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

[The_Way]

The Early Church Fathers believed in the Eucharist. If anything the Catholic Church has proven her faithful constancy in doctrines throughout History.

I don’t understand why our Protestant brothers and sisters continue to disbelieve in what the Early Church Fathers clearly believed in.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 7, 1 (c. 110 AD)
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not
confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh
which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised
up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.”

St. Justin Martyr, First Apology 66 (c. 155 AD)
“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
nourished is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnate Jesus…The
Apostles, in the Memoirs which they produced, which are called Gospels,
have thus passed on that which was enjoined upon them: that Jesus took
bread and, having given thanks, said, ‘Do this in remembrance of Me; this
is My Body.’ And in like manner, taking the cup, and having given thanks,
He said, ‘This is My Blood.’ And He imparted this to them only.”

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 4, 33, 2 (c. 180 AD)
“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could He rightly take
bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be His
Body, and affirm that the mixture in the cup is His Blood?”

St. Ephrem of Edessa, Homilies 4, 4 (ante 373 AD)
“And extending His hand, He gave them the Bread which His right hand
had made holy: ‘Take all of you eat of this, which my word has made holy.
Do not now regard as bread that which I have given you; but take, eat this
Bread, and do not scatter the crumbs; for what I have called My Body, that
is indeed. One particle from its crumbs is able to sanctify thousands and
thousands, and is sufficient to afford life to those who eat of it. Take, eat,
entertaining no doubt of faith, because this is My Body, and whoever eats it
in belief eats in it Fire and Spirit.”

**St. Augustine of Hippo, Explanation of the Psalms 33, 1 (c. 392-418
AD) **“‘And he was carried in his own hands.’ But, brethren, how is it possible
for a man to do this? Who can understand it? Who is it that is carried in his
own hands? A man can be carried in the hands of another; but no one can
be carried in his own hands. How this should be understood literally of
David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ.
For Christ was carried in His own hands, when, referring to His own Body,
He said: ‘This is My Body’ for He carried that Body in His hands.”

**St. Augustine of Hippo, Explanation of the Psalms 98, 9 (c. 392-418
AD) **“He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh,
and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation. But no one eats that
flesh unless first he adores it … and not only do we not sin by adoring, we
do sin by not adoring.”

God Bless,

 

[Holly3278]

The early Church was most definitely Catholic. Sacred Tradition proves this.

 

[crazzeto]

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.

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

Hrm… Maybe your parish will convert to Catholisism for you

 

[Anna_Scott]

Hrm… Maybe your parish will convert to Catholisism for you

Crazzeto,

I’m literally laughing out loud. You may be right. At least all of the great Catholics at CAF (like you, of course ) are helping me prepare. I’ll keep you posted.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

The Early Church Fathers believed in the Eucharist. If anything the Catholic Church has proven her faithful constancy in doctrines throughout History.

I don’t understand why our Protestant brothers and sisters continue to disbelieve in what the Early Church Fathers clearly believed in.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 7, 1 (c. 110 AD)
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not
confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh
which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised
up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.”

St. Justin Martyr, First Apology 66 (c. 155 AD)
“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
nourished is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnate Jesus…The
Apostles, in the Memoirs which they produced, which are called Gospels,
have thus passed on that which was enjoined upon them: that Jesus took
bread and, having given thanks, said, ‘Do this in remembrance of Me; this
is My Body.’ And in like manner, taking the cup, and having given thanks,
He said, ‘This is My Blood.’ And He imparted this to them only.”

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 4, 33, 2 (c. 180 AD)
“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could He rightly take
bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be His
Body, and affirm that the mixture in the cup is His Blood?”

St. Ephrem of Edessa, Homilies 4, 4 (ante 373 AD)
“And extending His hand, He gave them the Bread which His right hand
had made holy: ‘Take all of you eat of this, which my word has made holy.
Do not now regard as bread that which I have given you; but take, eat this
Bread, and do not scatter the crumbs; for what I have called My Body, that
is indeed. One particle from its crumbs is able to sanctify thousands and
thousands, and is sufficient to afford life to those who eat of it. Take, eat,
entertaining no doubt of faith, because this is My Body, and whoever eats it
in belief eats in it Fire and Spirit.”

**St. Augustine of Hippo, Explanation of the Psalms 33, 1 (c. 392-418
AD) **“‘And he was carried in his own hands.’ But, brethren, how is it possible
for a man to do this? Who can understand it? Who is it that is carried in his
own hands? A man can be carried in the hands of another; but no one can
be carried in his own hands. How this should be understood literally of
David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ.
For Christ was carried in His own hands, when, referring to His own Body,
He said: ‘This is My Body’ for He carried that Body in His hands.”

**St. Augustine of Hippo, Explanation of the Psalms 98, 9 (c. 392-418
AD) **“He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh,
and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation. But no one eats that
flesh unless first he adores it … and not only do we not sin by adoring, we
do sin by not adoring.”

God Bless,

The Way,

These are great quotes. I think I will give them to one of my Baptist friends.

The question some of us non-Catholics are asking is how do you justify Eucharistic Adoration in light of the instructions given to us by Christ.

I need more concrete evidence showing Eucharistic Adoration was practiced in the early Church. Can you show Eucharistic Adoration was accepted and practiced as early as the dates you gave above?

As I said in an earlier post:

We all agree in the “Real Presence.” I agree that in the Eucharist, we consume Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. I agree this same Sacrament exists in the Aumbry in Episcopal Churches and in the Monstrance in Catholic Churches. The issue is the purpose of reserving the Sacrament—what is done with the Sacrament–and how that relates to the instructions given by Christ.

And:

Understanding what is before us does not necessarily lead to a practice which was not given to us by Christ. As I said, "Why settle for gazing at the Sacrament, when we can consume the Sacrament."

And:

**Agreed: heaven and earth meet in the Eucharist. Agreed: Christ is present in a more literal sense in the Eucharist. However, there is quite a leap between consuming the Sacrament and reserving the Sacrament specifically for Adoration.
**

More later. I need to get ready for the Eucharist–out here in the “real world.”

Anna

 

[crazzeto]

The Way,

These are great quotes. I think I will give them to one of my Baptist friends.

The question some of us non-Catholics are asking is how do you justify Eucharistic Adoration in light of the instructions given to us by Christ.

I need more concrete evidence showing Eucharistic Adoration was practiced in the early Church. Can you show Eucharistic Adoration was accepted and practiced as early as the dates you gave above?

As I said in an earlier post:

We all agree in the “Real Presence.” I agree that in the Eucharist, we consume Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. I agree this same Sacrament exists in the Aumbry in Episcopal Churches and in the Monstrance in Catholic Churches. The issue is the purpose of reserving the Sacrament—what is done with the Sacrament–and how that relates to the instructions given by Christ.

And:

Understanding what is before us does not necessarily lead to a practice which was not given to us by Christ. As I said, "Why settle for gazing at the Sacrament, when we can consume the Sacrament."

And:

**Agreed: heaven and earth meet in the Eucharist. Agreed: Christ is present in a more literal sense in the Eucharist. However, there is quite a leap between consuming the Sacrament and reserving the Sacrament specifically for Adoration.
**

More later. I need to get ready for the Eucharist–out here in the “real world.”

Anna

Anna, I think EWTN has some answers to your questions:

ewtn.com/library/homelibr/historea.txt

Noteably starting with:

.
.
.
At the turn of the first century, Ignatius of Antioch, on his way to
martyrdom in Rome, had to warn the Christians not to be taken in by
the Gnostics–a good modern term would be “visionaries,” who denied
the Real Presence. Ignatius said these people abstained from the
Eucharist because they did not accept what true Christians believe,
that in the Eucharist is the same Jesus Christ Who lived and died and
rose from the dead for our salvation.

Under the impact of this faith, the early hermits reserved the
Eucharist in their cells. From at least the middle of the third
century, it was very general for the solitaries in the East,
especially in Palestine and Egypt, to preserve the consecrated
elements in the caves or hermitages where they lived.

The immediate purpose of this reservation was to enable the hermits
to give themselves Holy Communion. But these hermits were too
conscious of what the Real Presence was not to treat it with great
reverence and not to think of it as serving a sacred purpose by just
being nearby.

Not only did they have the Sacrament with them in their cells, but
they carried it on their persons when they moved from one place to
another. This practice was sanctioned by the custom of the
, that certainly goes back to as early as 120 A.D. The
rite of was a particle of the Eucharistic bread
(sometimes dipped in the chalice) transported from the bishop of one
diocese to the bishop of another diocese. The latter would then
consume the species at his next solemn Mass as a token of unity
between the churches. It was called a not necessarily
because leavened bread was used but because the Eucharist symbolized
the leaven of unity which permeates and transforms Christians, so
that they become one with Christ.
.
.
.

It goes on from there, very much worth a looksee. God bless, hope this helps you

 

[Bluegoat]

Hrm… Maybe your parish will convert to Catholisism for you

I’ve occasionally thought that it would solve a lot of my problems if my parish became Orthodox. We have an Orthodox congregation that meets in our Hall, so perhaps they could stage some sort of coup.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna, I think EWTN has some answers to your questions:

ewtn.com/library/homelibr/historea.txt

Noteably starting with:

It goes on from there, very much worth a looksee. God bless, hope this helps you

thanks for the links. I’ll check them out.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .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.

Hrm… Maybe your parish will convert to Catholisism for you

I’ve occasionally thought that it would solve a lot of my problems if my parish became Orthodox. We have an Orthodox congregation that meets in our Hall, so perhaps they could stage some sort of coup.

Bluegoat,

That’s so interesting that you have an Orthodox congregation that meets in your Hall, and that you see Orthodox as a possibility. Are the teachings in your Parish EO in nature?

The first time I visited the Episcopal Church; I was rather surprised to see 4 beautiful icons in the Nave. I later learned they are the icons found in every Orthodox Church around the Great Doors leading to sanctuary. The 4 icons were commissioned by our Rector, and are by Teresa Harrison (who studied with Philip Zimmerman and Kzenia Pokrovsky.) The icons are The Blessed Virgin Mary; Kyrie Pantocrator (Christ as the Lord and Creator of Heaven and Earth - a form modeled on the oldest extant icon in the world found in St. Catherine’s Monastery, Sinai, Egypt); St. John the Baptist; and our patron saint (a Western saint represented in Eastern style.)

The leaflet I received on the icons says, “The icons are intended to enhance our devotion to God, especially the Love revealed to us on the Cross, which hangs at their center as the focal point. The icons, then, suggest 'the ‘angels and archangels, and all the company of heaven’ who join us in worshiping and glorifying the Crucified and Risen Christ.”

The Rector often uses EO prayers and quotes EO writings and ECF’s in general. He also quotes Popes, especially JP II. He does quote Anglican writers also.

When I first visited this Episcopal Parish, I had read that Episcopal worship is very Catholic, but Episcopal beliefs are very Protestant. I think I even mentioned that on some threads. After 5 months, I would say their worship is very Catholic, and their beliefs lean toward Catholicism and, even more so, towards Eastern Orthodox. I don’t know what happened to the Protestant beliefs I read about. You may be right Crazzeto, the decision to “convert” may be made for me; but I’ll keep bugging you in the mean time.

Anna

 

[Bluegoat]

Bluegoat,

That’s so interesting that you have an Orthodox congregation that meets in your Hall, and that you see Orthodox as a possibility. Are the teachings in your Parish EO in nature?

The first time I visited the Episcopal Church; I was rather surprised to see 4 beautiful icons in the Nave. I later learned they are the icons found in every Orthodox Church around the Great Doors leading to sanctuary. The 4 icons were commissioned by our Rector, and are by Teresa Harrison (who studied with Philip Zimmerman and Kzenia Pokrovsky.) The icons are The Blessed Virgin Mary; Kyrie Pantocrator (Christ as the Lord and Creator of Heaven and Earth - a form modeled on the oldest extant icon in the world found in St. Catherine’s Monastery, Sinai, Egypt); St. John the Baptist; and our patron saint (a Western saint represented in Eastern style.)

The leaflet I received on the icons says, “The icons are intended to enhance our devotion to God, especially the Love revealed to us on the Cross, which hangs at their center as the focal point. The icons, then, suggest 'the ‘angels and archangels, and all the company of heaven’ who join us in worshiping and glorifying the Crucified and Risen Christ.”

The Rector often uses EO prayers and quotes EO writings and ECF’s in general. He also quotes Popes, especially JP II. He does quote Anglican writers also.

When I first visited this Episcopal Parish, I had read that Episcopal worship is very Catholic, but Episcopal beliefs are very Protestant. I think I even mentioned that on some threads. After 5 months, I would say their worship is very Catholic, and their beliefs lean toward Catholicism and, even more so, towards Eastern Orthodox. I don’t know what happened to the Protestant beliefs I read about. You may be right Crazzeto, the decision to “convert” may be made for me; but I’ll keep bugging you in the mean time.

Anna

Well, I wouldn’t say they are exactly close to EO. They are what I would call classical Anglicans, a little bit high church, but not too much, a very little bit Anglo-Catholic. Although the last rector had a doctorate in Byzantine studies, so some of that may have sunk into the congregation.

If I go anywhere, it would be to the Orthodox Church. I don’t consider the Catholic Church a viable option. But I am also in a really great congregation, and my husband wouldn’t want to leave it - he is a much newer Christian than I am. Although if I were just in the Hall, it would be fairly convenient, and he could do coffee and donuts twice!

 

[Sophiethenerd]

If you ask me, they weren’t any of the modern denominations. Different traditions were added as time went on. Denominations are different interpretations of the Bible. Like, there wasn’t a pope in the first century, to my knowledge.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Well, I wouldn’t say they are exactly close to EO. They are what I would call classical Anglicans, a little bit high church, but not too much, a very little bit Anglo-Catholic. Although the last rector had a doctorate in Byzantine studies, so some of that may have sunk into the congregation.

If I go anywhere, it would be to the Orthodox Church. I don’t consider the Catholic Church a viable option. But I am also in a really great congregation, and my husband wouldn’t want to leave it - he is a much newer Christian than I am. Although if I were just in the Hall, it would be fairly convenient, and he could do coffee and donuts twice!

Bluegoat,

There’s much to be said for great congregations; and worshiping with your spouse is important. Though, the Hall is close by, and donuts and coffee times-two doesn’t sound so bad.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

If you ask me, they weren’t any of the modern denominations. Different traditions were added as time went on. Denominations are different interpretations of the Bible. Like, there wasn’t a pope in the first century, to my knowledge.

Sophiethenerd,

I see you joined the forums, today. Welcome!!! These are great forums.

I agree that there were not any of the “modern” denominations in the early Church–there were actually no denominations.

As for no pope in the first century, Catholics consider Simon Peter, or Cephas, to be the first Pope. They have some strong arguments for this position. I think James is overlooked in regards to his role and authority in the early Church. I’m still studying. So, not ready to take on detailed debates in that regard.

St. Peter’s Basilica, in Vatican City, is believed to be the site where St. Peter was crucified (upside down) and buried. What is believed to be St. Peter’s tomb was excavated from under St. Peter’s Basilica. His relics/tomb are now enshrined under the high altar.

Catholics can give you the details about their belief that Peter was the first Pope (keys, authority, rock upon which the Church is built, etc.)

Peace,
Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Anna,

A book that REALLY amazed me in its scholarship and readability as well as outstanding points in favor of the Orthodox approach to the papacy was a book I picked up in a Catholic book store, of all places, in San Francisco about 8 years ago.

It’s called “The Primacy of Peter.” I consider it one of the best-written Orthodox books I’ve ever read. amazon.com/Primacy-Peter-Essays-Ecclesiology-Church/dp/0881411256/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279853933&sr=8-1

The late John Meyendorff was an incredibly learned man. Along with two other big named Orthodox writers/scholars they make a very, very convincing argument that the Roman Catholic approach to the papacy is extremely misguided and at bare minimum extremely shaky ground. You can read the book in about three days, two if you really sit down and curl up with it. I have read it five or six times. It’s awesome.

Sophiethenerd,

I see you joined the forums, today. Welcome!!! These are great forums.

I agree that there were not any of the “modern” denominations in the early Church–there were actually no denominations.

As for no pope in the first century, Catholics consider Simon Peter, or Cephas, to be the first Pope. They have some strong arguments for this position. I think James is overlooked in regards to his role and authority in the early Church. I’m still studying. So, not ready to take on detailed debates in that regard.

St. Peter’s Basilica, in Vatican City, is believed to be the site where St. Peter was crucified (upside down) and buried. What is believed to be St. Peter’s tomb was excavated from under St. Peter’s Basilica. His relics/tomb are now enshrined under the high altar.

Catholics can give you the details about their belief that Peter was the first Pope (keys, authority, rock upon which the Church is built, etc.)

Peace,
Anna

 

[guanophore]

You are asking us to look at the “earliest Christians,” and see if their beliefs and practices match that which exists in modernity.

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.

At what point in history did the practices named in gurney’s post begin? How are they supported in Holy Scripture? What evidence do we have that each of these things were practiced by the “earliest Christians”?
Anna

I think it is very important to separate human traditions from Sacred tradtitions. I is is also important to distinguish spiritual practices and disciplines (which are optional) from the doctrines of the faith from which they flow. The rosary and scapulars are spiritual practices but are not part of the doctrine of the faith.

Eucharistic Adoration began when the disciples recognized Jesus in the breaking of the bread. The manner in which it has been practiced has varied, but the Apostles understood that it was His flesh and blood, and they were accustomed to worshipping HIm.

Purgatory was received from the Jews, and was believed for centuries prior to Christ. Jesus affirmed this belief in HIs teaching.

Indulgences were practiced by the Apostles, and are taught by Paul in Scripture.

I don’t think the notion of the Immaculate conception was understood for a long time. It was not until heresies arose about the nature of Christ that this was defined.

There are a lot of “language” or terms not used by the Apostles, such as the hypostatic union, the Trinity, etc. There is nothing in these ideas that was not embraced by the Apostles.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You’re correct

I think it is very important to separate human traditions from Sacred tradtitions. I is is also important to distinguish spiritual practices and disciplines (which are optional) from the doctrines of the faith from which they flow. The rosary and scapulars are spiritual practices but are not part of the doctrine of the faith.

That’s quite a leap to say the least. Of course we are told that the disciples recognized the Lord in the beraking of the Bread. But does that mean they didn’t consume the bread in a meal context and instead took the bread, placed it on the mantle or somewhere in a chapel and prayed in front of it? Knowing Christ is the Eucharist and worshipping it instead of eating it are two different things. Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and Lutherans all believe the Eucharist is Jesus. When you say “the manner in which it has been practiced has varied” that’s again quite a leap. No manner of Adoration existed until the Middle Ages. The fact that the Orthodox still in 2010 don’t have any remote type of Adoration testifies to the fact that it is a development. I’m not saying it’s an evil development but it is an innovation nevertheless.
Eucharistic Adoration began when the disciples recognized Jesus in the breaking of the bread. The manner in which it has been practiced has varied, but the Apostles understood that it was His flesh and blood, and they were accustomed to worshipping HIm.

**There’s some evidence in Maccabees of praying for the dead. Does that equal a situation in which a treasury of merit can be tapped into for souls being purged through fire in a mystical place awaiting final holiness and perfection to enter God’s house? **
Purgatory was received from the Jews, and was believed for centuries prior to Christ. Jesus affirmed this belief in HIs teaching.

**This one I find more than a leap, this is a high jump and discus combined. Quite the contrary. Paul testifies to the fact that we are justified by faith, Christ accomplished our salvation on the Cross, works lead to boasting, and yet we are supposed to keep our eye on the Lord, eye on the prize, all the way lest we lose our faith. Paul would be the last proponent of indulgences that I could think of in all of human history? When did the Apostles practice indulgences? Visiting relics? Praying a certain formula of prayers? Visiting holy shrines? Treasury of merit? Romans, Galatians, Colossians, and the Pauline language rails against this idea. **
Indulgences were practiced by the Apostles, and are taught by Paul in Scripture.

It’s by no means biblical but makes plenty of sense in light of the theology of Original Sin that Augustine favored. Numerous men had different views about it. Aquinas had a “where does it end?” philosophy about it. If Jesus needed a perfect vessel to hold him then he needed a perfect mother. If Mary were to be a perfect mother, she’d need a perfect mother to hold her, so Ann would be immaculate. And it keeps going backward to an endless immaculate pedigree. That was his sentiment, St. Bernard was antagonistic to this view as well. But many, many great churchmen favored it. I happen to have no problem with this dogma. Do I think a person needs to believe it (as the Catholic Church teaches) to inherit eternal salvation? No.
I don’t think the notion of the Immaculate conception was understood for a long time. It was not until heresies arose about the nature of Christ that this was defined.

**Very true. The Trinity is very implicit and explicit all over the NT. Nicaea was right to follow Scripture and the tradition laid down to them. Men like Cardinal Newman taught that development doctrine was perfectly fine. I happen to agree to a point. And if someone admits to me that Adoration is a development, an innovation, and yet a logical and holy one inspired by the Holy Spirit, I can buy that. But saying it existed in the time of Jesus and back to the early days doesn’t make sense to me and it weakens the argument. I’m ok with development doctrine but not with “day one” arguments in all areas. **
There are a lot of “language” or terms not used by the Apostles, such as the hypostatic union, the Trinity, etc. There is nothing in these ideas that was not embraced by the Apostles.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna,

A book that REALLY amazed me in its scholarship and readability as well as outstanding points in favor of the Orthodox approach to the papacy was a book I picked up in a Catholic book store, of all places, in San Francisco about 8 years ago.

It’s called “The Primacy of Peter.” I consider it one of the best-written Orthodox books I’ve ever read. amazon.com/Primacy-Peter-Essays-Ecclesiology-Church/dp/0881411256/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279853933&sr=8-1

The late John Meyendorff was an incredibly learned man. Along with two other big named Orthodox writers/scholars they make a very, very convincing argument that the Roman Catholic approach to the papacy is extremely misguided and at bare minimum extremely shaky ground. You can read the book in about three days, two if you really sit down and curl up with it. I have read it five or six times. It’s awesome.

Gurney,

I really appreciate the suggestion. I let you know what I think, after I read it. I’ll send you a PM.

Thanks,
Anna

 

[crazzeto]

Gurney,

I really appreciate the suggestion. I let you know what I think, after I read it. I’ll send you a PM.

Thanks,
Anna

Anna,

Have you looked at the EWTN posting I sent you? One thing I found interesting and relevent to the question

“But was the Eucharist ever taken out of the meal context and placed on the alter…”

ewtn.com/library/homelibr/historea.txt

It is interesting to note that one of the first unmistakable
references to reserving the Blessed Sacrament is found in a life of
St. Basil (who died in 379). Basil is said to have divided the
Eucharistic Bread into three parts when he celebrated Mass in the
monastery. One part he consumed, the second part he gave to the
monks, and the third he placed in a golden dove suspended over the
altar.

It would seem the answer to this is yes, and it originated in the East actually.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna,

Have you looked at the EWTN posting I sent you? One thing I found interesting and relevent to the question

“But was the Eucharist ever taken out of the meal context and placed on the alter…”

ewtn.com/library/homelibr/historea.txt

It would seem the answer to this is yes, and it originated in the East actually.

Crazzeto,

I started going through this. It’s about 20 pages. I want to read it carefully. Got some things to get done today; but will get back to this as soon as I can. Looks very interesting.

Thanks, Crazzeto
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna,

A book that REALLY amazed me in its scholarship and readability as well as outstanding points in favor of the Orthodox approach to the papacy was a book I picked up in a Catholic book store, of all places, in San Francisco about 8 years ago.

It’s called “The Primacy of Peter.” I consider it one of the best-written Orthodox books I’ve ever read. amazon.com/Primacy-Peter-Essays-Ecclesiology-Church/dp/0881411256/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279853933&sr=8-1

The late John Meyendorff was an incredibly learned man. Along with two other big named Orthodox writers/scholars they make a very, very convincing argument that the Roman Catholic approach to the papacy is extremely misguided and at bare minimum extremely shaky ground. You can read the book in about three days, two if you really sit down and curl up with it. I have read it five or six times. It’s awesome.

Gurney,

I just ordered “The Primacy of Peter.” Looks very interesting.

Thanks,
Anna