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

[3Sanctus]

Adoration is simple…

If you believe that the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ then there’s no issue with worshiping Him.

If one takes issue with worshiping Him in the Eucharist, then do they really believe in the Real Presence - which is Christian dogma?

 

[crazzeto]

Adoration is simple…

If you believe that the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ then there’s no issue with worshiping Him.

If one takes issue with worshiping Him in the Eucharist, then do they really believe in the Real Presence - which is Christian dogma?

It would seem that simple, but unfortunetly there would be those who would claim that the faith can only be kept via the form of worship. This presupposes that one can only worship as literally taught by the Apostles, which is highly problematic for those people who try and maintain this as it would negate the Kingdom of heaven being a mustard seed.

 

[3Sanctus]

It would seem that simple, but unfortunetly there would be those who would claim that the faith can only be kept via the form of worship. This presupposes that one can only worship as literally taught by the Apostles, which is highly problematic for those people who try and maintain this as it would negate the Kingdom of heaven being a mustard seed.

We have to be careful with innovations, surely (I think the last 50 years have taught us that lesson quite well), but change is something the Church can do in certain circumstances. If change weren’t allowed at all we’d all be Jews!

 

[cevaughnjr]

From what I have researched those who followed Christ after His death were called followers of the WAY. The Church then was simply called The Way.
Not long after Christ had ascended into Heaven, various heresies began to spring up. In order for Christians to discern who was the real deal it was decided to call the Church catholic, meaning universal. It became Roman Catholic because its head, the Pope was in Rome. . I hope this helps you. You may want to consult some of Scott Hahn’s works.
In Christ,
Charles

 

[Anna_Scott]

Hahahah I am sorry I’am mostly a reader and I kinda figured that Crazzeto had posted that link but I didn’t bother checking sorry.

If you have Itunes you can go to the podcast section and look up James Dobbins he has great classes on Catholic apologetics and the Euchrist is also included in there and for free .

If you don’t have Itunes when I get home i’ll post the link for his page and it has all the audio from all his classes.

God Bless

eddy,

You know I was kidding around with you–not intended to be “mean spirited” in any way. I wanted to make sure you knew that. It’s difficult to interpret tone on forums.

I don’t have Itunes, so would love the link. I always welcome resources.

Thanks,

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Bluegoat,

Interesting that you brought this up; because I think the Episcopal Church I’m attending does this also. Guess I really need to sort out the “adoration” issue. As most of you have figured out, I’m a work in progress.

I have mixed feelings about reservation of the Host; and I don’t really know where we are to draw the line, when it comes to reservation for purposes other than Communion. This is a tough issue for me. Crazzeto gave a very compelling argument for Adoration. Maybe I’m just not ready. I’ve made a lot of changes in a short period of time.

As I’ve said before; it’s kinda like my problems with night vision. I can only drive as fast as I can see.

Guess “Miss Daisy” isn’t ready for Eucharistic Adoration.

Anna

One of the only times I feel comfortable with the idea of something like adoration is after the Maundy Thursday service, where they reserve the Sacrament for Friday on a side altar and there is an all night prayer vigil. It is very much the image of being awake with Christ in the garden. In the church I attended when I first became a Christian, and the one I attend now, we used to decorate the side altar with all kinds of plants to make it like a garden.

For me this begs the question, how is it acceptable in this case, but not the general case?

This is a valid point. Where does one draw the line in taking the Eucharist out of The Mass? I’m still wondering why Catholics stopped carrying the Eucharist for protection, as the Monks did. Did someone decide this was crossing the line? Just curious.

I was ribbing eddy about changing his name to the “drive-by poster.” Maybe I should change my name to Miss Daisy.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

We have to be careful with innovations, surely (I think the last 50 years have taught us that lesson quite well), but change is something the Church can do in certain circumstances. If change weren’t allowed at all we’d all be Jews!

3Sanctus,

What constitutes an innovation? Is taking the Eucharist out of The Mass an innovation? It’s easy for Catholics. Someone has decided all these things for you. Yet, beliefs in the Catholic Church have gone through many changes over the centuries.

Anna

 

[crazzeto]

This is a valid point. Where does one draw the line in taking the Eucharist out of The Mass? I’m still wondering why Catholics stopped carrying the Eucharist for protection, as the Monks did. Did someone decide this was crossing the line? Just curious.

I was ribbing eddy about changing his name to the “drive-by poster.” Maybe I should change my name to Miss Daisy.

Anna

With regard to carrying the Eucharist for protection, I would surrmize there are a fair number of reasons why one wouldn’t do this. First and foremost I’m sad to say, is probably because I have heard reports that as many as 65% either don’t know what the Eucharist is, or don’t beleive it is what the Church says it is. As such, with an overwhelming number of layity not knowing or beleiveing in what the Eucharist is, there is a very significant chance of sacralige of the worst kind, if the Church were to just hand it out to anyone that asked.

This aside, the fact is if you look at the records it was Monks who carried the Eucharist, not the lay faithful in general. So regardless, the lay faithful wouldn’t have been carrying around the Eucharist regardless, and typically the Monks weren’t just carrying it around for protection, rather there were other more official functions as well. No doubt, the Monks treated the Eucharist properly, and each were consumed as mandated.

Additionally, there’s the practical matter that on balance, our world actually isn’t quite as violent as it was back then. You’re just not very likely to get murdered and robbed, not like you were back then. I think the middle reason is the biggie though =)

God bless, and I maintain my image has everything to do with drive by posting

 

[Grant1]

But I ask this being a person with a deep respect for the Catholic Church. It is something that came to me when praying.

Peter was not the only church planter and he (and Christ if we believe all scripture) gave their blessing to Paul as well. Then, Paul went out and planted churches and surely we can’t say they didn’t have Christ’s blessing because they are again mentioned in scripture in Revelation by John and each with a different message…but certaily part of The Body. So while I don’t dispute in any way that the current Catholic Church came from Peter (and I very much respect this), I’m not sure why lineage has so much to do with making the current Catholic Church the one “true church” because early on that was not the case.

In addition, I understand the problem with Matthew 18:18 and the difference of “you” being interpreted as singular or plural, but even if we put that scripture aside for a moment, the Great Commission was to all.

So again, I think it’s wonderful the Catholic Church has maintained it’s lineage to Peter, but I don’t know how to reconcile the “one true church” problem. I just don’t see it in the whole of scripture.

Thank you in advance for your sincere and loving answers my Brothers and Sisters.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I have often wondered why, if Adoration is a logical doctrinal progression and makes so much sense as a development, why the Orthodox never once instituted Adoration or anything like it?

I actually have heard Catholic apologists say “they didn’t utilize Adoration because they use levened bread and it wouldn’t fit in the monstrance.” That was about as weak an answer as a human being could possibly muster IMO.

I think the reason the Orthodox never had Adoration is that they never had the heresies about the nature of Christ post 1054 that would react to it. Just like they never had the holy rosary because they never had heresies like albigensianism that prompted St. Dominic to encourage the rosary devotions…I think much of Catholic devotion and innovation is reaction to heresies. Orthodox have done far better in staving off or just plain not having heresies to begin with. They don’t have scapulars and Adoration, rosaries, divine mercy paintings, and all the rest. They also tend to always include Jesus in almost all of their icons of Mary. They see Mary and Christ as inseperable. Most of their devotions haven’t changed in a long, long time. I like that about them…Sometimes less is more

3Sanctus,

What constitutes an innovation? Is taking the Eucharist out of The Mass an innovation? It’s easy for Catholics. Someone has decided all these things for you. Yet, beliefs in the Catholic Church have gone through many changes over the centuries.

Anna

 

[turtleoompa]

They were the Catholic ( Roman and Eastern) and Orthodox of today. The Catholic and Orthodox peoples have been practicing what was handed down to us from the time of Jesus. Shall we say about the time of Pentacost. We have been doing communion, participating in Mass/Liturgy, praying, giving service to others as we were taught by the Apostles of Jesus. Sure the Protestants may not see everything we do in “their”(incomplete) Bible, but the practice was being done by our fathers since at least Pentacost, prior to the Bible. The writings in the Bible were what we were saying in our Masses/Liturgies as we continue to do so to this day. The reason the Catholic/Orthodox communities put the Bible together was so we would have the inspired word of God put together in a “common” book that we could all be in communion with each other during our Mass/Liturgies. The Bible is a Catholic book. The Mass/Liturgy is taken right out of the Bible." It is a very simple thing." It is not complicated to the Catholic/Orthodox communities .It is complicated to people outside of these communities because it is not fully understood by them. So people put a “spin” on something they want to understand, but cannot fully comprehend. There are many Protestant pastors who have converted to Catholicism because they did their" complete homework" and found the" truth." I have made my simple statement and am done. God Bless you all.

 

[Anna_Scott]

But I ask this being a person with a deep respect for the Catholic Church. It is something that came to me when praying.

Peter was not the only church planter and he (and Christ if we believe all scripture) gave their blessing to Paul as well. Then, Paul went out and planted churches and surely we can’t say they didn’t have Christ’s blessing because they are again mentioned in scripture in Revelation by John and each with a different message…but certaily part of The Body. So while I don’t dispute in any way that the current Catholic Church came from Peter (and I very much respect this), I’m not sure why lineage has so much to do with making the current Catholic Church the one “true church” because early on that was not the case.

In addition, I understand the problem with Matthew 18:18 and the difference of “you” being interpreted as singular or plural, but even if we put that scripture aside for a moment, the Great Commission was to all.

So again, I think it’s wonderful the Catholic Church has maintained it’s lineage to Peter, but I don’t know how to reconcile the “one true church” problem. I just don’t see it in the whole of scripture.

Thank you in advance for your sincere and loving answers my Brothers and Sisters.

Grant1,

I see you just joined CAF, today. Welcome!

You’re starting off with one of the most complex questions; and one that has been debated for centuries. It comes up often on the forums. This is a topic that needs a thread of it’s own.

Any thoughts on Eucharistic Adoration and the early Church?
Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

As Anna said, Grant, welcome to CAF. I will recommend to you the same book that I recommended to Anna to see a different perspective of this topic than you’ll see from most Catholics in here. Please order this book, the Primacy of Peter, edited and partially written by the late great John Meyendorff, a brilliant and passionate and intelligent Orthodox priest and prolific writer in the 20th Century. He and his cohorts tackle the Peter issues and show you a historical view of the other side of the argument about Peter. It’s fascinating reading, brother…it’s written for a layman and can be read in a couple days easily…Here’s the link for the book in case you’re interested. I highly recommend it and think it might answer your questions or at the very least give you another perspective.

Yours in Christ,
Gurney
amazon.com/Primacy-Peter-Essays-Ecclesiology-Church/dp/0881411256/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280524227&sr=8-1

But I ask this being a person with a deep respect for the Catholic Church. It is something that came to me when praying.

Peter was not the only church planter and he (and Christ if we believe all scripture) gave their blessing to Paul as well. Then, Paul went out and planted churches and surely we can’t say they didn’t have Christ’s blessing because they are again mentioned in scripture in Revelation by John and each with a different message…but certaily part of The Body. So while I don’t dispute in any way that the current Catholic Church came from Peter (and I very much respect this), I’m not sure why lineage has so much to do with making the current Catholic Church the one “true church” because early on that was not the case.

In addition, I understand the problem with Matthew 18:18 and the difference of “you” being interpreted as singular or plural, but even if we put that scripture aside for a moment, the Great Commission was to all.

So again, I think it’s wonderful the Catholic Church has maintained it’s lineage to Peter, but I don’t know how to reconcile the “one true church” problem. I just don’t see it in the whole of scripture.

Thank you in advance for your sincere and loving answers my Brothers and Sisters.

 

[3Sanctus]

Just because something CAN be done doesn’t necessarily mean it MUST be done. If we are in the Eucharistic presence of Jesus Christ, then we must worship him duly; however, we don’t HAVE to practice Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament on a regular basis outside of Mass. That said, there’s nothing doctrinally wrong with it and it’s proved a very positive devotion for millions of Christians.

The Eastern Rite Christians don’t have Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament as part of their tradition (though I remember being told by a Byzantine Catholic friend once that he recalled a book reference to a, Orthodox priest bringing out the Jesus Christ so that others could worship him. There’s nothing against it, it’s just not part of their tradition.

While the Rosary is a mostly Roman thing, the Eastern Christians actually have akathists to the Blessed Virgin Mary that show her great veneration just like our Rosary does - and those akathists are almost as ancient as the Church itself.

As for innovation - the Church cannot create something contrary to Tradition (with a big “T”) or try to change Tradition (again, with a big “T”).

 

[3Sanctus]

But I ask this being a person with a deep respect for the Catholic Church. It is something that came to me when praying.

Peter was not the only church planter and he (and Christ if we believe all scripture) gave their blessing to Paul as well. Then, Paul went out and planted churches and surely we can’t say they didn’t have Christ’s blessing because they are again mentioned in scripture in Revelation by John and each with a different message…but certaily part of The Body. So while I don’t dispute in any way that the current Catholic Church came from Peter (and I very much respect this), I’m not sure why lineage has so much to do with making the current Catholic Church the one “true church” because early on that was not the case.

In addition, I understand the problem with Matthew 18:18 and the difference of “you” being interpreted as singular or plural, but even if we put that scripture aside for a moment, the Great Commission was to all.

So again, I think it’s wonderful the Catholic Church has maintained it’s lineage to Peter, but I don’t know how to reconcile the “one true church” problem. I just don’t see it in the whole of scripture.

Thank you in advance for your sincere and loving answers my Brothers and Sisters.

You’re forgetting the fact that Peter was the head of all the Apostles. He was the leader of the Church once Christ ascended to Heaven. Therefore, all those Christian communities founded by the other Apostles were all under Peter, since all the Apostles were under Peter.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

At the Council of Jerusalem, it sure looked like everyone was under James. At the Council of Nicaea it looked like everyone was under Constantine!

You’re forgetting the fact that Peter was the head of all the Apostles. He was the leader of the Church once Christ ascended to Heaven. Therefore, all those Christian communities founded by the other Apostles were all under Peter, since all the Apostles were under Peter.

 

[Anna_Scott]

But I ask this being a person with a deep respect for the Catholic Church. It is something that came to me when praying.

Peter was not the only church planter and he (and Christ if we believe all scripture) gave their blessing to Paul as well. Then, Paul went out and planted churches and surely we can’t say they didn’t have Christ’s blessing because they are again mentioned in scripture in Revelation by John and each with a different message…but certaily part of The Body. So while I don’t dispute in any way that the current Catholic Church came from Peter (and I very much respect this), I’m not sure why lineage has so much to do with making the current Catholic Church the one “true church” because early on that was not the case.

In addition, I understand the problem with Matthew 18:18 and the difference of “you” being interpreted as singular or plural, but even if we put that scripture aside for a moment, the Great Commission was to all.

So again, I think it’s wonderful the Catholic Church has maintained it’s lineage to Peter, but I don’t know how to reconcile the “one true church” problem. I just don’t see it in the whole of scripture.

Thank you in advance for your sincere and loving answers my Brothers and Sisters.

As Anna said, Grant, welcome to CAF. I will recommend to you the same book that I recommended to Anna to see a different perspective of this topic than you’ll see from most Catholics in here. Please order this book, the Primacy of Peter, edited and partially written by the late great John Meyendorff, a brilliant and passionate and intelligent Orthodox priest and prolific writer in the 20th Century. He and his cohorts tackle the Peter issues and show you a historical view of the other side of the argument about Peter. It’s fascinating reading, brother…it’s written for a layman and can be read in a couple days easily…Here’s the link for the book in case you’re interested. I highly recommend it and think it might answer your questions or at the very least give you another perspective.

Yours in Christ,
Gurney
amazon.com/Primacy-Peter-Essays-Ecclesiology-Church/dp/0881411256/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280524227&sr=8-1

Grant1,

I just started The Primacy of Peter. Looks like a great book.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

I have often wondered why, if Adoration is a logical doctrinal progression and makes so much sense as a development, why the Orthodox never once instituted Adoration or anything like it?

I actually have heard Catholic apologists say “they didn’t utilize Adoration because they use levened bread and it wouldn’t fit in the monstrance.” That was about as weak an answer as a human being could possibly muster IMO.

I think the reason the Orthodox never had Adoration is that they never had the heresies about the nature of Christ post 1054 that would react to it. Just like they never had the holy rosary because they never had heresies like albigensianism that prompted St. Dominic to encourage the rosary devotions…I think much of Catholic devotion and innovation is reaction to heresies. Orthodox have done far better in staving off or just plain not having heresies to begin with. They don’t have scapulars and Adoration, rosaries, divine mercy paintings, and all the rest. They also tend to always include Jesus in almost all of their icons of Mary. They see Mary and Christ as inseperable. Most of their devotions haven’t changed in a long, long time. I like that about them…Sometimes less is more

I think reaction to heresy is a huge factor in the development of certain religious practices; and, also, in the removal or marginalization of certain practices–and not just in Catholicism. We can see similar reactions in the Protestant Reformation. Sometimes the “baby was thrown out with the bathwater.”

The challenge is in discerning the natural development of the Gospel; and “innovations” developed as a reaction to heresy or to other factors, including political battles of the day.

Anna

 

[Grant1]

I will certainly look at “The Primacy of Peter.” Iron sharpens iron and I thank you all for your answers and direction. Much to pray about here.

In Christ
Grant

 

[Anna_Scott]

You’re forgetting the fact that Peter was the head of all the Apostles. He was the leader of the Church once Christ ascended to Heaven. Therefore, all those Christian communities founded by the other Apostles were all under Peter, since all the Apostles were under Peter.

At the Council of Jerusalem, it sure looked like everyone was under James. At the Council of Nicaea it looked like everyone was under Constantine!

Really, I think “The Primacy of Peter” would make a great thread, if anyone has the energy to start one.

Anna