The Early Church: If They Weren't Catholic, What Were They?

[Stylites]

The man who obeys God needs no other authority (over him). - Petr Chelčický

Nice signature!

 

[crazzeto]

Anna,

What do you suppose happens to the host when Adoration ends? In case you did not know, it is in fact consumed. The host must always be consumed once consecrated. Thus, no host is reserved for Adoration apart from consumption.

I think that this is important, as you seem to be caught up on this idea that a host reserved for adoration is some how not purposed for consumption.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna,

What do you suppose happens to the host when Adoration ends? In case you did not know, it is in fact consumed. The host must always be consumed once consecrated. Thus, no host is reserved for Adoration apart from consumption.

I think that this is important, as you seem to be caught up on this idea that a host reserved for adoration is some how not purposed for consumption.

Crazzeto,

I do understand that. Remember this part of my post?

(Edited to add):

. . . . .I might be more open to the argument that if the Sacrament is going to be reserved for the sick and home-bound; it might as well be displayed in a Monstrance, rather than concealed in an Aumbry, until it is taken to the sick and home-bound. I’m helping your argument here. Proof that I am considering all sides of the issue.

Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I wouldn’t presume to speak for Anna, but personally the problem I have is not that it will or will not ‘ever’ be consumed, but the idea that it is taken out of the Eucharistic meal context that it was given to us in by the Lord Himself. “Take, eat” is not the same as “Take, put in monstrance for a week and pray in front of and contemplate, then eat later.” The agape meal’s summit was the Eucharist. It was always in a meal context no matter what. And John 6 even uses the words “eat” and “drink” multiple times. The Pauline language is consumption as well. And the early church did nothing like this. These are the concerns I have. I don’t think Catholics are evil for having Adoration but it is questionable to me and when I have participated in Adoration myself I have not felt the grace others tell me about. I have felt that I was participating in an act out of the context that the Lord intended. It wasn’t a feeling of being involved in sin or evil, just didn’t feel right for me philosophically. I bear no ill will toward those that do it. I’m still deciding about this issue as is Anna. I’m open-minded to it and by no means hostile. We both know we could be wrong. I appreciate your posts and passion for your view of it.

Anna,

What do you suppose happens to the host when Adoration ends? In case you did not know, it is in fact consumed. The host must always be consumed once consecrated. Thus, no host is reserved for Adoration apart from consumption.

I think that this is important, as you seem to be caught up on this idea that a host reserved for adoration is some how not purposed for consumption.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I wouldn’t presume to speak for Anna, but personally the problem I have is not that it will or will not ‘ever’ be consumed, but the idea that it is taken out of the Eucharistic meal context that it was given to us in by the Lord Himself. “Take, eat” is not the same as “Take, put in monstrance for a week and pray in front of and contemplate, then eat later.” The agape meal’s summit was the Eucharist. It was always in a meal context no matter what. And John 6 even uses the words “eat” and “drink” multiple times. The Pauline language is consumption as well. And the early church did nothing like this. These are the concerns I have. I don’t think Catholics are evil for having Adoration but it is questionable to me and when I have participated in Adoration myself I have not felt the grace others tell me about. I have felt that I was participating in an act out of the context that the Lord intended. It wasn’t a feeling of being involved in sin or evil, just didn’t feel right for me philosophically. I bear no ill will toward those that do it. I’m still deciding about this issue as is Anna. I’m open-minded to it and by no means hostile. We both know we could be wrong. I appreciate your posts and passion for your view of it.

I’m with you on this Gurney. I do know I could be wrong.

Crazzeto,

I think more often than not, we encounter arguing and debate on the forums, without seeing any clear sign that anyone is really weighing what the “opposition” is saying. I don’t think that is the case with you, or with most of us on this particular thread. I think we are truly seeking God’s truth.

I understand that the Sacrament is eventually consumed. It’s just that once the Sacrament is placed in a Monstrance in an Adoration Chapel, it is there for the purpose of adoration.

I agree with Gurney: I do not see Eucharistic Adoration as an evil terrible practice. It just doesn’t seem compatible with the instructions Christ gave us.

Still, I could be wrong. I just need more convincing on this issue.

Anna

 

[Javl]

Anna:

In the matter of transubstantiation and Eucharistic Adoration, may I suggest that you go to the following link: newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm. Although the explanation is long and a bit dry, it should answer all your questions and objections.
God Bless:

Len

PAX DOMINI

Shalom haMeshiach

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna:

In the matter of transubstantiation and Eucharistic Adoration, may I suggest that you go to the following link: newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm. Although the explanation is long and a bit dry, it should answer all your questions and objections.
God Bless:

Len

PAX DOMINI

Shalom haMeshiach

Len,

Thank you for the link. I will definitely check it out. May be tomorrow though. I’m exhausted.

Good to bump into you again,

Anna

 

[eddy714]

When looking at the history of Protestantism, I realized that I would have to accept that God abandoned the world to heresy shortly after the apostles died and did not restore a way of salvation until 1500 years later. There is no historic connection between Christ and Protestants. Jesus lived 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation.

I would suggest all should read historical Christian works by Justin Martyr, the Didache, St. Agustine, St., ect… They all espouse back as far as 70-100 AD the teachings of the Catholic Church. Where is Sola Scriptura before the Reformation? I say this not to criticize but to challenge all Christians to look at what they believe and why.

If anyone would take the time to research the hundreds of years of writings of the Church Fathers, and their successors, they would see a rich treasure of the history of the Catholic Church from the very beginning of its founding, and continuing on through today. So many false charges made against the Catholic Church fall away like the pruned dead branches from the vine. Any subject you can think of is covered in these writings. As just one example, detractors say the Church which Jesus Christ founded, apostatized around the time of Constantine and is not the Catholic Church of today. This is saying that the ‘Gates of Hell’ did prevail against Christ’s Church. Read Matt 16:18. These same detractors cannot produce one shred of documentation to back up what they charge. However, by reading the Church Fathers, you will find just the opposite. The writings make no mention of this ‘great apostasy’, but instead they show the Church, which Jesus Christ founded, growing and expanding just as He said it would. Read Acts 1:8. You will see that the ‘Gates of Hell’ did not prevail. Sadly, Protestants are told not to read the Church Fathers. From what Cardinal Newman said, you can readily see why they are taught this. What a waste to disregard such a goldmine of truth.

1. The Church is the guardian and the dispenser of truth, because the Bible said so.
2. Truth is one. There can be only one truth.
3. The Church is the final authority on earth, because Jesus Christ said so.
4. Jesus Christ gave authority to His Apostles.
5. The Apostles in return passed on this authority to their successors through ‘Apostolic Succession’.
6. The Church is the mother of the Bible, and not the daughter.
7. The Bible is a product of the Church, therefore it is a Catholic book.
8. Catholic Bishops in Catholic Councils decided which books were to be included in the Bible.
9. The Papacy is well represented by Holy Scripture
10. Sola Scriptura is a man made doctrine and is therefore condemned by Holy Scripture.
11. False charges against the Mother of GOD, fall away like dead leaves when the truth is manifest.
12. Writings of Church Fathers are a wealth of information about the Catholic Church.

“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” That statement was made by Cardinal John Newman, a convert to Catholicism from the Anglican Church.

This is what I found when I types " to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant" By John Henry Newmen

 

[Bluegoat]

I wouldn’t presume to speak for Anna, but personally the problem I have is not that it will or will not ‘ever’ be consumed, but the idea that it is taken out of the Eucharistic meal context that it was given to us in by the Lord Himself. “Take, eat” is not the same as “Take, put in monstrance for a week and pray in front of and contemplate, then eat later.” The agape meal’s summit was the Eucharist. It was always in a meal context no matter what. And John 6 even uses the words “eat” and “drink” multiple times. The Pauline language is consumption as well. And the early church did nothing like this. These are the concerns I have. I don’t think Catholics are evil for having Adoration but it is questionable to me and when I have participated in Adoration myself I have not felt the grace others tell me about. I have felt that I was participating in an act out of the context that the Lord intended. It wasn’t a feeling of being involved in sin or evil, just didn’t feel right for me philosophically. I bear no ill will toward those that do it. I’m still deciding about this issue as is Anna. I’m open-minded to it and by no means hostile. We both know we could be wrong. I appreciate your posts and passion for your view of it.

Yeah, I’m not about to lead the “out with Adoration” league. I do have concerns that this use of the Eucharist leads to a superstitious attitude, and to the attitude that only having the Mass is really important for the Church and neglect of other ministries, and even the weird Catholic practice of half the congregation heading out the door as soon as they have received at Mass. (not in all parishes, but surprisingly common.)

When I consider it, it is also significant to me that none of the other Apostolic churches do it. But it certainly isn’t an evil practice.

 

[crazzeto]

Yeah, I’m not about to lead the “out with Adoration” league. I do have concerns that this use of the Eucharist leads to a superstitious attitude, and to the attitude that only having the Mass is really important for the Church and neglect of other ministries, and even the weird Catholic practice of half the congregation heading out the door as soon as they have received at Mass. (not in all parishes, but surprisingly common.)

When I consider it, it is also significant to me that none of the other Apostolic churches do it. But it certainly isn’t an evil practice.

I really am curious Bluegoat, in what way does adoration lead to superstition? I ask because really the only context I’ve heard such a charge, is in context of something like say, the 39 articles. But my objection with this is simple, the 30 articles expressly deny the presense of the Lord in the Eucharist, let alone that it is the very body blood and divinity of Christ.

 

[Bluegoat]

I really am curious Bluegoat, in what way does adoration lead to superstition? I ask because really the only context I’ve heard such a charge, is in context of something like say, the 39 articles. But my objection with this is simple, the 30 articles expressly deny the presense of the Lord in the Eucharist, let alone that it is the very body blood and divinity of Christ.

I think that at least here in the West, outright superstition is no longer common - we are much more likely to just disbelieve in the whole thing. (Though someone told me recently about people pocketing the Body secretly and taking it home for undefined purposes.)

But in the middle ages it was common for people to do things like try to use consecrated hosts in medicine and other superstitious practices. There seems to be a clear connection to me - if it is efficacious to use the Eucharist for adoration rather than for consuming as we were directed, why not use it for other things too?

Re - the 39 articles. This seems like a totally different subject to me? But in any case the article on the Lord’s Supper says:

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

I am not by any means an expert on the Articles, but I don’t see any way that this can be said to deny Christ is in the Eucharist at all. I think some have argued the words “heavenly and spiritual fashion” to mean disbelief in the real presence, but it seem to me that is understanding those words in a modern way. Remember that Paul tells us that our new bodies after the general resurrection will be “spiritual” bodies. So I think all that the article is saying is that we do not think we will be finding Christs teeth mixed up in the Eucharist somehow.

I think one could argue that there seem to be elements of receptionism here, but again, I think it could be argued otherwise too. Which isn’t surprising, since the Reformers were rather a mixed bag.

I think also to understand the Anglican view of the Eucharist it is important to look at the words of the Mass - they are probably more important than the Articles. In any case, while the Articles are an important foundational document, they were never understood to be infallible.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Yeah, that’s true. I hear amazing stories of changed lives day in day out on the protestant radio channels in our areas. I meet people all the time personally who have changed their old ways, dropped addictions, have healed marriages, conduct ministries to prisoners and the poor through their Protestant encounter with Christ. In CAF the argument people give each day is, 'we have the Eucharist, a valid Mass, nobody else does, end of story" without any regard for all the ministries, changed behaviors, affection for Christ, Biblical knowledge, outreach to the community, and evangelical spirit that many (not all!!) non-Catholic churches give. Some of the most honest, clean-mouthed, happily-married, charitable, loving folks I know are protestant. In my experience, our Anglican rector is so quick to answer a question you might have. He’s so accessible. He’s so willing to come to your home, counsel you, pray with you, and he loves youth ministry and dealing with kids. Yesterday at Vacation Bible School he took the time to show the kids each nook and cranny of the church and chapel. He let all the kids ring the bell, told them stories, is so kind to the kids. And boy, if you get sick, he makes a b-line to get to the hospital. He doesn’t send a deacon in his place. He will drive hours to any hospital you’re in. He’ll drive way out of his diocese for weddings, whatever. He’s a neat guy. Always there for ya. The congregation is, too. Neat bunch. It’s pretty tough to ignore the fellowship, pastoral care, love, good sermons, bible studies, child care, VBS, and overall devotion the congregation has. Amidst all the theological battles we have in CAF, these things usually mean nothing to most people. They’re all incidental…

Yeah, I’m not about to lead the “out with Adoration” league. I do have concerns that this use of the Eucharist leads to a superstitious attitude, and to the attitude that only having the Mass is really important for the Church and neglect of other ministries, and even the weird Catholic practice of half the congregation heading out the door as soon as they have received at Mass. (not in all parishes, but surprisingly common.)

When I consider it, it is also significant to me that none of the other Apostolic churches do it. But it certainly isn’t an evil practice.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I really am curious Bluegoat, in what way does adoration lead to superstition? I ask because really the only context I’ve heard such a charge, is in context of something like say, the 39 articles. But my objection with this is simple, the 30 articles expressly deny the presense of the Lord in the Eucharist, let alone that it is the very body blood and divinity of Christ.

. . . . .I am not by any means an expert on the Articles, but I don’t see any way that this can be said to deny Christ is in the Eucharist at all. I think some have argued the words “heavenly and spiritual fashion” to mean disbelief in the real presence, but it seem to me that is understanding those words in a modern way. Remember that Paul tells us that our new bodies after the general resurrection will be “spiritual” bodies. So I think all that the article is saying is that we do not think we will be finding Christs teeth mixed up in the Eucharist somehow.

I think one could argue that there seem to be elements of receptionism here, but again, I think it could be argued otherwise too. Which isn’t surprising, since the Reformers were rather a mixed bag.

I think also to understand the Anglican view of the Eucharist it is important to look at the words of the Mass - they are probably more important than the Articles. In any case, while the Articles are an important foundational document, they were never understood to be infallible.

The only thing I can really say about the 39 Articles is what I have found in the Episcopal Church I am attending (not Confirmed; don’t know if I will be.) The Rector does absolutely believe in the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist. As you pointed out, the liturgy is more revealing when it comes to beliefs and interpretations. Our liturgy is very similar to the Catholic Mass. Crazzeto and I have participated on threads where we compared liturgies of Catholicism and several non-Catholic faiths. The similarities were really very surprising.

Anna

 

[Javl]

The only thing I can really say about the 39 Articles is what I have found in the Episcopal Church I am attending (not Confirmed; don’t know if I will be.) The Rector does absolutely believe in the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist. As you pointed out, the liturgy is more revealing when it comes to beliefs and interpretations. Our liturgy is very similar to the Catholic Mass. Crazzeto and I have participated on threads where we compared liturgies of Catholicism and several non-Catholic faiths. The similarities were really very surprising.

Anna

Yes, these liturgies were taken originally from the Catholic Church’s liturgy. Many were modified to suit their requirements, some were not.

As for the belief in the “Real Presence” of Christ, out of sheer logic, requires unconditional belief in transubstantiation and not consubstantiation. In transubstantiation the accident of bread and wine truly become the body and blood of Christ, while in consubstantiation it remains bread and wine and thus remains symbolic.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom haMeshiach

 

[crazzeto]

About the 39 articles:

victorianweb.org/religion/39articles.html

Article XXVIII: Of the Lord’s Supper
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

And since it mentions adoration

Article XXII: Of Purgatory
The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping, and Adoration as well of Images as of Reliques, and also invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

Anglicanism after bloody mary kicked it out because quite the Evangelical faith as we would put it today… Anna, Bluegoat I realize there are those sectors of Anglicanism that have tried retaining a somewhat more Catholic front, but the fact of the matter is when you read the 39 articles it becomes quite clear the belief in the real presense of the Lord, and so called Anglo-Catholisism in general has always been very much on the outs of the Anglican commuion.

With regard to “superstitions”, its worth of note that reception of the Eucharist durring the aointing of the sick, which is in fact a healing sacrament is still very much a part of our fatih. I can understand, perhaps bluegoat that you were trying to get at a somewhat more abusive, or unorthox usage of the host but I don’t want there to be any misunderstandings on this point. In a sacramental context, certainly we beleive the Eucharist has healing effects… Physical if God so desires, always spiritual.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Yes, these liturgies were taken originally from the Catholic Church’s liturgy. Many were modified to suit their requirements, some were not.

As for the belief in the “Real Presence” of Christ, out of sheer logic, requires unconditional belief in transubstantiation and not consubstantiation. In transubstantiation the accident of bread and wine truly become the body and blood of Christ, while in consubstantiation it remains bread and wine and thus remains symbolic.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom haMeshiach

Javl,

Good to hear from you again.

Catholics see the belief in transubstantiation as a necessity for the “Real Presence.” I believe the bread and wine do become the Body and Blood of Christ. I am more cautious about defining the Divine Mystery of the Eucharist. I don’t think taking a stand one way or the other regarding Aristotelian metaphysics determines whether or not I am partaking of the Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity of Christ in the Eucharist. I accept the Eucharist in faith. I’m not claiming consubstantiation or a symbolic remembrance.

As for the 39 Articles, from what I have found in researching Episcopal beliefs and practices, it seems some Churches are more Protestant in beliefs and practice. Others are more Catholic. The Parish I attend swings heavily in the direction of Catholicism, and perhaps Eastern Orthodox ,even more so.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

About the 39 articles:

victorianweb.org/religion/39articles.html

And since it mentions adoration

Anglicanism after bloody mary kicked it out because quite the Evangelical faith as we would put it today… Anna, Bluegoat I realize there are those sectors of Anglicanism that have tried retaining a somewhat more Catholic front, but the fact of the matter is when you read the 39 articles it becomes quite clear the belief in the real presense of the Lord, and so called Anglo-Catholisism in general has always been very much on the outs of the Anglican commuion.

With regard to “superstitions”, its worth of note that reception of the Eucharist durring the aointing of the sick, which is in fact a healing sacrament is still very much a part of our fatih. I can understand, perhaps bluegoat that you were trying to get at a somewhat more abusive, or unorthox usage of the host but I don’t want there to be any misunderstandings on this point. In a sacramental context, certainly we beleive the Eucharist has healing effects… Physical if God so desires, always spiritual.

crazzeto,

The 39 Articles do reflect a more Protestant set of beliefs than what is actually practiced and accepted in my Parish. The 39 Articles identify only 2 Sacraments: Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

victorianweb.org/religion/39articles.html

Article XXV: Of the Sacraments

Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.

There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.

The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same have they a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.

Yet, in our Parish, there are 7 Sacraments.

I would certainly agree that the Eucharist has healing effects. In our Parish, the Unction is offered after every service, and every service is centered around the Eucharist.

I know that some Anglicans identify themselves as “Protestants.” In thinking about this, I’ve never actually heard anyone in our Church refer to themselves as Protestant. Even our Priests speak of us (and themselves) as Anglican Catholics. Hmmm. Maybe I should check the sign in front of the Church again to make sure it is really Episcopal.

Anna

 

[nguirado]

It couldn’t have been completely sufficient since it didn’t have the Bible.

Objectively speaking here are some things the early church did NOT have:
Eucharistic Adoration, purgatory, indulgences, the Immaculate Conception, co-redemptrix language, vestments, mandatory celibacy, the language of infallibility, withholding the cup from the laity, the rosary, scapulars, etc.

What we DO know existed from Paul’s epistles, etc are:
People speaking in tongues in the Church, preachers, healers, presbyters working in a council of leadership in more of an elder fashion, bishops and presbyters were terms used interchangeably, married presbyters, people “prophesying,” Pauline language of imputation, people being baptized (like Philip and the Eunach story) into the Church right away without months of catechesis, full immersion baptism, unction being to heal and not for a final blessing for a dying man, married bishops, women and men separated during worship, etc.

So from the point of view of some, though they obviously weren’t called “protestants,” protestants look through the Biblical lens and see these things and determine the early Christians were Protestant.

From a Catholic perspective, a la Newman, the Church was just in its infancy, a nucleus, it had to develop over time with God’s guidance, etc. From the Protestant view, the Church was completely sufficient and a done deal perfect, ready to go day one. It didn’t need to evolve. Catholics would argue that the doctrines of the Trinity, creeds, christology, soteriology, eschatology, episcopal jurisdictions and other important things hadn’t been developed and understood yet. Protestants would argue they were already implicitely in Scripture and self-evident…

 

[SnakeMauler]

PeaceSerenity
When did vestments appear and what is your source?
Thank you

Lmfao. His source would be the entire old testament, with entire chapters dedicated to such priestly conduct. Don’t forget that the NT isn’t some series of instructions as many books of the OT were, they were a the gospels and a series of letters and revelation. I mean cmon. Do fundamentalist read John 3:16 and completely disregard all of history?

 

[SnakeMauler]

Why don’t you guys stop arguing and recognize that it took more than 5 minutes after Jesus death to gain beleivers and fully grip everything his message taught and even longer to define a working set of beliefs and practices? Either way, all none Catholics should recognize that essentially why they exist as Christians today is BECAUSE of the catholic church (for a lot of reasons).