Who here wants to be a 3rd Century Catholic?

[Servus_Pio_XII]

As I read through progressivist “propaganda”, I find an underlying theme of “well, it was that way in the early Church”. And so, here and now, I ask you: Do you really, honestly want to go back to 3rd Century Catholicism?

Such very little of what we now know to be truth was fully grasped. The Church was just coming out of a persecution, with it’s foot barely in the door in Roman society. Do you think they would have been grandiose? No, of course not! But not because they wouldn’t have liked it: they couldn’t!

All of the theological lights that had yet to come: St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Francis of Asissi, the first monastics. All of these had yet to exist in the Church! They had little understanding, compared to to-day, of what and how they were supposed to do. They were testing things, and with God’s guidance separating the wheat from the chaff.

Personally, I see this new movement to “go back” to early Christianity as absolute lunacy. It is like having separated the weeds from the grain, worked hard and enjoying the fruit of your labours, and then having someone come by and suggest throwing the weeds into the silo back with the grain.

The Church was not all-pure in the early days. It was, as is demonstrated by St. Paul’s and indeed every other early Saint’s writings, trying to discern true teaching and developing practises. And the hurch evolves. It always has. If one wishes to seek purity in the Church, and to worship God in the best way possible, one must propagate the natural progress of the Church, not seek to return an adult to infancy!

And so, I ask: Who here wants to be a 3rd Century Catholic? I know I don’t.

 

[Agricola]

Neither do I! I think that you may not give 3rd century Catholics enough credit though. The writings of the Church Fathers show that they believed the same things that we believed. Some of the doctrines were not as well defined, but they became so as was needed.

I see your point about the infancy of the Church at that time though. Especially when referring to liturgical practices, going back to a time when the Church was having a hard enough time just keeping in existence does not make sense. It is not purification, but a rejection of the series of purifications that have been experienced by the Church as a whole over the ages.

God bless,

Agricola

 

[MusicMan]

What language was the Mass in during the 3rd Century? Aramaic? Greek?

Were the Gnostics still around or had they been crushed in the desert as heretics?

I think this would be a cool time to be a Catholic with the Mass being at its early beginnings and traditions yet to be developed. We’d even have an answer on how to actually pronounce the Kyrie!

 

[Siena]

As long as the “liturgically forward-backward thinking” persons are worshipping in a tiny building without electricity, toilets, or heat, ok by me.

Go right ahead.

Just like the 3rd century.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Perhaps you could share some titles or links for the “progressives” you’re speaking of?

 

[ComradeAndrei]

I think some folks just use the excuse “well, the Early Church did it” as an excuse to introduce their own little feel good ideas into the Liturgy.

What does it matter if something was done in the Early Church? That doesn’t mean it should be taken out of context and reintroduced as a modernist invention with Early Church roots.

Why don’t we go back to the greater reverence, ceremony, and mystery that the earlier Church held? That would at least be a step in the right direction.

 

[palmas85]

I have heard so much about the primitive church, the ancient vernacular mass, how pure and how holy it all was, and I have to wonder. Just what is everyone talking about?

I mean, if you read Acts and Corinthians you see that the early church not only had problems but MAJOR problems. I mean do we really want to go back to the Agape and all that?

Some of the best minds in History thought about, prayed over and contemplated the doctrines of Catholicism and Christianity for generations. What are we supposed to do, just toss it all in the trash can and start over?.

Looks llike a losing proposition to me.

 

[ncjohn]

While certainly not being one who would want to lose all that the Church has learned over its 2000 years, there is an aspect to the early Church that I truly admire.

When you are on the bottom and persecuted, as the early Church was (and of course still is in parts of the world today), you figure out what you truly believe and live it in a way that those of us with untold options never can.

I look at the Church as depicted in Acts, a communist society in its pure form, and have to truly admire the faith it would have taken to live that. Chucking all your possessions and truly living an “each according to his means, each according to his need” life, where you were trusting in God to “give you your daily bread” rather than “storing up earthly treasures” is something that I think we could all do a little more with these days.

I know it is very easy for me to get caught up in “armchair theology” where I am not really being tested on whether I can or will live up to these principles I profess. Facing potential martyrdom at any moment would surely put all that in a different perspective.

Do I want to live in that world? Of course not; not many of us take our faith seriously enough (in my opinion) to be willing to go to that point. I do believe though that we individually, and we as Church would be a lot better off in many ways if we did. St. Francis knew that and God willing, I’m going to give my best shot to following that willingness to put my life totally and trustingly in God’s hands.

Peace,

 

[RobNY]

Servus Pio XII:

And so, I ask: Who here wants to be a 3rd Century Catholic? I know I don’t.

I prefer the modern Church’s lenient form of confession and penance, thankyouverymuch.

 

[Akanke]

What was confession and penance like in the third century?

This brings to mind the part of history where Nero (Nero, right?) was burning Christians as human torches. I can’t help but wonder, if I was one of those ones in the pit with good ole Valentine…would I have been unyielding in my profession of faith, or would I have scampered out to save my rear?

 

[Andrew_11]

Akanke:

What was confession and penance like in the third century?

In the third century you would have had to confess your sins to the entire church.

 

[Ahimsa]

Servus Pio XII:

And so, I ask: Who here wants to be a 3rd Century Catholic?

Can I keep my wireless internet access?

 

[RobNY]

Ahimsa:

Can I keep my wireless internet access?

Yes, but you can’t keep your cameras, or didn’t you read St. Cyprian’s *Against the Flash Photographers? *

 

[puzzleannie]

wasn’t there an early church council that addressed the issue of videotaping weddings and first communions and issued ananthemas right and left against that activity?

 

[WanderAimlessly]

A few months back, I posted a poll about when, if a person could, would like to live. I did however, throw a caveat in that they would be 5 years old and have no memory of the here and now. Nobody chose the time in question on this thread and I chose 1291 - 1517. Here is the link to that thread:
When would you live if you had the chance?
PF

 

[RobNY]

puzzleannie:

wasn’t there an early church council that addressed the issue of videotaping weddings and first communions and issued ananthemas right and left against that activity?

This is a COMMON Protestant misconception trying to slander the Church. Sacraments can only be invalidated by flash photography when they are done during the actual sacramental rite.

Refer to the Second Council of Polaroid, third session, fourth decree (258 AD):

If anyone saith that the Sacraments are not invalidated by the usage of Flash Photography; let him be anathema.

If anyone saith that any usage of Flash Photography cannot be used in any circumstances, excepting that of the Sacraments; let him be anathema.

And at the close of the council, the bishops cried aloud with one voice:

This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe!

 

[Kevin_PM]

I always thought the latin was the official language of the church from infancy (including the 3rd century) to the present time.

Shame that many churches don’t celebrate mass in latin anymore.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

MusicMan:

What language was the Mass in during the 3rd Century? Aramaic? Greek?

Were the Gnostics still around or had they been crushed in the desert as heretics?

I think this would be a cool time to be a Catholic with the Mass being at its early beginnings and traditions yet to be developed. We’d even have an answer on how to actually pronounce the Kyrie!

Mass was said in Greek in the Roman Church until the 4th Century. The change to Latin was certainly not a change to the vulgar language of the day, as some misinformed “liturgists” would have us believe, since most of the lower classes knew little or no Greek or Latin.

As for the OP’s comments about those who wish to return everything to the “primitive church”, we have only to look at Pope Pius XII in his 1947 encyclical Mediator Dei:

The desire to restore everything indiscriminately to its ancient condition is neither wise nor praiseworthy. It would be wrong, for example, to want the altar restored to its ancient form of table; to want black eliminated from liturgical colours, and pictures and statues eliminated from our churches; to require crucifixes that do not represent the bitter sufferings of the divine Redeemer. This attitude is an attempt to revive the “archaeologism” to which the pseudo-synod of Pistoia (1794) gave rise; it seeks also to re-introduce the many pernicious errors which led to that synod and resulted from it, and which the Church in her capacity of watchful guardian of “the deposit of faith” entrusted to her by her divine Founder has rightly condemned. It is a wicked movement, that tends to paralyse the sanctifying and salutary action by which the liturgy leads the children of adoption on the path to their heavenly Father.

The Vicar of Christ, Pope Pius XII “…wicked movement…”

Cardinal Newman also warned that to reverse the course of an existing development is not a development but a corruption.

 

[netmilsmom]

Dr. Bombay:

As for the OP’s comments about those who wish to return everything to the “primitive church”, we have only to look at Pope Pius XII in his 1947 encyclical Mediator Dei:
“The desire to restore everything indiscriminately to its ancient condition is neither wise nor praiseworthy. It would be wrong, for example, to want the altar restored to its ancient form of table; to want black eliminated from liturgical colours, and pictures and statues eliminated from our churches; to require crucifixes that do not represent the bitter sufferings of the divine Redeemer. This attitude is an attempt to revive the “archaeologism” to which the pseudo-synod of Pistoia (1794) gave rise; it seeks also to re-introduce the many pernicious errors which led to that synod and resulted from it, and which the Church in her capacity of watchful guardian of “the deposit of faith” entrusted to her by her divine Founder has rightly condemned. It is a wicked movement, that tends to paralyse the sanctifying and salutary action by which the liturgy leads the children of adoption on the path to their heavenly Father.”

The Vicar of Christ, Pope Pius XII “…wicked movement…”

Cardinal Newman also warned that to reverse the course of an existing development is not a development but a corruption.

Wow, that’s a find!

 

[slewi]

Indeed, that is a very telling and chilling passage.

S