What did Christian worship look like in the second century? (Part 2) 

Cithara Missa 😂

I'm a rock and metal guitarist/singer/bass guitarist. I can only just about tolerate most hymns written before the 20th century. In my ideal world the only music in Liturgy would be psalms or ancient prayers sung to a tune not less than 500 years old (ideally older), or at least a very well researched approximation of one

Was Luther as antiSemitic as the most Catholic Spanish monarchs who kicked the Jews out of Spain with the blessing of the church hierarchy? Give me a break! What hypocrisy!

@@paulsmallwood1484 Antisemitism never informed Catholic doctrine. Can we say the same about Luther's theology? We can find antisemites on both sides. Its not hypocrisy to point that out. I'm not trying to start a moral pissing contest, which is usually used against Catholics without any historical context.

@@tonyl3762 Here is your historical context: On March 31, 1492, in the Alhambra's resplendent Hall of the Ambassadors, Catholic Spanish monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella signed an edict, the Alhambra Decree, expelling the Jews from Spain with the blessing of the church. You are the one who brought anti Semitism into the conversation in an attempt to denigrate Luther. So somehow you are free to mention it but I am not. Sorry but the facts are the facts. Antisemitism doesn’t inform Lutheran doctrine either. So what? Not being a part of official doctrine doesn’t make these Catholic monarchs any less guilty. BTW, Pope Gregory I also expressed openly negative views of Jews. They were full of perfidia (treachery) and unbelief. Only twice in his letters does he speak of Judaism as a religio; most often he calls it a supersitio, one which would "pollute" Christian faith. Maybe Luther was influenced by Pope Gregory. Armed with rationalist philosophy, papal support, and great missionizing energy, the mendicant friars became the voice of the Church in the late medieval period for better or for worse. Although Dominic began his career preaching to the Albigensians, once the papal Inquisition was established by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, his followers the Dominicans began to play a leading role as inquisitors, interrogating and punishing them. (For this reason some people took to calling them domini canes watchdogs of the Lord, in Latin.) As such, it is not surprising that they soon cast their eyes on those unbaptized unbelievers of urban Europe, the Jews. Before long the mendicants saw the Jews as targets of their missionizing, taking steps (usually authorized by the pope) that rendered the routine protections of Sicut Judeis meaningless.

Here you go, and thanks for the support! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-PgFZ6nZQSHc.htmlsi=9MXLLdNCr22w-5Ki

@@TheCatholicBrothers thanks guys

Right. And in today’s culture, a suit and a tie denotes “a professional” of some sort. Could be a professor or a banker or a CEO. But the vestiture of Catholic clergy communicates one thing: priesthood.

@@TheCatholicBrothers I hate to be the voice of dissent here but the first Christian clergy did not wear special clothing. They dressed as their congregants did. The notion of special clerical garb was an historical development. There is nothing in the New Testament mandating distinctively clerical garb. In fact clerical garb was not made universally mandatory until the 8th century. So if you see a painting of a first or second century or third century member of the clergy dressed like a contemporary Roman Catholic priest. it is promoting an agenda not reflecting reality. My clergy wear black robes.

@@paulsmallwood1484 did you watch the episode ? It’s in the biblical and second century sources

@@TheCatholicBrothers I said that clerical attire was not made universally mandatory until the 8th century. I also said that there is no mandatory requirement in the New Testament for Christian clergy to wear distinctive attire. I am not saying it is wrong but it is also not wrong not to. It certainly was not made mandatory in the early church. If you want source documents. I will be glad to provide. No prescribed clerical attire existed in the early centuries of Christianity. The origins of clerical attire and vesture can be traced to the civilian dress of the late Roman Empire. It is certainly not derived from the priestly vesture of the Old Testament. It was not required by the Apostles.

With or without a tunic underneath? ( the answer to that question separates the boys from the men) lol

@@TheCatholicBrothers The students learn better if you don't have a tunic.

See our 40 previous videos which push back against this 19th century, Protestant notion. The Bible itself refutes it. See in particular our episodes on John and the Secrets of the Temple and our recent episode on Women Priests. Christianity is the only surviving sect of second Temple Judaism which perpetuated the Temple cult, albeit in a fulfilled form. The episcopate/presbyterate was never a rabbinate; it was always understood to be sacerdotal in function, because there was never a time where the Eucharist was not understood to be a sacrificial meal.

@@TheCatholicBrothers I never said that the Eucharist was not associated with the term sacrifice. I do say that the term sacrifice was not used with a Roman Catholic understanding. I am also not saying that real presence was not taught in the primitive church. What my Roman Catholic friends want to do however is force transubstantiation into the early writings and claim that real presence can only be understood as transubstantiation. That evidence simply does not support that. You lost me on the “19th century Protestant notion”. I have no idea what your point was there. Try reading writings from Protestant scholastics of the 16th and 17th century. I am not interested in what some 19th century American Evangelicals are saying.

@@paulsmallwood1484 that’s the opposite of what our channel does. We can disagree about *how* the meal is a sacrifice; we can disagree about *how* the elements are the Body and Blood. But *that* the meal was a sacrifice where God is fully present as He was in the Temple automatically implies that the leaders designated to handle the offerings constituted a sacerdotal priesthood, consistent with the Hebrew religious convictions of the earliest followers of Christ.

@@TheCatholicBrothers I am sorry but I see Roman Catholics anachronistically reading contemporary Roman Catholicism into the first century all the time but I am glad you oppose that. That’s refreshing. For example, even some Roman Catholic scholars acknowledge that the first Christian congregation in Rome was ruled by a plurality of Elders and not by a single monarchical bishop. There is no indication in Scriptures that Peter was ever in Rome. No apostle declares that he was. There is no historical evidence that Peter was ever in Rome. No Peter in Rome, no papacy, no papacy, no Roman Catholicism in the first century. Please find an example of a synagogue in the early church period that thought of the rabbi as a priest.

@@paulsmallwood1484 you’ll find our episode on the early Roman succession interesting. We actually take a middle-ground approach. To be fair, both Roman and Protestant apologists read the early church anachronistically. That’s why we, trained as historians, don’t operate that way. We’re Catholic, to be sure, but we don’t need to read 21st century Catholic dogma into the early church to be confidently Catholic.