Early Church was more Catholic than Protestantism

[elt1956]

Again, I disagree. Until the Edict of Milan in 313, Christianity was an illegal religion. The faith was already organized, as the writings of the early bishops show. The legalization of Christianity gave the church the ability to become more visual to the world (ie, churches, open evangelization, open condemnation of heretical thought, etc.), but it did not “organize it.”

As I understand it, at the Council of Nicea 325CE Constantine called all the Biships together to try to declare one doctrine of Fatih. He felt the Empire would be more easily organized under him, if all the Bishops could agree on this. As far as I know, this was the first attempt of any Emperor with the Bishops/Patriarchs to unify doctrines of the Church. There continued to be dissension among the Patriarchs of the East and West as to the wording of the nature of the Trinity so cohesion regarding doctrine was not accomplished at this Council. Correct me if I am wrong, or have misunderstood what I have read. I don’t declare infallibility for myself. Thanks. Peace…

 

[elt1956]

Boy, when you’re wrong you are wrong!

Take out your telephone book and flip to the “churches” section of the yellow pages. How many differing churches do you see in your own town? How many more in your state? The country? The world? These bickering Protestant faiths have ONE thing in common – personal interpretation. Each person thinks that they’ve interpreted it right.

Your theory that the Catholic Church was founded between 300 and 400 is laughable. St. Ignatius, third bishop of Carthage and student of John the Apostle proves your theory wrong. He stated in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans that:

“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, **wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. **”

Seeing that Ignatius died somewhere between 107 and 110 AD, I’d say that the Catholic Church had been around LONG before 400 AD.

Christ founded the Catholic Church, not Constantine.

I didn’t say that. I think it was posted by someone else. I think I got in the middle of the posts. OF COURSE I know when the Church started. I don’t know a lot, but I do know that. Peace

 

[Seagirt]

The word Christian was used in the Bible in Acts.

**

1. Acts 11:26
   And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
2. Acts 26:28
   Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.
3. 1 Peter 4:16
   Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

**

Give me example of what you claim in the first few centuries about Mary and prayer for dead souls. (I alrady know about Mac, that is a whole different debate.)

Thanks you,

ACTUALLY, in the OLD Testament, Book of Job, 1st chapter, Job prays for his deceased sons, that their transgressions might be forgiven even in THE NEXT LIFE! Protestants and SDA’s never want to admit this, they see what they want to see. The Book of Maccabees, also has prayers for the Dead.

 

[Ignatius]

History has shows through the writings of the ECF proven to be more Catholic than Protestant.

Actually, the early Church not just more Catholic, it was Catholic!

 

[Seagirt]

Early church member writings to not show catholic or protestant things. Just Jewish and Christian behavior. The early church was not run like one world religion with a hierarchiy called a magesterium, they did not pray to Mary or saints, they did not attibute titles to Mary, they did not have a mass sacrifice cermony. No writings show this.

around 400, you start seeing the emergence of some trends that lead to the catholic church, triggered by Constantine’s conversion. But even in John and Paul’s time, there were false Gospels.

Jesus did not ever use the word Catholic or Protestant. On the day of Pentecost, the apostles and others did not start a Catholic Church. There are so many things done by the catholic church today that was not done there.

For example, today, for an adult non-catholic to be baptised in the catholic church. I have go through about 1 year training. Peter instanly baptised many people on Pentecost. These perople “were cut to the heart.” There are other examples of people being instantly baptized in Acts upon their conversion. Yet an adult outside the catholic church cannot do this.

There are tons of things done by the catholic church today that can be proven were not done by early church members.

Studying the Bible, historical context, and history help me see historical truths, but when I Repented from my sins and put my trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, then the Holy Spirit confirmed it.

The Bible is the only Writing that is “Inspired” by God, and therefore cannot be wrong. Prophecy confirms it. Christ fulfilled hundred of Jewish Prophesies. The re-emergence of Israel fulfills amazing prophesies.

Since all historical writings are taken by faith since non of us are there, better to put your faith in a writing that has “proven itself” through accurate prophecy. better to put the most faith in the only Book that is Inspired by God.

If early church writing in the second century are considered inspired, why were they not put in the Bible??

THE Catholic Church does not consider writings of the Early Church Fathers to be “INSPIRED”! Only the Bible is “God -Breathed” or inspired by the Holy Spirit. Read your Encyclicals. Some of your statements make no sense. Everyone knows Jesus did not use words like Catholic and Protestant. LOL. The Early Church was like a seedling, from which the Great Oak of the Ecclesia " the Church" was sprung. Regarding Mary and the saints-- actually there are drawings in the catacombs of Mary and possibly Peter, and some other saints; so we know they were well known and venerated for their holiness. Worship of God and veneration of those who suffered before our time has always been well documented in Church history, even by Protestant scholars. I will let other posters deal with your other mistakes, I am getting weary of Fundamentalists who don’t seek the truth of their ideas, and think that some dumb anti -catholic tract they read is the whole cloth of history.

 

[lurdes]

the early church was is and it always will be Catholic.
the word Catholic means Universal and that is what the Church is.

 

[justasking4]

Actually, the early Church not just more Catholic, it was Catholic!

How are you using the word “catholic” here? What does it mean in this context?

 

[justasking4]

the early church was is and it always will be Catholic.
the word Catholic means Universal and that is what the Church is.

Would this include non-roman catholic churches also?

 

[elt1956]

THE Catholic Church does not consider writings of the Early Church Fathers to be “INSPIRED”! Only the Bible is “God -Breathed” or inspired by the Holy Spirit. Read your Encyclicals. Some of your statements make no sense. Everyone knows Jesus did not use words like Catholic and Protestant. LOL. The Early Church was like a seedling, from which the Great Oak of the Ecclesia " the Church" was sprung. Regarding Mary and the saints-- actually there are drawings in the catacombs of Mary and possibly Peter, and some other saints; so we know they were well known and venerated for their holiness. Worship of God and veneration of those who suffered before our time has always been well documented in Church history, even by Protestant scholars. I will let other posters deal with your other mistakes, I am getting weary of Fundamentalists who don’t seek the truth of their ideas, and think that some dumb anti -catholic tract they read is the whole cloth of history.

Try reading the writings of the Fathers of the Church. These plus scripture are two of the writtings the Church uses to make its decisions. The writings of the Early Fathers have been passed down through the centuries to the present day. The church is very very careful to examine all documents available before making a decision. Each decision made is in accordance with what the Early Church Fathers wrote. These Fathers either knew the Apostles through direct connection, or were taught by someone who was. This is history.

 

[buffgbob]

Would this include non-roman catholic churches also?

Yes! There are many rites within the Catholic Church (not just a Roman rite.) Owing to the universiality of Catholicism, there are Coptic Catholics, Roman Catholics, Maronite Catholics, Armenian Catholics, and many others! In fact this structure is what we see in first century Christianity. There are bishops and patriarchs; patriarchs giving the disciplines of their churches; and all the churches giving primacy of authority to Rome.

In that way back then and now we hold the four pillars which mark the True Church. One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

 

[Aramis]

The Writings of the Early Church Fathers clearly show a vibrant hierarchical church.

That it took them another 200 years to realize that they needed a unified decision on what was scripture, and that the bishops made that decision in council, shows that they were already rather united in faith, and until confronted with heresy, hadn’t NEEDED to do so.

Now, there were always groups claiming to be Christians who were not part of the Church. These splinter groups almost always exhibited some heresy or another: Gnostic, Montanist, Arian, Pelagian…

We know that by 100, Gnostics were already a problem.

By 500, Pelagius’ teaching that there was no Original Sin was condemned.

So, if one looks hard enough, one can find Christians outside the Catholic church in the early period… but they were not in union with Peter nor the others, nor did they share the same faith.

 

[revrr]

What makes this discussion difficult is that many Protestants and Roman Catholics do not understand the conditions and reasons for the “Protestant” reformation. Perhaps rightfully so, since when we say the word “Protestant” we mean many different things.

For instance, there is a vast difference between the German reformation and the English reformation. The former sought to end moral and doctrinal abuses. The latter sought independence in order to justify the sin of divorce. The vast majority of American protestants are descendants of the Church of England. Hence the commonalities of so many Protestant Christians such as the renumbering of the 10 commandments, the latent Calvinistic teachings, the confusion over the Sacraments, and so forth.

The “Protestants” of the Reformation (on the issues being discussed here) believe:

1. That the Sacrament of the Altar is the Body and Blood of Christ. Any explanation of this mystery is an explanation of something that cannot be explained, and we all know that the Body of Christ tastes like bread, even if this taste is “accidental” in the Aristotelian sense.
2. That the saints pray for us, but that we don’t have any good reason to believe that we should invoke them for assistance, worship them, or grant them deity in any form.
3. That the offices of clergy and laity are distinct vocations. Only those with the proper vocation should preside, preach, teach and administer the Sacraments. The Church of all ages allowed clergy to marry when they did not have the gift of celibacy. Celibacy is a gift, even for clergy, and it cannot be forced. God created men and women to be fruitful and multiply. A gift of celibacy can free a man for ministry. It is commendable, but optional.
4. That the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds teach true Christian doctrine that is consistent with the teachings of the Apostles.
5. That we have access to the teaching of the Apostles, and that all other teachings must be consistent with with rule and norm. They are found in the New Testament. This is what it means to hold to “sola scriptura.” Not “Bible Only,” but that the NT writings are primary and they cannot be trumped by later decrees. Christ and the Apostles themselves warned against changing the faith.
6. That God’s grace received through faith in Christ as a gift (Eph. 2:8-9) is what makes someone a Christian, but that faith is never alone. Good works accompany faith. Even the Roman church taught this in the Council of Orange (creeds.net/ancient/orange.htm).
7. That the Pope is the bishop of Rome, and could be considered the chief bishop if he did not force non-central, debatable dogmas on men’s consciences. When he does, he is changing the Christian faith in way that even the Roman church did not grant before the middle ages.

The “Protestant” reformation took place as an attempt to call the Roman Church back to Catholicism and away from Papism. Walls were created, and after the Council of Trent, they were solidified.

After a time, the derogatory label “Lutheran” came to be used for the protestants of the Reformation. Some Lutherans still confess the Reformation faith to this day, but many have used the Reformation to excuse yet more sin. But that’s people for you… Protestants get divorced and somehow justify it with grace, forgiveness, etc. Catholics get divorced and justify with an annulment. Christ calls it what it is: adultery.

For more on the true “Protestant” teachings see:

bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php
bookofconcord.org/defense_greeting.php

 

[KathleenGee]

The Catholic Church is a human institution. St. Paul corrected St. Peter at one point. St. Paul was banished for 8 years by the Church.

About the fundamentalists having problems with the Mass, do a search on the Liturgy of St. James. St. James the Lesser was the first head/bishop of Jerusalem, essentially the first local church. The liturgy in words and tones is the same spirit and intent as the Mass today.

Recall that the Lord God had to show Moses and His people how to worship, building a temple with anterooms, to the Holiest of Holies with appointed, consecrated priesthood. The New Law never intended to do away with the priesthood and sacred space. There were statues of angels on both sides of the Holiest of Holies. And yet fundamentalists see statues as graven images.

Christ instituted the Eucharist. And in the earliest of times, the great heresy was to deny the Eucharist. Remember the followers who left Jesus when He first referred to eating His Body and drinking His Blood. Yet the apostles remained.

And if we believe in the sacredness of the Eucharist, we acknowledge as well that this physical Presence is the same God Who led the Jews out of Egypt, Who became the Pillar of Fire, Who parted the Red Sea, Who nourished them with manna from heaven, Who upon His birth was placed in animal feeder to become Food for us? Subsequently, we do not provide secular meeting rooms for Our Lord and God.

We want Him to be in the most beautiful dwelling to show Him due respect and honor.

Problem in part is that the form of protestantism we see here in the United States is essentially a derivative of the Anabaptists.

And going back to Martin Luther, he was rightfully reacting to the intense corruption within the church in Italy, primarily, and other local churches. But that doesn’t mean this corruption was happening everywhere throughout the church.

Sola Scriptura…and Luther admitted an angel appeared to him not to go through in breaking away…and where was Luther, what was he doing when he got this great inspiration to break away from the Church? He was on a latrine. And Worms still has on display his toilet. I don’t mean to be offensive, but it is historical truth. If Luther’s inspiration to remove 7 books from Sacred Scripture to prove his point, then you have a man made church, whose inspiration came from a certain place unbecoming of such greatness.

Essentially, Luther was a man of scruples. You see this scrupulosity in the concerns of many fundamentalist American Christians today. They can’t see God working through an instituted church with all its own imperfections of chaff, but they also refuse to look at the far greater good the Church has done in its 2000 year old history.

A Hebrew Catholic stated recently it was Protestantism that destroyed the common prayer life of the family, that brought about divorce, the separation of science from faith, and then to the Age of Reason, and from that independence, you have liberalism, from there Marxism, Nietzsche, to man and science deforming nature as we see today,

 

[revrr]

The Catholic Church is a human institution. St. Paul corrected St. Peter at one point. St. Paul was banished for 8 years by the Church.

About the fundamentalists having problems with the Mass, do a search on the Liturgy of St. James. St. James the Lesser was the first head/bishop of Jerusalem, essentially the first local church. The liturgy in words and tones is the same spirit and intent as the Mass today.

Recall that the Lord God had to show Moses and His people how to worship, building a temple with anterooms, to the Holiest of Holies with appointed, consecrated priesthood. The New Law never intended to do away with the priesthood and sacred space. There were statues of angels on both sides of the Holiest of Holies. And yet fundamentalists see statues as graven images.

Christ instituted the Eucharist. And in the earliest of times, the great heresy was to deny the Eucharist. Remember the followers who left Jesus when He first referred to eating His Body and drinking His Blood. Yet the apostles remained.

And if we believe in the sacredness of the Eucharist, we acknowledge as well that this physical Presence is the same God Who led the Jews out of Egypt, Who became the Pillar of Fire, Who parted the Red Sea, Who nourished them with manna from heaven, Who upon His birth was placed in animal feeder to become Food for us? Subsequently, we do not provide secular meeting rooms for Our Lord and God.

We want Him to be in the most beautiful dwelling to show Him due respect and honor.

Problem in part is that the form of protestantism we see here in the United States is essentially a derivative of the Anabaptists.

Absolutely. Christianity is Sacramental because the God of the Scriptures is a Sacramental God. He dwells with His people. There is a great reproduction of the tabernacle in Lancaster, PA. The Mennonites who sponsor the reproduction have to go through great lengths to spiritualize Christianity in order to justify their views.

The only thing that I would add is that the Anabaptist roots of much of American Christianity is only half of the story. American Christianity is the heir of religious groups who had to leave Europe because of the legality of their sectarian views.

And going back to Martin Luther, he was rightfully reacting to the intense corruption within the church in Italy, primarily, and other local churches. But that doesn’t mean this corruption was happening everywhere throughout the church.

True, but corruption was only a part of the story. The corruption was opposed by many thinkers of the time period. The Christian church has always, and will always, suffer from corruption.

Sola Scriptura…and Luther admitted an angel appeared to him not to go through in breaking away…and where was Luther, what was he doing when he got this great inspiration to break away from the Church? He was on a latrine. And Worms still has on display his toilet. I don’t mean to be offensive, but it is historical truth. If Luther’s inspiration to remove 7 books from Sacred Scripture to prove his point, then you have a man made church, whose inspiration came from a certain place unbecoming of such greatness.

These stories are of spurious origins. That the latrine is on display is a historical truth, but the only absolute historical truth of the the “tower experience” story of Luther is that it was a story from an aged man.

These statements are contain elements of ad hominem. They may help to convince you of the error of Protestants, but they are only partially true. Neither Lutherans in particular not Protestants in general attribute any authority to the personal views or lifestyle of Martin Luther.

Luther’s reference to the antilegomena and prolegomena books is simply a part of the historicity of the canon. Neither Lutherans in particular not Protestants in general say that we need a truncated canon to defend the reformation teachings.

Essentially, Luther was a man of scruples. You see this scrupulosity in the concerns of many fundamentalist American Christians today. They can’t see God working through an instituted church with all its own imperfections of chaff, but they also refuse to look at the far greater good the Church has done in its 2000 year old history.

A Hebrew Catholic stated recently it was Protestantism that destroyed the common prayer life of the family, that brought about divorce, the separation of science from faith, and then to the Age of Reason, and from that independence, you have liberalism, from there Marxism, Nietzsche, to man and science deforming nature as we see today,

Not a bad analysis, but still more ad hominems and historical short-cuts. I assume that you may know better, but that typing on the Internet is a difficult forum for communication.

Blaming Modernism on Protestantism is akin to blaming Premodernism on Catholicism. Anyone up for a good bleeding to take care of that fever? There were just as many Modernist thinkers within the Catholic church. If anything, the Renaissance gave rise to a re-evaluation of primary sources, within Catholicism, and the study of those sources gave rise to a questioning of the status quo. The same movement which led to Michael Angelo and the music of Palestrina led to the re-examination of the Greek and Hebrew texts of the Scriptures. The so-called Enlightenment followed, but it probably would have happened with or without the Reformation. Unless you want to say that all scientific progress came from Protestants. This simply isn’t true.

As far as the family is concerned, Luther brought the disciplines once reserved for the professional religious to the common family.

You can learn about it here:

bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.php

The purpose for writing this book was that the ritualism of the middle ages had created an ignorant clergy and populace. Not many people knew Christianity. To think that family prayer was big before the Reformation is just not true.

Interestingly enough, the recently canonized Josemaría Escrivá shared many of Luther’s views on vocation.

Good post. We all fall into short-cuts and ad hominems from time to time. The best part about discussion is that we have the chance to revise our thoughts.

Blessings…

 

[KathleenGee]

Very quickly here for now, you should check into the earliest Christian liturgy. One that stands out to me is the Liturgy of St. James (the Lesser), who headed the first Church of Jerusalem. The tone and wording, the perspective, the altar coincides greatly with present modern day Catholic worship. The altar table is a form of catechesis in that it enables the liturgy to fully represent the sacrifice of Christ as atonement for sin…

The clergy did marry. But there was alot of scandal when clergy divorced or had affairs, and the laity did not want to financially support such households.

About things changing, we have to recognize the need for acculturation, the context of times people lived, the need for inculturation when establishing local churches.

There was some minor change here in this archdiocese that we had to follow and then a few years later, the condition changed, and we resumed a former practice…

There are many groups that formed their own churches besides Luther’s, and yes, the issue was different in Great Britain…

But the assemblying of the Bible took many years, and was the work of many people…Martin Luther as an individual, not as the Church, changed the Bible, removed books and the writings of St. James because they did not fit his agenda. Thus, although Catholics are accused of believing in a church of men, we see protestantism as the work of individual men.

When dissension and discord entered families, they could no longer pray or worship together. The Body of Christ was fractured, and we are seeing the great loss of faith in our country and in Europe.

 

[Justy90]

History has shows through the writings of the ECF proven to be more Catholic, or Orthodox than Protestantism.

I agree with your statement here. The Early Church is very evident in Catholic and Orthodox services. I’ll bet if you witnessed an Anglican Holy Eucharist service, you would see it there too.

I would say that probably quite a few do. I could never be what I prefer to call a generic Protestant. When you throw the baby out with the bath water, you lose the meaning.

Good post.

 

[revrr]

Kathleen,

You seem to be a very educated person. I’m enjoying this conversation with you.

The reason I began posting on this board is that many people live with misconceptions of other people’s religions. As an orthodox Lutheran pastor who sends his children to a Papal school, I have come to enjoy helping people understand the true differences between our churches and the nature of the reformation.

I have discovered that there is a tendency among the Papal laity to paint the reformation with a broad brush. This is understandable, because I can’t imagine a detailed course on reformation history being a part of a Papal catechises program! As in the my own church, perhaps this “broad-brushing” comes from more educated people, like yourself, who are trying to boil the issues down to a few key points. I’m forced to do this myself in some classes. There isn’t enough time to go into detail!

When mistakes are made with charity, they are merely misconceptions. When they are made and repeated with malice, they are slander or libel. Every Christian agrees that this is a sin. I’m not accusing you of the latter, but we do need to do our homework. Let’s clear up some of these issues.

Very quickly here for now, you should check into the earliest Christian liturgy…

Actually, I have studied the history of the Eastern and Western liturgies in great detail. Textual criticism suggests that the Liturgy of St. James is not necessarily the liturgy used by the historic St. James, but that point is irrelevant. In our liturgies, you’ll find direct phrases from this liturgy as well.

While looking into the history of Lutheran liturgies, where do you find the major departures? If it’s the Eastern qualities of the Liturgy of St. James that are admirable, here’s a copy of an Eastern Lutheran liturgy to help you get started: bit.ly/2wXl73

The clergy did marry. But there was alot of scandal…

So, celibate clergy are more holy and pure? This wasn’t true even 500 years ago. The reality is that all people fall into sin. Clergy and laity alike commit sin, create scandal, and so forth.

Priests can marry and do. This is just a fact. Celibacy is a discipline among priests in the Papal church alone, and even in the Papal church, many are married. I have enjoyed my conversations with Fr. Frank (bit.ly/rvsmt). If you look at his history, you’ll see that he has an amazing grasp of what is truly catholic versus what is Roman tradition.

About things changing, we have to recognize the need for acculturation…

Lutherans absolutely agree. In the effort to address the appropriateness of some of these changes, entire principalities and countries were forced to sever their ties with the Church in Rome. Even while calling for a true council to discuss these issues, one fo the primary complaint became Papal dominance of the Christian religion.

There are many groups that formed their own churches besides Luther’s, and yes, the issue was different in Great Britain…

Now, here we have to pause. Luther did not start a church. Although some will slander the Lutheran churches by saying that Luther was himself a “pope,” this is certainly not what Lutherans believe nor is it how Luther thought of himself. The name “Lutheran” wasn’t even used until at least a generation after his death, and it is used against the will of Luther himself.

The name Lutheran was used by Reformed protestants who believed that those churches who would not continue the reformation were merely influenced by the teaching of one man. Ironically enough, these teaching were considered “too Papal,” because they agreed with the consensus of historic, orthodox, catholic Christianity.

Luther approved of being being punished for exercising what a modern American might consider freedom of speech or religion. You cannot blame the original protestants for these ideas. Would any American Catholic think that we need to revoke these enlightenment philosophies? A Lutheran, Orthodox or Catholic state always sounds like a good idea, but few people point to the majority of the leaders of these states as examples of holiness.

But the assemblying of the Bible took many years, and was the work of many people…Martin Luther as an individual, not as the Church, changed the Bible, removed books and the writings of St. James because they did not fit his agenda. Thus, although Catholics are accused of believing in a church of men, we see protestantism as the work of individual men.

This is simply a misconception. As humanism developed (a movement that predated the reformation), many scholars in the Western church debated the canon of Scripture.

So, how did Luther remove these books? Is there a Bible published that does not have them? Not even the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books were “removed by Luther.” Can you point to a “Lutheran canon?” Luther questioned the writings of the books that were considered to be of a more spurious origin in ancient times like many other scholars, even church officials, who stayed in the Papal church.

The reformation was not the work of “one man.” As I’ve noted, entire countries of churches subscribed to the Augsburg Confession. The Augsburg Confession, an official Lutheran document, wasn’t even written by Martin Luther.

Eastern churches will often accuse our Western approach to theology as the cause of the reformation. There’s probably something to that. William of Ockham definitely helped to set the theological stage for a debate.

Again, please note that Lutheran churches do not hold to the private writings or opinions of Martin Luther. His writings may have even less authority than the writings of a Saint that he might have quoted.

When dissension and discord entered families, … the Body of Christ was fractured…

The “Body of Christ,” by this measure, was fractured by Papism in 1054.

The idea that families prayed less together in the northern principalities of the Holy Roman Empire of 1592 is just silly. To say that Protestantism equates to the erosion of the family is demonizing and slandering a group of people. Was the family more eroded in Ethiopia where the church was never under Papism? Did the Latin church destroy the family when Westerners went to India for the first and and tried to bring the indigenous St. Thomas churches under Rome? That would be a case of Roman initiated fracture.

There are plenty of good reasons to be a Roman Catholic. The issues stated here are not them, but we all do this sort of thing. Thank you for the conversation.

Peace in Christ…

 

[KathleenGee]

Thank you, RVRR,
And enjoy your comments and illuminations as well regarding how Lutherans view various aspects we tend to focus on.

I am studying earliest Christian history, albeit in bits and pieces, and I have to pray to the Holy Spirit to select one at my level as I am always so busy…

Going back to your earlier post, in reference to the Altar…I recall Exodus…and the precursor to the Eucharist, the manna of heaven God fed His people in the desert. What I found most insightful was that God also prescribed how He wanted to be worshiped, how He wanted the Temple to be constructed, and the interior chambers, as well as use of the ‘graven’ images of the Cherubs who pointed to the Sacred Space that held the Presence of God among His people. There was the altar, the daily sacrifice, the lamb, the atonement of sin, the clergy of Levites who refused to worship the golden calf…

The use of altar began at the banquet table at the Last Supper. Christ objectively stated what the bread and wine really were for the Apostles who remained with Him, considering those who did not. The morning I posted about this, I went to Mass this Friday and the communion prayer was from Luke and that those who remained with Christ were now at the table with Him and He would then lead them into the kingdom…my interpretation. (I am now working graveyard with little sleep and we have to return paint tonight so my son can continue…don’t have time to find exact quotes.)

The other incredible idea I found in Christ was how the Holy Spirit led St. Peter to Rome to begin His church, not the first church in Jerusalem. I heard a priest speak for 30 minutes about what ancient Rome was like, the engineering feats we enjoy to this very day, and the enslavement of many doctors and philosophers and lawyers as well who were paraded down the streets of Rome for the populace to see. I didn’t realize what a state is was in that the populace had little to do and to keep them preoccupied, they had to attend the games in the coliseums, very violent experiences. On top of the coliseum were banners of many different colors, rolled out in the morning to protect the crowd within from the sun. At the end of the day, there was a stench from the corpses of animals and people in the stadium, so that vials of perfumes emitted fragrance to cover the odor. Young people were used for sex, many wasted by the time they were young adults. The orgies of eating and sex…Christ was so liberating to these people…the ancient Romans were fearful of the catacombs, the dead.

I find it so incredible in that the Church became alive on the altars of the Christians in the catacombs of the dead.

Christ could have chosen some peaceful place, but He chose Peter and others to enter into the center of ‘the Evil Empire’. This is another witness of Great Hope for the human being, that Christ goes out to all places. The artifacts inside the catecombs show the apostles at a table with bread, fish representing Christ, the Eucharist at that time called, ‘The Secret’.

Yes, they made vows to not lie or steal, to not commit adultery. They met late at night and left at dawn.

I referred to St. James’ Liturgy because he was among Christ’s original apostles, and he headed the first church of Jerusalem that Mother Mary attended. (For several years in the beginning, a passage of Ruth was read where she takes on the name of Mara, meaning loss for Miriam to receive the name. Miriam had lost her Son…It became Latinized to Maria, sea of grace, a new joy and life for her and for us. Mary the Mother of all Graces.
Christ received His body and soul from her. Cannot we who believe and receive also acknowledge that Mary is with us when we receive her Son in communion?

The book I am referring to is the ‘Mass of the Early Christians’, by Mike Aquilina. It is a good read and draws on many prayers of many other churches. It also shows heretical texts and the great heresy of the day was not to believe that the bread and wine were indeed the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[KathleenGee]

About praying to the saints…Lutherans believe in the Holy Trinity…the interior nature of God, if you want to put it that way is relational, give and take.

After I die, I hope to receive prayers as it is good to pray for the dead as was stated in Maccabees…one of the books Luther removed?..and I do not just want to be a taker, but a giver, and pray for the perseverance of the just in purgatory/heaven, the defeat of evil, and for my loved ones.

Regarding celibacy. Yes, before priests could marry. But there were many Christians in ancient times who wanted to live celibate lives and were martyred for being so. I would think the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the Apostles, considering their new lifestyle and new interior life, were very consumed by their mission. St. Paul was celibate. But I think the emphasis in those times was promoting the Good News…

There were many abuses of married clergy. The church is a human institution, is self reforming, is changing all for the goal that the Word of God will eventually be fulfilled in it…Vatican II…The culture at the time of the Church, when celibacy was mandated, had grace to follow this. I worked with a priest overseas many years ago. He shared with me how he decided not to marry, that his greater desire was to be a priest. I have known him now for about 35 years. We had a 11 year gap in our friendship. This year we contacted each other. He is retired now in Italy. He was in a dangerous place where there was war and famine for many years. But he remained serving the people. He enjoys now great outreach to many people, renovating an old monastery older than the USA, having remains of the monks there moved for proper burial…if I understand the Italian right, it was monks…his out reach to so many, heading their museum, working with countless Secular Franciscans. I shared with him he would not ever had been able to help so many if he were a married man, let alone be such a tremendous presence of Christ and this Great Hope in the midst of so much destruction. God bless his soul!

I agree in the USA there has been a deliberate chipping away at the hierarchy to blur rolls, heard it from the horse’s mouth. And St. Benedict and the Vatican right now in this month are stating how separate the clergy is. Just like the priests were a separate class in the Old Testament.

Agree about the Creed…The Nicene Creed formalized Christ as True God and True Man after a heresy was about denying His humanity.

The Bible is the work of the Church, not any Lone Ranger.

Many Catholic saints and writers proclaimed we are saved by faith alone. But we are also called to follow Christ’s way, to be a humble servant. Isn’t it our lack of good works and disunity that cause seculars not to believe in Christianity???

Peter is the Rock on which Christ’s Church was built. We cannot arbitrate what to believe or not to believe on things merely symbolic. The successors to Peter have never been broken, but that doesn’t mean they were all representing what Christ intended His representative to be before the world.

There are too many anullments and not enough patience and faith and that Great Hope!..

Blessings!