Posted on 07/25/2010 10:11:59 AM PDT by NYer
Click the following link:
No but the photos from 155 a.d. really came out good. :-)
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Hmmm! Jesus is a Jew. Of course much of the church forgets this and the Jewish leaders want it that way.
Someone at that class lied to you.
1) There was a priesthood since AD 33.
2) It’s true there were no kneelers of pews - one of the reasons being there were very few church buildings so there were few permanent things built in worship spaces. Don’t forget, the Romans were still actively persecuting the Church at this point.
3) People still amble about and even great each other at Latin Masses today but they do so out of necessity and with decorum.
4) We still refer to the “presiding” priest today, but he is a priest and was in Justin Martyr’s time too. Most people forget that Martyr was writing for a non-Christian audience of one - the emperor - and so he used words the emperor could understand. If anyone says that Martyr’s use of “president” means there was no priesthood, then he is a moron and forgetting who Martyr was writing to.
5) There were prescribed responses - this we know from Martyr himself. Martyr, for instance, wrote, “The president offers prayers and gives thanks to the best of his ability, and the people give assent by saying, “Amen”.”
Obviously “Amen” was the expected, nay, the prescribed response. To say otherwise would be an expression of ignorance.
6)You wrote, “...communal prayers were not in Latin, but the native tongue.”
And what was the native tongue of several million people in the Roman Empire? R-O-M-A-N Empire. Latin, was it not? Not everyone spoke Latin, but many people did. I am sure that Koine Greek was used first - and that’s why we still have Koine Greek prayers in the Latin Mass (it’s called the Kyrie).
7)You wrote, “There were no vestments or relics on the altar or many of the other Jewish practices that the church later incorporated.”
Uh, the vestments that the Church uses to this day are largely from Roman dress - i.e. they were the clothes worn then and became vestments. They were not foisted on the Church. Fashions changed and what the piests wore didn’t. Also, the vestments are a great deal like what Jewish priests wore. Also, relics were present there whenever possible. Look at the catacombs. Mass was siad right there with the relics of the saints because that’s where they were buried!!!
I hope you can get your money back. You were robbed by your teacher.
The requirement for priests ended in 70 CEshalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.
It is commentary on the Tanach.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
St. Paul talks about meeting in people’s homes for a service (Mass) (likewise the other apostles held these services on Sundays) and that was a long time before the Canon of the Bible was decided.
So which comes first? The Church of St. Paul and the other apostles?? Or the Bible??
The Catholic Church wins this one! Christ ordained the apostles the first Bishops before his Ascension into heaven!
Sorry, Uri'el, The New Testament is not a "commentary" on the Tanach. And if it is were, the real Jews (not Protestant Christians pretending to be Jews), will tell you it's a horrible distortion of the Tanakh and the Jewish faith to which the Bereans belonged.
"Does the Bible support the change to Sunday? “Most Christians assume that Sunday is the biblically approved day of worship. The Catholic Church protests that it transferred Christian worship from the biblical Sabbath (Saturday) to Sunday, and that to try to argue that the change was made in the Bible is both dishonest and a denial of Catholic authority. If Protestantism wants to base its teachings only on the Bible, it should worship on Saturday.” Rome’s Challenge"
Wrong. “And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me’” (Luke 22:19). At that moment, Christ ordained the Apostles to share the fullness of his high priesthood. He instituted the sacrament of holy orders at the same time he is instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist, thus showing their intimate connection.
True. Pews are a Protestant invention, necessitated by the long sermons you guys are into. No pews in St. Peters to this day, for example.
not there was no priesthood at the time of Justin Martyr
Sure there was. J.M. came 50 years after Ignatius of Antioch, and Ignatius mentions the threefold division of the clergy: episcopoi ("overseers", bishops), presbyteroi ("elders", priests), and diakonoi (deacons).
there was no prescribed responses
Read Hyppolytus of Rome. There most certainly were some prescribed responses.
the communal prayers were not in Latin, but the native tongue
No, they were in Greek, which wasn't the "native tongue" in the West. Later on, they were translated into the "native tongue," which was of course Latin.
There were no vestments
Again, this is wrong. Clerical dress as we know it today developed from the common dress of the upper-class Roman at that time. It's secular dress that has changed since then. If you could be transported back to a Christian service of the 2nd or 3rd Century, you would discover that the "president" was dressed something like this:
He wears a linen tunic (compare to the priest's alb of today) and over it a toga (compare to the chasuble of today). The men in the congregation dressed much the same. Over time, secular dress for men has changed greatly. Priestly dress has changed, too, but much less.
relics on the altar
Again, quite commonly Mass was celebrated in the catacombs, on the tombs of the martyrs, which is where the practice of incorporating a relic in the altar originated.
True, though it's hard to be too angry at American Fundamentalists when their philo-Semitism seems so much more in tune with the whole bible than the traditional anti-Semitism of other chr*stians. And the Ethiopian Church is a little Judaically syncretistic as well (I've read somewhere that they claim to be the only chr*stian church in existence that is totally free of Marcionism).
Unfortunately, American "Bible chr*stians" accept the TaNa"KH, not on its own terms, but because it's part of the Protestant bible. They seem mentally/emotionally unable to think of a Hebrew Bible without a "new testament" tacked onto it.
Such nice people, but so frustrating!
Much like the Catholic church, there was no such thing as a Protestant church in 155 A.D.
Wrong. “And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me’” (Luke 22:19). At that moment, Christ ordained the Apostles to share the fullness of his high priesthood. He instituted the sacrament of holy orders at the same time he is instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist, thus showing their intimate connection.
Since the "last supper" was in fact a Pesach Seder . Passover was and is a YHvH commanded feast. A Passover Seder does not require a Priest So all of the Roman "church" eisegesis is bogus. Seek the face of YHvH in His Holy Word. The plain text would suggest the annual
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
celebration of Passover is what is to be
done in remembrance of the Jewish Messiah.
as it is a Family celebration.
Sorry, Uri'el, The New Testament is not a "commentary" on the Tanach. And if it is were, the real Jews (not Protestant Christians pretending to be Jews), will tell you it's a horrible distortion of the Tanakh and the Jewish faith to which the Bereans belonged.
If one reads the NT through the lens of the Paganism of Nicea
If one reads with the illumination of the Ru'ach haKodesh
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
one will see the seamlessness of the Word of G-d.
the Tanach will appear as a distortion.
Exactly right...the Greek (NT) testament is more often than not a misquotation, out of context interpretation of the Jewish law and prophets. They are not seamless at all.
Just like Mormonism is a misquoted, taken out of context interpretation of the "NT" and the "OT" resulting in a false doctrine of Christianity. Christianity does the same to Judaism.
As long as one remembers that their philo-Semitism is not really "philo" anything but a belief based on the New Testament that it is their divine duty to convert all the Jews to Christ before the second coming...
Exactly. Not something they teach in Sunday school is it? :)
Just like Mormonism is a misquoted, taken out of context interpretation of the "NT" and the "OT" resulting in a false doctrine of Christianity. Christianity does the same to Judaism
I use the same analogy all the time. Most mainline Christians consider Mormonism a cult precisely for all the reasons you mentioned above—it's a distortion of a distortion.
Hmmm...your right, not one word about “services”. Or Mass, either. What is described there is exactly what we did in our “protestant” service this morning. In remembrance of Christ.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.