead he had those items redistributed among the poor, who hardly shunned them! He produced as the “real treasure” of the Church all those poor and indigent souls. But the point being that not handing over the material riches of the diocese of Rome cost him his life.

I have no doubt most early clergy lived off pittance. Even my priest lives pretty humbly in USA and it is 2006. It would be NICE if our bishops had the lattituide they did under Constantine. But I have no idea, you don’t either, whether Constantine used the faith to wield power, since he already had all the power, so I am not sure I would caste aspersions on what looks for objective purposes to be that his interest was the propogation of the faith, for which he did great work.

I’ve never read or seen any of the Da Vinci Code things. I’m a student of early church history and take my information from Catholic sources. What I posted his historically accurate. The riches of the church you were referring to is consistent with what I was saying. Individual believers handed their possessions and valuables over to the church into a common fund to provide for the clergy and the poor. This central fund was administered usually by a single bishop (in the case of Rome). They didn’t have a storehouse of treasures as if they were wealthy. Just the opposite, they had a storehouse because they shunned their personal wealth, turned it over to the church and sacrificed in order to support the poor.

I’m not saying Constantine’s conversion was anything but genuine in his eyes, but he used his authority to influence the church into a while new direction. He didn’t invent the church, but he reshaped it greatly, calling the first real council. Some of the the things he did were extremely well-received, particularly ending the persecutions. But other things, though well-intentioned, had downstream repercussions that changed the church forever. Bishops became highly influencial and got entangled in the affairs of state. Wealthy estates often were turned over to bishops to use as their residence at the command of Constantine. Seemingly, there doesn’t appear to be anything wrong with that, but wealth and influence is a far greater tool of the devil than persecution.

David

 

[Heartfelt]

Hello! JRJDR,
I personally get a lot from questions like this, because I too have a lot of questions and are around many Protestants and wonder the same thing, because these questions are asked of me all the time, mainly from my husband, who I am trying to get back to the church . So thank you for posting. I appreciate it.

 

[LadyoftheWheel]

I’m not saying Constantine’s conversion was anything but genuine in his eyes, but he used his authority to influence the church into a while new direction. He didn’t invent the church, but he reshaped it greatly, calling the first real council. Some of the the things he did were extremely well-received, particularly ending the persecutions. But other things, though well-intentioned, had downstream repercussions that changed the church forever. Bishops became highly influencial and got entangled in the affairs of state. Wealthy estates often were turned over to bishops to use as their residence at the command of Constantine. Seemingly, there doesn’t appear to be anything wrong with that, but wealth and influence is a far greater tool of the devil than persecution.

David

In response to this, while Constantine did call the first Council of the Church, he called it in order to halt the division tearing apart Rome. Arian Christianity–the belief that Jesus was not God and Man, but just man (if you could call that Christianity)–was on the rise, and there was a huge division between Arian Christians and Orthodox Christians–understandably so, seeing as this matter of faith is so fundamental to Christian belief.

In order to resolve matters of fundamental doctrine, Constantine called this council, the Council of Nicea (from which we get our creed), but he left the debate and the decisions over doctrine and Scripture to the Bishops. To reiterate, he was NOT involved with decisions regarding matters of faith and doctrine. Bishops made these decisions using Oral Tradition and Scripture.

While it’s true that bishops–particularly the Bishop of Rome, or the Pope–did gain more influence and became more involved in worldly activities, as many others have recognized in this forum, once they no longer had to hide underground, and once more people became Christian (some because it was more visible, some because they were no longer persecuted or looked down upon, and some for the wrong reason because it was considered a more “popular” religion then), the Bishops would automatically have more influence and would need to be aware of and involved in government as an offshoot of their roles as Church leaders and Shepherds of the Christian flock.

That’s not to say that there wasn’t corruption, misuse of power, or that Constantine didn’t influence the Church in less than ideal ways, but like anything involving the frailty of humanity and earthly politics/power, it was not a black-and-white issue.

 

[Eileen_T]

If you get a chance, read the book HOW CHRIST SAID THE FIRST MASS By Fr. James L. Meagher

It is a bit pedantic, but it goes into very great detail comparing OT worship to the Mass.

marianland.com/eucharist09.html

 

[Todd_Easton]

…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.

Worship in the Catholic Church mirrors the heavenly worship:
Round the throne were twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders, clad in white garments, with golden crowns upon their heads. (Revelation 4:4)

And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints; (Revelation 5:8)

After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no man could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, (Revelation 7:9)
The statues in Catholic churches mirror the statues in Solomon’s Temple. (1 Kings 6:23.)