Which Church would be the most recognizable to Early Christians?

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CathBoy1

New member
Which Church would be the most recognizable to Early Christians?
What I mean to ask is, if somehow a Christian from between the years 100 & 300 ended up in our time, which church could he (or she) walk into and instantly recognize it as his (or her) church?
I understand that language might be a barrier to the above mentioned Early Christian, so let’s leave that issue out.
I’m just looking for your opinion & why.
I would imagine that it would be a Church of Eastern Tradition, either Catholic or Orthodox, but am I right in that assumption?
What’s your opinion?
 
I think the Oriental Orthodox of Egypt. I’m not going to base it on theology, but perhaps more on architecture (so it is literally “recognizable”) and in hierarchy. Remember, Egypt was the home of Christian monasticism. That church also had far less outside influence before the 1900s or so than certain other churches. Next, maybe, would be the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and its Eritrean counterpart…

As for music (chants in all forms), we have variations, and these would primarily fall into whatever Catholic or Orthodox traditions of music would look most like the early Church’s. Music is widely influenced, and we all stole music from each other at some time while also making our own.
 
The Church has always been liturgical going back to our Jewish roots.

And Eucharistic/Sacramental.

So in that regard it resembles the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

The one question i would have is about icons/statues, etc. I know there were debates about Icons in the first, say, 800 years of the Church before they became universal.

So not sure how the appearance would look? Maybe more like a non denominational Church?
 
I honestly don’t think the earliest church would recognise any church either ancient or modern at least not at first. There has been a clear development since the apostolic community in the way Churches have operated and function. Vestments, big cathedrals, the way we handle the sacrament I do not think was how the apostles handled things.

I obviously think that if the apostles or the earliest churches suddenly found themselves here today, knowing the history of the Church since their time they would naturally situate themselves in Orthodoxy though I think they would be amazed in general just what the Church has become, both for it’s keeping the faith and how markedly different it is from their own time.
 
I think before the schism between East and West it would be the Catholic/Orthodox church.
 
Thanks for all the replies, my opinion would be that a church which uses The Divine Liturgy Of St James would be most recognizable to an early Christian, as it is the oldest surviving liturgy around.
I know there are a few churches that still use it. Although I would love a list of both Catholic & Orthodox churches that still use it.
I’m still interested in any opinions on this, any history buffs out there?👍
 
IgnatianPhilo said:
I honestly don’t think the earliest church would recognise any church either ancient or modern at least not at first. There has been a clear development since the apostolic community in the way Churches have operated and function. Vestments, big cathedrals, the way we handle the sacrament I do not think was how the apostles handled things.

I obviously think that if the apostles or the earliest churches suddenly found themselves here today, knowing the history of the Church since their time they would naturally situate themselves in Orthodoxy though I think they would be amazed in general just what the Church has become, both for it’s keeping the faith and how markedly different it is from their own time.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. If we are talking about the Christianity of the first or second century, remember that their worship was primarily in homes and over dinner. I doubt if any of our current churches would have anything familiar to them, except Scripture (and then perhaps not, since the canon was not yet determined). True they did pass the cup and bread, but it was traditionally in the midst of the dinner at table.

Christians - those who were Jewish - still went to synagogue where they had readings and prayer and teachings. Early Christians would probably recognize a good Shabbat service these days over a High Mass.

I am sometimes surprised that many people think that from the beginning there were church buildings and priests and congregations who gathered for Mass around the altar. That took centuries to build.
 
ComplineSanFran said:
I agree with you. If we are talking about the Christianity of the first or second century, remember that their worship was primarily in homes and over dinner. I doubt if any of our current churches would have anything familiar to them, except Scripture (and then perhaps not, since the canon was not yet determined). True they did pass the cup and bread, but it was traditionally in the midst of the dinner at table.

Christians - those who were Jewish - still went to synagogue where they had readings and prayer and teachings. Early Christians would probably recognize a good Shabbat service these days over a High Mass.

I am sometimes surprised that many people think that from the beginning there were church buildings and priests and congregations who gathered for Mass around the altar. That took centuries to build.
Click to expand...
I’m not so sure that the house churches in which you refer to are as informal as you might think.
bombaxo.com/didascalia.html

blog.adw.org/2014/08/the-ancient-mass-in-the-house-churches-was-not-as-informal-as-many-think/
These make for interesting reads, their actually what made me ask this question in the first place.😉
 
CathBoy1 said:
Which Church would be the most recognizable to Early Christians?
What I mean to ask is, if somehow a Christian from between the years 100 & 300 ended up in our time, which church could he (or she) walk into and instantly recognize it as his (or her) church?
I understand that language might be a barrier to the above mentioned Early Christian, so let’s leave that issue out.
I’m just looking for your opinion & why.
I would imagine that it would be a Church of Eastern Tradition, either Catholic or Orthodox, but am I right in that assumption?
What’s your opinion?
Click to expand...
I reccomentlded reading the history of the church

The three, the Orthodox and Catholic and Eastern churches used to be one at one poin tonly one true church. Eastern( not all but tension started with some herresies. With the Orthodox was when there were political tensions which later on found reasons doctrinal to separate from the catholic church. In their view they claim we separated from them it is what we call East-West schism (bit of it, ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/EASTWEST.TXT)
catholicbridge.com/orthodox/timeline_history_of_catholic_orthodox_relations.php

Here is the history of it. Some separated due to herresy others due to the did not wanted to recognize the authority of the Pope

Catholic:
newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm

Orthodox (we still use orthodox but not as a denomination, they started using it later as a denomination):
newadvent.org/cathen/11330a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/11329a.htm

Eastern churches:
newadvent.org/cathen/05230a.htm

Schism:
newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm
East schism:
newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm
Western schism:
newadvent.org/cathen/13539a.htm
There’s another book called my catholic faith which explain the differences. . From the Orthodox perspective they claim we separated from them but that’s another whole issue.
The Orthodox recognize that theologically we can be the same but politically it is another issue
americamagazine.org/issue/636/article/what-divides-orthodox-and-catholics

Orthodox have a problem with the term immaculate conception. But we catholics do not because we know it is the truth:
staycatholic.com/ecf_immaculate_conception.htm

All were Peter went to Rome. There is also the see if Antioch and Rome since the apostolic times but that’s another whole topic. Wherever Saint Peter was the church followed
 
What came immediately into my mind when I read the question was easter dawn mass my first while in Ireland. On a simple sandy beach,waves breaking as light dawned and the immortal words echoing…
 
DaddyGirl said:
The charismatic churches, methinks.
Weren’t the churches Paul was starting in the different towns he went to “charismatic” in nature and set up?

.
Click to expand...
Yes. We see this a lot in Acts and Paul’s letters. 1 Corinthians 14 is a good example.
 
Good question and I’m not sure of the answer, but, I do think part of the answer lies in geography. By that I mean where would this contemporary church be located, some large North American suburban church filled with middle to upper middle class people, projecting that polished “have it together” “beautiful people” image, with a parking lot filled with new cars. Or, a inner city church with it poverty and readily apparent brokenness or a church in South America or Africa etc, again without the trappings of suburban North American wealth/consumerism/individualism etc. I do think Early Christians would be more comfortable in small churches (Protestant, Catholic, EO) in poorer less individualistic society than in many churches in NA where that isn’t the case.
 
Home churches, probably, albeit with a little more liturgy I would imagine, esp. with readings, prayers, and psalms from what we call the OT… and more food. 😛
 
susanlo said:
Yes. We see this a lot in Acts and Paul’s letters. 1 Corinthians 14 is a good example.
Click to expand...
Interesting. My read of the same Bible passage shows me the Churches written about are the opposite of the charismatic types of today.
Make love your aim, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. 2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. 3 On the other hand, he who prophesies speaks to men for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. 4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. 5 Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues, unless some one interprets, so that the church may be edified.
Click to expand...
6 Now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how shall I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching? 7 If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will any one know what is played? 8 And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? 9 So with yourselves; if you in a tongue utter speech that is not intelligible, how will any one know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning; 11 but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me. 12 So with yourselves; since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church.
Click to expand...
13 Therefore, he who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. 15 What am I to do? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. 16 Otherwise, if you bless[a] with the spirit, how can any one in the position of an outsider** say the “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? 17 For you may give thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified. 18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all; 19 nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.
Click to expand...
20 Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; be babes in evil, but in thinking be mature**. 21 In the law it is written, “By men of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.” 22 Thus, tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers. 23 If, therefore, the whole church assembles and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.
Click to expand...
26 What then, brethren? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 27 If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn; and let one interpret. 28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silence in church and speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 30 If a revelation is made to another sitting by, let the first be silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged; 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. 33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.
Click to expand...
As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. 35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. 36 What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?
Click to expand...
37 If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord. 38 If any one does not recognize this, he is not recognized. 39 So, my brethren, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues; 40 but all things should be done decently and in order.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top