Protestants, just what did the early Church look like?

[T.More]

“As opposed to spiritually drinking? Or emotionally drinking?”

Scott: I forget the name of the doctrine of the unity of Christ in the elements of bread and wine. But that is what I am talking about (eating the bread is understood to simultaneously include the wine). What is this doctrine called?

 

[mercygate]

T. More:

What did he write that is contrary to Protestant practice (with the possible exception of taking communion elements to the sick and invalid - does your parish do this?)?

Yes. At every Sunday Mass an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion receives the Sacrament in a pyx and is sent to carry the Word of God, the Sacrament, and the prayers of the congregation to the homebound person(s) who have asked to receive the Sacrament.

The early church did not withhold the cup, unlike the modern RC church.

T. More

The cup is frequently offered to the laity in Catholic churches today – in my parish at every Mass. The history of receiving in only one kind is complex and makes a lot of sense in the historical circumstances('nother thread), particularly since the Cup is always offered at the Mass, even if received only by the celebrant AND (most important), since the whole of Christ’s body, blood, soul, and divinity are present in each crumb or drop of either species, we DO receive both the Body and Blood of Christ at every Communion.

 

[Mickey]

T. More:

BTW, here is anothere excerpt frok Justin’s Apology. The calls the elements bread and wine as they are distributed.

**For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" **(*First Apology *66 [A.D. 151]).

Justin is quite clear here.

 

[jimmy]

“As opposed to spiritually drinking? Or emotionally drinking?”

Scott: I forget the name of the doctrine of the unity of Christ in the elements of bread and wine. But that is what I am talking about (eating the bread is understood to simultaneously include the wine). What is this doctrine called?

Yes each church has the wine litterally. Not just that the host contains both blood and flesh.

What kind of Christian are you?

 

[pippin]

T. More:

Dennis:

Absent from it is the ornate liturgy that we see in Catholic Churches (which, granted, took a long time to develop). We also see the primary emphasis on reading and teaching of the word. While catholic liturgy is saturated with scripture, actual homiletic teaching is often minimized in many Catholic Churches (thought it does not have to be). Further scripture in liturgy has a different emphasis than scripture reading described by Justin.

It is true that some priests are better homilists than others. But then some protestant ministers are better preachers than others. I have been in some protestant churches where the preacher read from the KJV and then translated to modern english without any further teaching as a serman. As for the “ornate liturgy” I don’t understand what you mean. Many of our prayers come from the Jewish tradition. Our liturgy of the word is basically a Jewish synagoge service. These borrowed elements would have been there from the beginning.

 

[T.More]

It is good to hear that some parishes have restored the cup to the laity. There is an amazing amount of liturgical variety in Catholic churches.

In any event, I hope it is clear that Justin’s description fits many Protestant services, at least the ones with regular communion. I think that answers the original question, what did the early church look like. Protestant services with regular communion have these elements cited by Justin:

• The reading of the scriptures
• The preaching (teaching) of the scriptures
• Acceptance of donations
• Prayer
• The celebration of communion

As both Protestant and Catholic churches have these in common, we should rejoice.

I don’t see anything in Justin that would exclude common Protestant liturgies, such as processionals, the elaborate scripted liturgical readings and responses, etc.

T. More

 

[T.More]

“Justin is quite clear here.”

I probably should not have started this rabbit trail. I do believe that the body and blood of Christ are present in the sacrament in a supernatural way. The exact way I leave to mystery. I do think it is relevant that Justin continues to refer to the elements at bread and wine (as did Paul). But, this is really a discussion for a separate thread.

 

[Mickey]

“Justin is quite clear here.”

I probably should not have started this rabbit trail. I do believe that the body and blood of Christ are present in the sacrament in a supernatural way. The exact way I leave to mystery. I do think it is relevant that Justin continues to refer to the elements at bread and wine (as did Paul). But, this is really a discussion for a separate thread.

No, it is relevant here too. The question was “what did the early Church look like”? The early church believed in the real presence, just as Catholics and Orthodox do today:

For St. Ignatius of Antioch “the distinguishing mark of heretics was their denial of the real presence.” As proclaimed by the great apologist Justin Martyr, “the food blessed by the prayer of his word . . .is the flesh and blood of Jesus who was made flesh.” Thus, it is no accident that many of the Church’s most prominent converts from Cardinal Newman to people like theologian Scott Hahn came to the Catholic Church through a study of the early Church Fathers. St. Irenaeus’ view that the real presence is what distinguishes heretics from the orthodox is still alive today when the modern Catholic Church gives preeminence to its close bond with the Eastern Orthodox as a sister church over ties with Christian communities that reject or are ambiguous about the real presence.

 

[T.More]

Many Protestants believe in the real presence. Lutherans, Anglicans, and Calvinists, for example. Zwinglians, Baptists, and many others do not. But then again, many Catholic priests do not either.

IN any event, the original question was what the church “looked like” - not what doctrines they held. The description is consistent with much traditional Protestantism.

 

[StMarkEofE]

Genesis315:

everyone who wants to does!

Does this mean that there are those who chose not to drink but yet partake of the bread? If so, what is the point of the cup?

StMarkEofE

 

[jimmy]

T. More:

It is good to hear that some parishes have restored the cup to the laity. There is an amazing amount of liturgical variety in Catholic churches.

In any event, I hope it is clear that Justin’s description fits many Protestant services, at least the ones with regular communion. I think that answers the original question, what did the early church look like. Protestant services with regular communion have these elements cited by Justin:

• The reading of the scriptures
• The preaching (teaching) of the scriptures
• Acceptance of donations
• Prayer
• The celebration of communion

As both Protestant and Catholic churches have these in common, we should rejoice.

I don’t see anything in Justin that would exclude common Protestant liturgies, such as processionals, the elaborate scripted liturgical readings and responses, etc.

T. More

Here is the Liturgy of Saint James. It is how the early liturgy was structured pretty much and it is the liturgy the Maronite Catholics use today.

newadvent.org/fathers/0717.htm%between%

Here is the Liturgy of the Blessed Apostles. It was composed in the middle of the third century around 250, so it is pretty good to see how the early church worshiped.

Here is a quote from it and a link to it.

"O Lord our God, the heavenly bread, the life of the universe, I have sinned against Heaven, and before Thee, and am not worthy to partake of Thy pure mysteries; but as a merciful God, make me worthy by Thy grace, without condemnation to partake of Thy holy body and precious blood, for the remission of sins, and life everlasting.(7) "

newadvent.org/fathers/0719.htm

Here is the Liurgy of Mark.

newadvent.org/fathers/0718.htm

They are all very Catholic.

 

[jimmy]

T. More:

Many Protestants believe in the real presence. Lutherans, Anglicans, and Calvinists, for example. Zwinglians, Baptists, and many others do not. But then again, many Catholic priests do not either.

IN any event, the original question was what the church “looked like” - not what doctrines they held. The description is consistent with much traditional Protestantism.

Calvinists do not believe in the True Presence Like the Lutherans, the Anglicans and the Catholics. The Calvinists believe in the True Presence in Spirit only. They do not believe it actually becomes the body and blood of Christ.

No it is not consistent with any protestantism. Look at the liturgies I gave above, which show the liturgies that the early Church used. They are very Catholic, and can not be considered similar to protestants. The Anglicans may be able to say it looks like them, but that is because they had a reform in the 1800s to make there liturgy more Catholic.

 

[T.More]

Jimmy: A couple of points. I am not criticizing elaborate liturgy. Second, allot of things can happen in 100 or 200 years.

In any event, the description provided in Justin is consistent with traditional Protestant services. Justin did choose to emphasize the substantial elements of the liturgy, as opposed to any form or style.

 

[T.More]

“Calvinists do not believe in the True Presence Like the Lutherans, the Anglicans and the Catholics. The Calvinists believe in the True Presence in Spirit only. They do not believe it actually becomes the body and blood of Christ.”

Yeah, there are differences. But there are amazing differences within Catholicism too. Many priests, theologians, and officers deny the real presence in even a spiritual sense, much less a physical sense. Have you read Good Bye, Good Men? He documents some of the interesting views taught in Catholic seminaries today and held by many of their ordained students.

 

[jimmy]

T. More:

Jimmy: A couple of points. I am not criticizing elaborate liturgy. Second, allot of things can happen in 100 or 200 years.

In any event, the description provided in Justin is consistent with traditional Protestant services. Justin did choose to emphasize the substantial elements of the liturgy, as opposed to any form or style.

Justin gives a one paragraph description that could be typical of any sevice. It is not very descriptive. I gave the actual liturgies.

This is 3 different liturgies from the early Church. It is not one liturgy that someone made there own changes.

 

[dennisknapp]

“Calvinists do not believe in the True Presence Like the Lutherans, the Anglicans and the Catholics. The Calvinists believe in the True Presence in Spirit only. They do not believe it actually becomes the body and blood of Christ.”

Yeah, there are differences. But there are amazing differences within Catholicism too. Many priests, theologians, and officers deny the real presence in even a spiritual sense, much less a physical sense. Have you read Good Bye, Good Men? He documents some of the interesting views taught in Catholic seminaries today and held by many of their ordained students.

Yes, but what does the Official Teaching proclaim? A few random liberal theologians are not the Magistarium.

Peace

P.S. what did the early church teach about baptism and the Eucharist?

 

[jimmy]

“Calvinists do not believe in the True Presence Like the Lutherans, the Anglicans and the Catholics. The Calvinists believe in the True Presence in Spirit only. They do not believe it actually becomes the body and blood of Christ.”

Yeah, there are differences. But there are amazing differences within Catholicism too. Many priests, theologians, and officers deny the real presence in even a spiritual sense, much less a physical sense. Have you read Good Bye, Good Men? He documents some of the interesting views taught in Catholic seminaries today and held by many of their ordained students.

You protestants don’t seem to understand that it does not matter what one preist or one theologian thinks. That does not affect what the Church teaches. The Church teaches the True Presence in the form of Transubstantiation and it does not matter what a preist in California thinks. That preist is a heretic and should not be saying the mass.

 

[T.More]

“Yes, but what does the Official Teaching proclaim? A few random liberal theologians are not the Magistarium.”

This is neither few nor random. Rather, it characterizes much of American Catholic theology. Besides, who is better to explain to us what the official church teaching is than the duly ordained bishops and officers (many of whom deny the views you hold)? My local parish priest is in fact one such person. The parish also has a gay and lesbian group. If I want to know official church teaching, shouldn’t I ask the living officers of the church, like this priest?

 

[T.More]

“You protestants don’t seem to understand that it does not matter what one preist or one theologian thinks.”

I would suggest that you are denying your own authority structure. Who should have a better understanding of official church teaching - a layman or someone ordained by the Catholic church and charged with teaching Catholic dogma? If I want to know official Catholic teaching, who better to go to than the living church, the authorized teachers of the doctrine, all of whom are in good standing with the church?

 

[dennisknapp]

“Yes, but what does the Official Teaching proclaim? A few random liberal theologians are not the Magistarium.”

This is neither few nor random. Rather, it characterizes much of American Catholic theology. Besides, who is better to explain to us what the official church teaching is than the duly ordained bishops and officers (many of whom deny the views you hold)? My local parish priest is in fact one such person. The parish also has a gay and lesbian group. If I want to know official church teaching, shouldn’t I ask the living officers of the church, like this priest?

No, you would consult the CCC and see if this priest is in line with Official Church teaching. If he is not, then he should be instructed in the truth and if he does not repent, removed.

Peace