By that I mean that the Church from about 125-150 forward almost certainly looked more like today's Catholic Church (and EO and OO) than the Protestant ecclesiastical communities.
It was on its way to progressive deformation. You should read
here .
However, writings are virtually non-existent prior to the 125-150 period, other than those in the New Testament. Hence, we cannot be certain that the 1st Century Christians resembled the Apostolic Churches more than the Protestants. They probably did in many respects, but not necessarily in all ways.
"Many respects" would also apply to certain cults, while the reality is that distinctive Catholic teachings are
not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.
I only began thinking about it seriously again a few months ago. Studying up on Judaism, I realize that I had forgotten my Old Testament and the very strong Jewish admonition against the consumption of blood. Hence, it seems extremely unlikely that the early Jewish followers of Jesus believed that they were drinking his blood and eating his body while they were celebrating the Eucharist/the Mass.
They certain did not, and Peter at least would have protested at the thought of it, while to take the "words of consecration, "My body which is broken for you, My blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (1 Corinthians 11:24; Matthew 26:28) plainly literally as Catholics false claim they do, would mean the apostles would have been consuming the manifestly physical flesh and blood which was indeed bruised (Isaiah 53:10) and shed for us. And which John especially emphasizes, that of Christ come in the flesh, manifest in birth and in death, that came with water and blood (1 John 4:2,3; 5:6) "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life. (1 John 1:1
Which is set in contrast to a christ whose appearance and testable properties did not correspond to what he materially was, which is case with a Docetist and Gnostic christ, and that of the Eucharistic christ. See below.
Somehow, someway, the viewpoint that the wine and bread becomes his literal body and blood won out fairly early on,
Yet "literal" (or "actual," though used by some RCs) means that ordinary wheat (only: specified) and pure wine no longer exist at the uttering of the words of consecration by a properly ordained Cath. priest (only: specified) with their respective substances being replaced by those of the true body and blood of Christ to even the smallest particle ("under each and every portion" - Trent) of each respectively, even though by all material tests the hosts would be mere bread and wine (thus those with celiac disease have a problem with the non-existent bread) .
Moreover the true body and blood of Christm whole and entire, is really is present under the appearance of bread and or wine until the host manifests corruption, such as mold, or is reduced to fine particles. (Summa Theologiae > Third Part > article 4). At which point nothing exists according to the Catholic Eucharistic contrivance of the Lord supper. For while emphasis is placed upon appearance ("accidents") of the bread and wine, that it must appear as such in order for them to be the Lord's body and blood, yet contrary to the incarnation of Christ with His the true body and blood, appearance is rejected when in regard to this Eucharistic true body and blood, while yet claiming actually consume the same. Which is not the same as Christ being spiritually present in and with believers via His Spirit, which the only way He is after the resurrection.
but we really cannot be certain that this was the 1st Century doctrine, especially among the Jewish Christians.
They certainly did not, nor was the remembrance of the Lord's supper that of a priest daily offering up this body and blood of the Lord as a sacrifice for sin, and dispensing it to the flock as spiritual food.
The NT church never even had any pastors titled "priests" in regard to how the Greek word "hiereus" is often translated in Catholicism for clergy, which distinctive word only denotes a separate sacerdotal class, and thus in Catholicism it is used for those whose unique primary active function is [/FONT]that of confecting the Eucharist, turning bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ and offering it as a sacrifice for sin, and dispensing it to the people as spiritual food. But which Greek word the Holy Spirit never used for NT clergy, as all believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood — hieráteuma — of the NT church And rather than a function of NT pastors being that of dispensing the Eucharist to the people as spiritual food, preaching the word was their primary active function, (2Tim. 4:2) feeding the flock thereby (Acts 20:28)
Which feeding of the word is what said to spiritually nourish souls, (1Tim. 4:6) and which builds them up. (Acts 20:32) with believing the gospel being the means of obtaining life in oneself, by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and thus desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, thereby being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them, (Col. 3:16) this being the believers spiritual food, by which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34)
Yes, Paul certainly seems to indicate that he believed this, though he only touched on it once directly, to the best of my recollection,
In contrast to the ubiquity in Catholicism, Paul only mentions the Lord's supper in two epistles, as the "feast of charity" in Jude 1:12 and in 1 Co. 10 and 11. In the former he teaches that the church is itself "one bread," and that fellowship with Christ by taking part in the LS is analogous to the pagans having fellowship with the object of their dedicatory feasts. Thus believers are forbidden to take part in these religious feasts (vs. family gatherings) lest they "have fellowship with devils."
In the next chapter Paul calls the elements "this bread," and "this cup" with both terms being representations, and with failure to recognize the church as being the body of Christ contextually being the sin. for while they were sppd to be showing/proclaiming the death of the Lord by which they became members of Christ, ,of the body He bought with His sinless shed blood, (Acts 20:28) yet they were feasting independently out of lust and ignoring others, shaming them that have not.
This is shown at length
here , as part of the examination of the larger issue
here , by the grace of God.
I do give much credit to the Apostolic Churches for the practice of praying for the dead. This is one of the weaknesses of Protestantism.
Rather, it is one of the strengths of Biblical faith. Nowhere in Scripture proper are the departed prayed for or to (except by pagans), despite over 200 prayers recorded under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And while 2 Mac. 12:44-46 is invoked in support of it, this was an offering for those who died due to idolatry, which in Catholicism is a mortal sin which excludes hope of salvation if one dies in it. Which the text only shows these souls did. Nor does this 2 Mac. 12:44-46 support
mythical RC Purgatory .
Instead, praying for the dead was a latter development among some Jews, flowing from paganism.
.
..it should come as no surprise that we do find instances, particularly in the domain of popular belief, in which non-Christians prayed for the suffering dead in the other world.. .
These practices developed around the beginning of the Christian era. They were a phenomenon of the times, particularly noticeable in Egypt, the great meeting ground for peoples and religions. Traveling in Egypt around 50 s.c., Diodorus of Sicily was struck by the funerary customs: "As soon as the casket containing the corpse is placed on the bark, the survivors call upon the infernal gods and beseech them to admit the soul to the place received for pious men. The crowd adds its own cheers, together with pleas that the deceased be allowed to enjoy eternal life in Hades, in the society of the good.
The passage cited earlier from the Second Book of Maccabees, which was composed by an Alexandrian Jew during the half-century preceding Diodorus's journey, should no doubt be seen against this background... It then becomes clear that at the time of Judas Maccabeus--around 170 s.c., a surprisingly innovative period—prayer for the dead was not practiced, but that a century later it was practiced by certain Jews. (The Birth of Purgatory By Jacques Le Goff. pp. 45,46 , transcribed using Free Online OCR)