2nd century sermon

boughtwithaprice said:

This is from Iraneus, Bishop from the early 2nd century. Taught by Polycarp who knew John the Apostle personally.
The charge has been leveled that the Church apostasized after the Apostles died, because they did not keep the Sabbath.
I find this highly unlikely as the Church has existed for about 100 yrs at that time. There were heretics who claimed special knowledge and change the Gospel. They were called gnostics, and Iraneus vigorously opposed them.
There is no record of a Sabbath controversy in the second century, but there was controversy over who Christ is and what He accomplished
This is pre-Nicene creed, but we can see that the orthodox believers held the sacraments in high regard, especially baptism and the Eucharist. This does not look like apostasy, rather the 15th century reformers were mistaken in reducing the Sabbath sacrifice to symbolism. I have already shown from scripture that the Sabbath is to have a perpetual sacrifice of lamb, bread and wine. Jesus confirms it at the Last Supper, and scripture confirms Him as a priest forever according to the Order of Melchisedech.

From the treatise "Against the Heresies" by St Irenaeus


The Eucharist, pledge of our resurrection


If our flesh is not saved, then the Lord has not redeemed us with his blood, the eucharistic chalice does not make us sharers in his blood, and the bread we break does not make us sharers in his body. There can be no blood without veins, flesh and the rest of the human substance, and this the Word of God actually became: it was with his own blood that he redeemed us. As the Apostle says: In him, through his blood, we have been redeemed, our sins have been forgiven.


We are his members and we are nourished by creatures, which is his gift to us, for it is he who causes the sun to rise and the rain to fall. He declared that the chalice, which comes from his creation, was his blood, and he makes it the nourishment of our blood. He affirmed that the bread, which comes from his creation, was his body, and he makes it the nourishment of our body. When the chalice we mix and the bread we bake receive the word of God, the eucharistic elements become the body and blood of Christ, by which our bodies live and grow. How then can it be said that flesh belonging to the Lord’s own body and nourished by his body and blood is incapable of receiving God’s gift of eternal life? Saint Paul says in his letter to the Ephesians that we are members of his body, of his flesh and bones. He is not speaking of some spiritual and incorporeal kind of man, for spirits do not have flesh and bones. He is speaking of a real human body composed of flesh, sinews and bones, nourished by the chalice of Christ’s blood and receiving growth from the bread which is his body.


The slip of a vine planted in the ground bears fruit at the proper time. The grain of wheat falls into the ground and decays only to be raised up again and multiplied by the Spirit of God who sustains all things. The Wisdom of God places these things at the service of man and when they receive God’s word they become the eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ. In the same way our bodies, which have been nourished by the eucharist, will be buried in the earth and will decay, but they will rise again at the appointed time, for the Word of God will raise them up to the glory of God the Father. Then the Father will clothe our mortal nature in immortality and freely endow our corruptible nature with incorruptibility, for God’s power is shown most perfectly in weakness.


End citation



We can see from scripture that the Sabbath is participating in the Body and Blood of Christ, not just a day on which we meet

Click to expand...

I love St. Irenaeus, and agree with your post. For reference purposes could you remind me from what part of Against Heresies the above came from? If memory serves it came from part 6 which was a summary of the true faith, similar to the final chapter, an essay entitled “On the Faith”, of the Panarion of St. Epiphanios of Salamis, which itself extensively quoted St. Irenaeus, or, on a much grander scale, how The Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, a book of dogmatic theology in its own right, immediately follows the encyclopedia of heresies of the vast Fount of Knowledge of St. John of Damascus (which for all of the older heresies simply quoted the epitomes of the chapters of the Panarion that described them, while going into great detail on heresies such as Nestorianism, Islam and Monothelitism which came after the fourth century and the repose of St. Epiphanios).

Since people will inevitably accuse you of quoting St. Irenaeus as though his writings were Scripture, but since St. Irenaeus did in fact cite Scripture, perhaps you might provide the Scriptural context to the above quotation of his?

boughtwithaprice said:

The scriptural context we have gone over before, and it has been ignored or explained away
Yet it bears repeating

The Eucharist is explained from the beginning.
In the old Covenant, in the desert, it was Manna from heaven, yet it was prefigured to Abraham when he met the king of Salem, Melchisedech. Melchisedech offered bread and wine
Instructions regarding the Manna was that it was not to be hoarded, Israel had to go everyday to gather it. If it was hoarded, it turned rotten and contained worms.
Jesus is the bread of life, and like manna, we must consume Him on a regular basis. We can read John 6 that says unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you
We read in Numbers 28 that the Sabbath it to have a perpetual (holocaust) sacrifice of bread wine and lamb. Jesus is the Lamb of God, and the bread and wine become His body and blood as exploded by His apostles.
We no longer sacrifice animals, but God tells us what makes the Eucharistic sacrifice effective
In psalm 51 we read

. 19- A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit: a contrite and humbled heart, O God, thou wilt not despise 20 Deal favourably, O Lord, in thy good will with Sion; that the walls of Jerusalem may be built up.

21 Then shalt thou accept the sacrifice of justice, oblations and whole burnt offerings: then shall they lay calves upon thy altar.


1 Cor 11 correlates this verse in that we are not to receive the Eucharist in an unworthy manner, lest we eat and drink condemnation on ourselves, not discerning the Lord’s body and blood.
The Eucharist is not beneficial for us, unless we are prepared or receive, and just like manna, it is not to be hoarded, it is to be eaten on a regular basis.
Jesus sacrifice in the cross is sufficient to take away the sins of the whole world, but it is not effective if we don’t receive it with repentance and thanksgiving. The Eucharist is the best scriptural refutation of the position know as “once saved, always saved”
We have to consume Jesus body and blood on a regular basis for our spiritual food. Repentance is not a one and done type of issue, because our flesh is weak, and even the righteous falls seven times a day. Hebrews tell us that people died without mercy if the ignored the law, how much more if we trample the body of Christ underfoot and consider His blood an unclean thing?
We need constant nourishment and cleansing, just like we do not feed a baby once and expect him to grow, a Christian is not forgiven once and then ignored.
It is true that there is no longer any sacrifice of sin. It is Jesus sacrifice once for all, yet we need constant reminder to prepare our hearts. Jesus gave instructions for the Euchairst to be offered in remembrance of Him to keep us constantly pressing on toward the prize of eternal life.
Scripture tells us that if we endure to the end we will be saved. If we discard the Eucharist, what remains but the body and blood of Jesus to cleanse us from all sin? We must voluntarily take it, as it says in Revelation 3:20, I stand at the door and knock, if anyone opens the door, I will come into himand sup with him and he will sup with me. This is the Eucharist as Jesus says in John 6, my flesh is real food and my blood real drink. It is not imagination or symbolic
The Eucharist takes the place of the Sabbath sacrifice of the old covenant, as we gather to consume the Lord’s body and blood, and it says in Leviticus 23 that in the day of atonement, the first and the eighth day will be sabbaths for you


Baptism is prefigured in Genesis 1:2, which is where we learn that water was the first material creation. Water was also used to judge the earth in a flood to cleanse it from sin and begin again, and in John 3 we read we need to be born again of water and the spirit. Jesus Himself was baptized to fulfill all righteousness. This honors God in the order of creation. Jesus is begotten not made, but God joined Himself to His creation in the hypostatic union. He was born of a woman, the Virgin Mary.
Curious choice of name, as it relates to water, and water holding presence over light in the order of creation. Sailors are sometime called mariners. Mare is Italian for sea, and even our modern Maralago means sea and bay.
Genesis 3:15 shows the significance. Satan was once Lucifer, the angel of light, and he was created to serve Mary, but his pride refused service and he fell. God put enmity between he and the woman. We even see this today as secular science tries to tell us that light was created first in a big bang, but God says water was first, and the space telescope does not show us remnants of a big bang. It does not even show us what we would expect to see, so science makes up dark matter and dark energy to try and explain the inconsistency
We read in Colossians that baptism is the circumcision of the heart. In the Old Covenant, babies were circumcised, in the New Covenant, we baptize infants of believers. Converts that are baptized as adults must give consent to baptism, for infants of believers, the consent is given by the parents


I would love to go on, but that is all I can think of for now. Scripture is full of references, typology and teachings which affirm the sacraments. Men use their own word to deny them, but scripture does not. Listening to some is like subjecting oneself to spiritual gaslighting. Reading scripture itself is refreshing to affirm apostolic teaching

Click to expand...

You’re preaching to the choir, but my point is merely that St, irenaeus does provide references in the form of quotations and allusions (members expecting chapter and verse references would obviously demonstrate a lack of awareness of the history of New Testament versification and the lack thereof in that epoch). If you were to highlight those it would be of some use. There are also copies of St. Irenaeus online which have been annotated with chapter and verse references.

boughtwithaprice said:

We see that in the second century, although the teaching of transubstantiation was not yet present, Iraneus states that when the bread and cup receive the word of God, they become Eucharist of the body and blood of Christ

Click to expand...

Transubstantiation vis a vis the specific explanation of Thomas Aquinas (the substance changing into the Body and Blood while the accidents of bread and wine remain) is a Scholastic concept, but the idea of the Eucharist being the actual Body and Blood of Christ was clearly present (see St. Justin Martyr, also, see, the Didache, the Divine Liturgy of Saints Addai and Mari, the Anaphora of the Apostles (found in the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus but believed to be much older, and still used in its original form by the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church, also the basis for the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and Eucharistic Prayer no. 2 in the Novus Ordo Missae (ordinary form of the Missale Romanum) of 1969) and related Protestant liturgies such as Eucharistic Prayer B of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, and the Anaphora of the Divine Liturgy of St. Mark (the ancient anaphora of Alexandria, also known as the Divine Liturgy of St. Cyril, and also found in the Euchologion of St. Sarapion ot Thmuis, the oldest complete liturgical service book to have survived and the Strasbourg Papyrus. Also see 1 Corinthians 10-11, John 6, and the synoptic Institution Narratives in the Gospels According to Saints Matthew, Mark and Luke.

I like Polycarp as he was a disciple of John who was the last apostle alive right up until the turn of the century. There are stories of people seeking Polycarp as he was one of only a few who were taught by John. So the disciples of Polycarp also became the last vestiges of the early church in keeping alive the true teachings.

There may have been a controversy over the Sabbath in relation to which day. Rather than about whether the Sabbath was needed or not. Around about the time of Polycarp there was the Bar Kokhba revolt in 132AD. The Christians and Jews were beginning to seperate and including different Sabbath days and other rituals.

I know around the end of the 2nd century Tertillian was calling for Christians not follow Jewish worship in the synagogues but rather in churches. So the dispute may have begun soon after what they call the "parting of the ways." between the Jews and Christians soon after the Bar Kokhba revolt.

stevevw said:

There may have been a controversy over the Sabbath in relation to which day. Rather than about whether the Sabbath was needed or not. Around about the time of Polycarp there was the Bar Kokhba revolt in 132AD. The Christians and Jews were beginning to seperate and including different Sabbath days and other rituals.

Click to expand...

We have no historical record of such a controversy in the early church. The only controversy involved the date of celebration for the Eucharist. All of the Patristic sources are unanimous in declaring the First Day the primary day of worship, without deprecating the Sabbath as a preparatory day of worship before the First Day - and the Seventh Day, symbolic of rest, became the main liturgical occasion for commemorating three things: the repose of our Lord in the tomb, his being nurtured in the womb of the Theotokos, and prayer for the salvation of our departed loved ones, grant to them rest eternal, O Lord.

By the way @boughtwithaprice here’s a lovely fifth century metrical (sung) homily on the Eucharist by the Syriac Orthodox father St. Jacob of Sarugh, which I like so much I include it along with Quincunque Vult, Te Deum Laudamus and the Greek hymn Ho Monogenes as one of the primary ancient hymns that accompanies the Nicene Creed in the definition of my faith:

The Lord Whom the seraphs fear to look at,

The same you behold in bread and wine on the altar.

The lightning clothed hosts are burned if they see Him in His brilliance.

Yet the contemptible dust partakes of Him with confidence.

The Son's Mysteries are fire among the heavenly beings,

Isaiah bears witness with us to have seen them.

These Mysteries which were in the Divinity's bosom,

Are distributed to Adam's children on the altar.

The altar is fashioned like the cherubim's chariot,

And is surrounded by the heavenly hosts.

On the altar is laid the Body of God's Son,

And Adam's children carry it solemnly on their hands.

Instead of a man clad in linen, stands the (priest),

And distributes alms (the Eucharist) among the needy.

If envy existed among the angels,

The cherubim would have envied men.

Where Zion set up the Cross to crucify the Son,

There grew up the tree that gave birth to the Lamb.

Where nails were driven in the Son's hands,

There Isaac's hands were bound for an offering.

Welcome, priest, who carries the Mysteries of his Lord,

And with his right hand distributes life to men.

Welcome, priest, who carries a pure censer,

And with its fragrance makes the world sweet and pleasant.

Welcome, priest, whom the Holy Spirit did raise up,

And on his tongue bears the keys to the house of God.

Welcome, priest, who binds man in the depth below,

And the Lord binds him in heaven on high. Halleluiah.

Welcome, priest, who unbinds men on earth,

And the Lord unbinds him in the highest. Kyrie eleison.

Praise be to the Lord. His mercy upon you and absolution for me.

And good commemoration to Mor Jacob the malphono.

By the way, it should be stressed that the evidence for the real physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist is overwhelming from a Patristic perspective.

From a purely scriptural standpoint, furthermore, as I’m sure my Lutheran friends @Ain't Zwinglian @ViaCrucis and @MarkRohfrietsch would agree, the Zwinglian and Memorialist interpretations of the Eucharist do not hold water, since they require reading 1 Corinthians ch. 11 in such a way that ignores 1 Corinthians 11:2 and requires reading our Lord as immediately contradicting himself after saying “This is my body” and “This is my blood” with the phrase “this do ye in remembrance of me,” which itself does not obviously constitute a disagreement with his earlier statements, neither is it incompatible with the doctrine of the real presence. But most problematically from the Zwinglian and Memorialist perspective, it requires ignoring the Institution Narratives in the Gospels According to St. Mark and St. Matthew, and 1 Corinthians ch. 10,, which are entirely devoid of references to anamnesis (the Greek word translated as “remembrance” but which has the context of recapitulation, as in, “put yourself in this moment).”

What confuses me is that people insist in adhering to these two positions, and also to Receptionism, which, while not reliant on our Lord immediately contradicting himself and a contradiction between 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Corinthians 10, John ch. 6, and the institution narratives in Mark and Matthew, still contradicts our Lord saying “this is my Body,” since for Receptionism to work our Lord would have to say “This will be my body when you eat it,” and for Zwinglianism to work our Lord would have had to say “This is a symbol of my body,” and for Memorialism to work we would need to see clearer and more definitive memorialist texts across all institution narratives, as opposed to the mere hint of one in 1 Corinthians 11, and, concerning the species of the body only, Luke ch. 22.

What confuses me even more, is for those who feel compelled by anti-Catholicism or other concerns, for example, doubt as to the ability of Christ our omnipotent God to present his body and blood everywhere for our consumption or concerns relating to the idea of cannibalism (which is obviously grossly inapplicable in this case), there is a SCripturally-compatible theory, adhered to historically by Calvinists and many other Protestants, that being the belief that our Lord is really spiritually present in the bread and wine.

This view does not align itself with the writings of the early Church Fathers or the ancient liturgical texts, such as the Didache, the writings of St. Justin Martyr and other late first and second century Patristic figures, as well as those of third century and Nicene Fathers, but it is at least not incompatible with a logical interpretation of Scripture, and I have seen adherents of such a view using John ch. 6 to defend it (which is a naive reading of John ch. 6, but it is still more plausible by far than Zwinglianism or Memorialism).

And of course, all of the above applies to Baptism as well as to the Eucharist, for Zwinglianism and Memorialism are as much theologies of baptism as they are of communion. And in that respect they are also flawed, in that they deny the idea of baptismal regeneration, of our Lord washing away our sins in the waters of the Jordan through His own baptism and salvific work o nthe Cross, of us putting to death the old man and receiving the New, ourselves remade in the image of the Father who is present sacramentally in the Jordan with the infant, child or adult being baptized, and this being integral with reception of the Holy Spirit, rather than water baptism somehow being opposed to reception of the Holy Spirit.

I would argue the root cause for these two errors of Sacramental Theology lies fundamentally in anti-Catholicism on the part of Zwingli and the Anabaptist, and people leaving Catholicism in many cases these days do not believe in those doctrines to begin with, due to problems with catechesis and with promoting the faith among Catholics, and I would argue, the very overly relaxed manner in which the Novus Ordo Missae is celebrated so often in Catholic parishes.

But the idea of a real spiritual presence does exist for those adamant in rejecting not just Roman Catholic, but the high church Anglicans, Lutherans, the early Czech reformers led by St. Jan Hus and St, Jerome of Prague (both venerated by the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia), and the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian (actually the Assyrian Church of the East, the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox have much bolder declarations of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist than the traditional Roman Rite - however, the Mozarabic Rite formerly used throughout spain but now reduced to a single chapel in the Cathedral in Toledo, and in a nearby monastery, despite being celebrated in St. Peters’ by Pope John Paul II in the mid 1990s, does feature a very definite declaration of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and traditional Lutheran hymnody likewise features hymns boldly declaring the real presence of Christ. And I cannot rule out this real spiritual presence on a Nuda Scriptura basis.*

* I can however positively exclude it on the basis of Sola Scriptura as understood by most Lutherans, Anglicans and also by John Wesley** which uses Tradition and Reason as tools to interpret Scripture, and also, importantly, recognizes the directive to adhere to Apostolic Tradition contained in 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Thessalonians 2:37 and associates that directive with the Nicene Christian heritage, which was unanimous on the issue of the Eucharist, and which also was responsible for defending the doctrine of the Trinity against those who would deny it, and the formulation of the definitive 27 book New Testament canon, which was, as I have often had to point out through historical records, first enumerated in its entirety without any apocrypha by St. Athanasius of Alexandria.

** his views on the sacrament are unclear other than he believed Christians should partake of as frequently as possible, at least once a week, and his advocacy for high frequency communion paralleled a similar effort to restore high frequency communion in those parts of the Orthodox Church in the Ottoman Empire where it had ceased to be common, those of the Kollyvades Brothers who enjoyed the support of the great Athonite monks of the era such as St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite and St. Macarius of Corinth, and the Hesychast movement.

The Liturgist said:

We have no historical record of such a controversy in the early church. The only controversy involved the date of celebration for the Eucharist. All of the Patristic sources are unanimous in declaring the First Day the primary day of worship, without deprecating the Sabbath as a preparatory day of worship before the First Day - and the Seventh Day, symbolic of rest, became the main liturgical occasion for commemorating three things: the repose of our Lord in the tomb, his being nurtured in the womb of the Theotokos, and prayer for the salvation of our departed loved ones, grant to them rest eternal, O Lord.

Click to expand...

As the early church grew it drifted away from the core teachings. Paul predicted this and warned the church. Around the time of Constantine when Christianity became the religion of the empire it introdued a number of changes. Including pagan celebrations like Christmas and Easter.

As mentioned during the 2nd century the Jews and Christians were seperating and gnosticism was influencing thought and beliefs. This brought in secular ideas and the questioning of bible interpretations. There was a growing movement in rationalising Jewish rituals and worship out of the church.

For which the day of the Sabbath was seen as part of the Jewish law that Christ had fullfilled and therefore the church became open to changing the sabbath to Sunday.

That is why Sunday became the most popular day in many western nations. Though Saturday was also regarded as the Sabbath as well.

stevevw said:

Around the time of Constantine when Christianity became the religion of the empire it introdued a number of changes.

Click to expand...

Not true, that’s a conspiracy theory. The Council of Nicaea was convened to decide the question of Arianism - Arius was a heretic who denied the doctrine of the Trinity, and they acted with near-unanimity, anathematizing the Arian heresy and Arius. The Council of Nicaea did not discuss the canon of Scripture. Additionally, its canonical legislation included provisions declaring that the churches of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem (the latter city being rebuilt by St. Constantine’s mother St. Helena, who was a Christian and who influenced his conversion), had the same privileges as the Church of Rome. Perhaps read the acts of Constantinople some time.

stevevw said:

Including pagan celebrations like Christmas and Easter.

Click to expand...

This is completely false.

Firstly, the celebration of the Incarnation of God in the person of Jesus Christ and of his passion and death on the Cross, and His bodily resurrection from the dead and Ascension, are not Pagan, by definition. They literally cannot be Pagan.

Secondly, the feast of the Resurrection was celebrated since the First Century, and it was celebrated according to surviving documentary evidence since the Second Century using the method of calculating the data of Pascha that was adopted churchwide at the Council of Nicaea. However, prior to Nicaea, a minority of churches, mainly in Asia Minor, used an alternative approach to calculating the data of Pascha, wherein it was always celebrated on the 14th of Nissan. This was deemed problematic at Nicaea due to changes in how the Jewish calendar was reckoned after the failed Bar Kochba revolt and the demise of the Sadducean and Essene branches of Judaism, leaving only Rabinnical Judaism, a derivative form of Pharisaical Judaism. Thus, at Nicaea, it was decided the quartodecimian method would be used exclusively.

At the Council of Nicaea, no decision was taken concerning Christmas. Rather, starting in the mid fourth century, due to the threat posed to the Church by Arianism, all churches except the Armenian Apostolic Church decided to separate the feast of the Baptism of Christ, which was and is held on January 6th, with the feast of the Nativity - the two were historically celebrated as one event. The date for Nativity was arrived at by taking the pre-existing feast of the Annunciation on March 25th (which roughly corresponds with the 14th of Nissan, as the early church believed Christ was conceived on the same day and month as his Passion on the Cross), and adding nine months to it, leaving December 25th. That this coincided with a minor Roman observance and with the Saturnalia is purely coincidental and was not remarked upon historically, but in the 19th century neo-Pagan cults attempted to stake a claim to Christmas, by falsely associating it with various evil pagan celebrations.

My sources for the above statement are The Oxford History of Christian Worship, the Cambridge History of Christianity, volumes 1-2, the Orthodox Church by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, A Brief History of the Byzantine Rite by Fr. Robert Taft SJ, On the Incarnation and the 39th Paschal Encyclical, by St. Athanasius of Alexandria (a fourth century bishop), the Panarion and On the Faith by St. Epiphanios of Salamis (another fourth century bishop), the letters of St. Irenaeus of Lyons and his work Against Heresies, from the late second century, the collected epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch, from the late first and early second century, the collected writings of St. Justin Martyr such as his Dialogue with Trypho from the mid second century, the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by St. John of Damascus, and also, regarding the absurdity of the idea of a Great Apostasy in the fourth century over the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity, the Holy Bible, in particular Matthew chapter 16, 1 Corinthians chapter 11, John chapter 1, Matthew chapter 28, John chapter 6, Luke chapter 1, Acts chapters 1 and 2, and other important texts. Of course contrary to the arguments of some Restorationists Scripture does not provide a history of the Church after around 80 AD when St. John the Beloved Disciple wrote down what our Lord wished to communicate to certain churches in Revelation, rather, it discusses future events. Importantly it must be stressed that the Great Apostasy occurs in the end times, thus, the idea of 19th century Restorationists returning us to practices of the early church somehow lost in the fourth century, when in reality the fourth century is when the doctrine of the Trinity was preserved, is not credible in light of Matthew 16:18 which promises the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church.

Nor can you make this a Protestant vs. Catholic issue, since most Protestants reject this idea, including all traditional Protestants such as Lutherans (@ViaCrucis @MarkRohfrietsch @Ain't Zwinglian ) and Anglicans (@Jipsah ) as well as the Orthoodx (@prodromos @jas3 ) who were never under the control of the Church of Rome.

It should be stressed that of the two ecumenical councils in the fourth century, there were only two Papal legates among the 318 Holy Fathers at Nicaea, and of the 150 at Constantinople, there were no representatives of the Church of Rome. And the main proposal made by the Roman legates at Nicaea, that of implementing Roman-style clerical celibacy church-wide, was voted down by the bishops.

stevevw said:

As mentioned during the 2nd century the Jews and Christians were seperating and gnosticism was influencing thought and beliefs. This brought in secular ideas and the questioning of bible interpretations. There was a growing movement in rationalising Jewish rituals and worship out of the church.

Click to expand...

Not true - non-Christian worship practices had already been excluded as of Acts 15. See Against Heresies by St. Irenaeus of Lyons. There is no Gnostic influence in Orthodox Christianity, whereas a strong Jewish influence was retained, including the threefold daily prayers, adopted from Judaism, the twice weekly fast, adopted from Judaism, but moved to Wednesday and Friday to commemorate the betrayal and crucifixion of Christ our God, the Eucharist as a daily sacrifice, adopted from Judaism and replacing the sacrifices in the Temple, and the Jewish table blessing, which informed the shape of the ancient Syriac Aramaic liturgy known as the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, which remains in use until the present. Also the use of mitres and other vestments are directly continued over from Judaism.

stevevw said:

For which the day of the Sabbath was seen as part of the Jewish law that Christ had fullfilled and therefore the church became open to changing the sabbath to Sunday.

Click to expand...

The church never changed the Sabbath to Sunday. In the fourth century, the Roman Catholic Church persuaded the Roman government under St. Theodosius in 380, the first Christian Emperor after several decades of Arianism, and the one who actually made Christianity the state religion, to renamed the seventh day from Dies Saturnae to Sabbato. Likewise, the Orthodox in all countries where we constitute a majority renamed the seventh day to a name reflecting the Sabbath.

While it is true that St. Constantine enacted a law limiting certain trade on Sunday, this was civil legislation, and did not prohibit resting on Saturday or interfere with the practice of Judaism, nor did St. Constantine make Christianity the sole legal religion in the Roman Empire. Paganism remained a powerful force in Rome throughout the fourth century, until it was finally suppressed by St. Theodosius, who smashed the altar to the goddess Victoria in the Curia of the Roman Senate and closed the Pagan temples, which was an act of great virtue, due to the horrible animal and sometimes human sacrifices these demonic idols required (Psalm 95 v. 5 LXX - the Gods of the Gentiles are demons.

stevevw said:

That is why Sunday became the most popular day in many western nations.

Click to expand...

Sunday was the primary day of Christian worship since at least the late first century according to all surviving documentary evidence - for instance, the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch, the writings of St. Justin Martyr, the Didache, Didascalia and other ancient books of Church Order, and also the obvious fact that in Scripture, our Lord is depicted as rising from the dead on the First Day and the Holy Spirit descended on the First Day, at roughly 9 AM (the third hour - three hours after sunrise). Some people like to quote Matthew out of context in a vain attempt to refute this, but the Gospels According to Mark, Luke and John clarify what the Gospel According to Matthew meant in terms of the time - so people attempting to do this are basically rejecting three Gospels in order to prop up a misinterpretation of one Gospel.

This is not unlike how those who deny the Real Presence or even the spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist will point to 1 Corinthians chapter 11 but insist that it be read in a manner that contradicts the equivalent passages in Matthew, Mark, 1 Corinthians chapter 10, and Luke (at least as far as the Blood of our Lord is concerned) not to mention John chapter 6 (which some of them deny has any connection to Holy Communion, but this of course makes no sense.

It should be noted that there are no Scriptural verses prohibiting worship on the First Day, there are no verses indicating gentiles were required to keep the Torah, there are no verses indicating the early church after the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 believed gentiles should keep the Torah, but several that say the opposite, for example, Galatians 3:15-5:15, and the celebration of the Resurrection of our Lord is simply the continuation of the Jewish custom of Pascha.

And if anyone even thinks of mentioning Christmas Trees or Easter Bunnies, they will have to contend with the fact that those appear in no traditional liturgies of any ancient church. Eggs and many other foodstuffs are blessed at Agapa Vespers on the afternoon of Pascha.

Also the name Easter with its supposed pagan connections does not make Pascha, the feast of the Resurrection, a pagan falllacy - that is the Nominal Fallacy - and it ignores the fact that in most languages the Feast of the Resurrection is referred to as Pascha or with another word derived from the Hebrew Pesach, for example, in Dutch, the holiday is called passen.

The Feast of the Nativity is very properly called Christmas in the West, because in the Western Church, the celebration of Holy Communion became commonly known as the Mass from the blessing at the end of the Roman Rite liturgy “Ite Missa est” meaning “Go forth, it is the dismissal” which is followed by reading the Last Gospel, John 1:1-14, at a Solemn Mass or Missa Cantata, and this term is used by Anglicans, Lutherans and Western Rite Orthodox and not exclusively by Roman Catholics, and Christmas takes its name from the fact that it is the celebration of the birth of Christ our God - his becoming Emanuel - God with us, in the flesh.

Santa Claus is a synthesis of two important fourth century bishops - St. Nicholas of Myra, who was present at Nicaea and who had been tortured in the Diocletian Persecution (forensic analysis of his relics indicates his nose was broken at least three times), who is reported by reliable authorities to have used the treasury of his church to save young girls from being forced into prostitution, by paying for their dowries in accordance with the disagreeable custom of the time. The other is St. Basil the Great, one of the Cappadocian Fathers (Cappadocia being a beautiful, geologically interesting region of Turkey) who, while not present at either ecumenical council, was a staunch supporter of St. Athanasius and of the Nicene Creed; his best friend St. Gregory the Theologian convened the Council of Constantinople in 381. What St. Basil is remembered for vis a vis Santa Claus is using the treasury of the Church of Caesarea in Cappadocia, of which he was bishop, to finance the construction of the first recognizable hospital where anyone could receive medical treatment free of charge, in addition to a hostel for exhausted travellers on the roads through Cappadocia linking Constantinople with places such as Ephesus, Edessa, Nisibis, Antioch and Armenia, and a hospice for the dying.

What is most offensive about these conspiracy theories is the way they make a mockery of the millions of Christians killed in the Diocletian and Arian persectuons, and the millions of Christains killed since in the genocides of the Saracens, Tamerlane, the Turks in 1915, the Communists starting in 1917, Islamic fundamentalists, and more recently, ISIS and other islamist groups in the Middle East, Pakistan and Africa, and the Azerbaijani ethnic cleansing of Ngorno-Karabakh with Turkish support and assistance. These Christians died for the traditional faith, the common beleifs shared between the majority of Roman Catholics, Eastern Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Calvinists and other Protestants, and Assyrians of the Church of the East, which people are, on the basis of conspiracy theories, trying to discredit.

The Liturgist said:

Not true, that’s a conspiracy theory. The Council of Nicaea was convened to decide the question of Arianism - Arius was a heretic who denied the doctrine of the Trinity, and they acted with near-unanimity, anathematizing the Arian heresy and Arius. The Council of Nicaea did not discuss the canon of Scripture. Additionally, its canonical legislation included provisions declaring that the churches of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem (the latter city being rebuilt by St. Constantine’s mother St. Helena, who was a Christian and who influenced his conversion), had the same privileges as the Church of Rome. Perhaps read the acts of Constantinople some time.



This is completely false.

Firstly, the celebration of the Incarnation of God in the person of Jesus Christ and of his passion and death on the Cross, and His bodily resurrection from the dead and Ascension, are not Pagan, by definition. They literally cannot be Pagan.

Secondly, the feast of the Resurrection was celebrated since the First Century, and it was celebrated according to surviving documentary evidence since the Second Century using the method of calculating the data of Pascha that was adopted churchwide at the Council of Nicaea. However, prior to Nicaea, a minority of churches, mainly in Asia Minor, used an alternative approach to calculating the data of Pascha, wherein it was always celebrated on the 14th of Nissan. This was deemed problematic at Nicaea due to changes in how the Jewish calendar was reckoned after the failed Bar Kochba revolt and the demise of the Sadducean and Essene branches of Judaism, leaving only Rabinnical Judaism, a derivative form of Pharisaical Judaism. Thus, at Nicaea, it was decided the quartodecimian method would be used exclusively.

At the Council of Nicaea, no decision was taken concerning Christmas. Rather, starting in the mid fourth century, due to the threat posed to the Church by Arianism, all churches except the Armenian Apostolic Church decided to separate the feast of the Baptism of Christ, which was and is held on January 6th, with the feast of the Nativity - the two were historically celebrated as one event. The date for Nativity was arrived at by taking the pre-existing feast of the Annunciation on March 25th (which roughly corresponds with the 14th of Nissan, as the early church believed Christ was conceived on the same day and month as his Passion on the Cross), and adding nine months to it, leaving December 25th. That this coincided with a minor Roman observance and with the Saturnalia is purely coincidental and was not remarked upon historically, but in the 19th century neo-Pagan cults attempted to stake a claim to Christmas, by falsely associating it with various evil pagan celebrations.

My sources for the above statement are The Oxford History of Christian Worship, the Cambridge History of Christianity, volumes 1-2, the Orthodox Church by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, A Brief History of the Byzantine Rite by Fr. Robert Taft SJ, On the Incarnation and the 39th Paschal Encyclical, by St. Athanasius of Alexandria (a fourth century bishop), the Panarion and On the Faith by St. Epiphanios of Salamis (another fourth century bishop), the letters of St. Irenaeus of Lyons and his work Against Heresies, from the late second century, the collected epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch, from the late first and early second century, the collected writings of St. Justin Martyr such as his Dialogue with Trypho from the mid second century, the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by St. John of Damascus, and also, regarding the absurdity of the idea of a Great Apostasy in the fourth century over the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity, the Holy Bible, in particular Matthew chapter 16, 1 Corinthians chapter 11, John chapter 1, Matthew chapter 28, John chapter 6, Luke chapter 1, Acts chapters 1 and 2, and other important texts. Of course contrary to the arguments of some Restorationists Scripture does not provide a history of the Church after around 80 AD when St. John the Beloved Disciple wrote down what our Lord wished to communicate to certain churches in Revelation, rather, it discusses future events. Importantly it must be stressed that the Great Apostasy occurs in the end times, thus, the idea of 19th century Restorationists returning us to practices of the early church somehow lost in the fourth century, when in reality the fourth century is when the doctrine of the Trinity was preserved, is not credible in light of Matthew 16:18 which promises the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church.

Nor can you make this a Protestant vs. Catholic issue, since most Protestants reject this idea, including all traditional Protestants such as Lutherans (@ViaCrucis @MarkRohfrietsch @Ain't Zwinglian ) and Anglicans (@Jipsah ) as well as the Orthoodx (@prodromos @jas3 ) who were never under the control of the Church of Rome.

It should be stressed that of the two ecumenical councils in the fourth century, there were only two Papal legates among the 318 Holy Fathers at Nicaea, and of the 150 at Constantinople, there were no representatives of the Church of Rome. And the main proposal made by the Roman legates at Nicaea, that of implementing Roman-style clerical celibacy church-wide, was voted down by the bishops.



Not true - non-Christian worship practices had already been excluded as of Acts 15. See Against Heresies by St. Irenaeus of Lyons. There is no Gnostic influence in Orthodox Christianity, whereas a strong Jewish influence was retained, including the threefold daily prayers, adopted from Judaism, the twice weekly fast, adopted from Judaism, but moved to Wednesday and Friday to commemorate the betrayal and crucifixion of Christ our God, the Eucharist as a daily sacrifice, adopted from Judaism and replacing the sacrifices in the Temple, and the Jewish table blessing, which informed the shape of the ancient Syriac Aramaic liturgy known as the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, which remains in use until the present. Also the use of mitres and other vestments are directly continued over from Judaism.



The church never changed the Sabbath to Sunday. In the fourth century, the Roman Catholic Church persuaded the Roman government under St. Theodosius in 380, the first Christian Emperor after several decades of Arianism, and the one who actually made Christianity the state religion, to renamed the seventh day from Dies Saturnae to Sabbato. Likewise, the Orthodox in all countries where we constitute a majority renamed the seventh day to a name reflecting the Sabbath.

While it is true that St. Constantine enacted a law limiting certain trade on Sunday, this was civil legislation, and did not prohibit resting on Saturday or interfere with the practice of Judaism, nor did St. Constantine make Christianity the sole legal religion in the Roman Empire. Paganism remained a powerful force in Rome throughout the fourth century, until it was finally suppressed by St. Theodosius, who smashed the altar to the goddess Victoria in the Curia of the Roman Senate and closed the Pagan temples, which was an act of great virtue, due to the horrible animal and sometimes human sacrifices these demonic idols required (Psalm 95 v. 5 LXX - the Gods of the Gentiles are demons.



Sunday was the primary day of Christian worship since at least the late first century according to all surviving documentary evidence - for instance, the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch, the writings of St. Justin Martyr, the Didache, Didascalia and other ancient books of Church Order, and also the obvious fact that in Scripture, our Lord is depicted as rising from the dead on the First Day and the Holy Spirit descended on the First Day, at roughly 9 AM (the third hour - three hours after sunrise). Some people like to quote Matthew out of context in a vain attempt to refute this, but the Gospels According to Mark, Luke and John clarify what the Gospel According to Matthew meant in terms of the time - so people attempting to do this are basically rejecting three Gospels in order to prop up a misinterpretation of one Gospel.

This is not unlike how those who deny the Real Presence or even the spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist will point to 1 Corinthians chapter 11 but insist that it be read in a manner that contradicts the equivalent passages in Matthew, Mark, 1 Corinthians chapter 10, and Luke (at least as far as the Blood of our Lord is concerned) not to mention John chapter 6 (which some of them deny has any connection to Holy Communion, but this of course makes no sense.

It should be noted that there are no Scriptural verses prohibiting worship on the First Day, there are no verses indicating gentiles were required to keep the Torah, there are no verses indicating the early church after the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 believed gentiles should keep the Torah, but several that say the opposite, for example, Galatians 3:15-5:15, and the celebration of the Resurrection of our Lord is simply the continuation of the Jewish custom of Pascha.

And if anyone even thinks of mentioning Christmas Trees or Easter Bunnies, they will have to contend with the fact that those appear in no traditional liturgies of any ancient church. Eggs and many other foodstuffs are blessed at Agapa Vespers on the afternoon of Pascha.

Also the name Easter with its supposed pagan connections does not make Pascha, the feast of the Resurrection, a pagan falllacy - that is the Nominal Fallacy - and it ignores the fact that in most languages the Feast of the Resurrection is referred to as Pascha or with another word derived from the Hebrew Pesach, for example, in Dutch, the holiday is called passen.

The Feast of the Nativity is very properly called Christmas in the West, because in the Western Church, the celebration of Holy Communion became commonly known as the Mass from the blessing at the end of the Roman Rite liturgy “Ite Missa est” meaning “Go forth, it is the dismissal” which is followed by reading the Last Gospel, John 1:1-14, at a Solemn Mass or Missa Cantata, and this term is used by Anglicans, Lutherans and Western Rite Orthodox and not exclusively by Roman Catholics, and Christmas takes its name from the fact that it is the celebration of the birth of Christ our God - his becoming Emanuel - God with us, in the flesh.

Santa Claus is a synthesis of two important fourth century bishops - St. Nicholas of Myra, who was present at Nicaea and who had been tortured in the Diocletian Persecution (forensic analysis of his relics indicates his nose was broken at least three times), who is reported by reliable authorities to have used the treasury of his church to save young girls from being forced into prostitution, by paying for their dowries in accordance with the disagreeable custom of the time. The other is St. Basil the Great, one of the Cappadocian Fathers (Cappadocia being a beautiful, geologically interesting region of Turkey) who, while not present at either ecumenical council, was a staunch supporter of St. Athanasius and of the Nicene Creed; his best friend St. Gregory the Theologian convened the Council of Constantinople in 381. What St. Basil is remembered for vis a vis Santa Claus is using the treasury of the Church of Caesarea in Cappadocia, of which he was bishop, to finance the construction of the first recognizable hospital where anyone could receive medical treatment free of charge, in addition to a hostel for exhausted travellers on the roads through Cappadocia linking Constantinople with places such as Ephesus, Edessa, Nisibis, Antioch and Armenia, and a hospice for the dying.

What is most offensive about these conspiracy theories is the way they make a mockery of the millions of Christians killed in the Diocletian and Arian persectuons, and the millions of Christains killed since in the genocides of the Saracens, Tamerlane, the Turks in 1915, the Communists starting in 1917, Islamic fundamentalists, and more recently, ISIS and other islamist groups in the Middle East, Pakistan and Africa, and the Azerbaijani ethnic cleansing of Ngorno-Karabakh with Turkish support and assistance. These Christians died for the traditional faith, the common beleifs shared between the majority of Roman Catholics, Eastern Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Calvinists and other Protestants, and Assyrians of the Church of the East, which people are, on the basis of conspiracy theories, trying to discredit.

Click to expand...

Last week, in the Divine Service Three Year Lectionairy, A Series, the First Reading was from Acts 17, where St. Paul observed how pagan the Athenians were:

From Acts 17:16-21

Here is where Paul takes the paganism of the Athenians and uses it as not only an open door but a firm foundation from which to launch the Gospel. Note in the areas I have higlighted that he first complements these "Gentiles" on their religiousity, how pius and devoted to faith (albeit missplaced). vs. 22 and 23 . From vs. 24-31 Having opened the door, preached the pure Gospel, no Law, just pure Gospel.

Acts 17:22-34

Paul Addresses the Areopagus​

From vs. 32-34 we all note that just as today, some refuse the Holy Spirt and the Gospel, and others receive it, and embrace it. Pauls Spirit led tactics to use, rather than condemn their paganism to turn them to Christ.

This is why I get my back up every time I hear someone beraiting all Christian practices that they disagree with (which is hate motivated speach against traditional Christians), when St. Paul, equally troubled by the paganism of the Athenians, use their pagan devotion to turn them to Jesus Christ and His Gospel.

Scriptural Quotes are from ESV Bible Gateway

MarkRohfrietsch said:

Last week, in the Divine Service Three Year Lectionairy, A Series, the First Reading was from Acts 17, where St. Paul observed how pagan the Athenians were:

From Acts 17:16-21

16 Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols. 17 So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be there. 18 Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, “What does this babbler wish to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities”—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. 19 And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20 For you bring some strange things to our ears. We wish to know therefore what these things mean.” 21 Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new.​

​

Here is where Paul takes the paganism of the Athenians and uses it as not only an open door but a firm foundation from which to launch the Gospel. Note in the areas I have higlighted that he first complements these "Gentiles" on their religiousity, how pius and devoted to faith (albeit missplaced). vs. 22 and 23 . From vs. 24-31 Having opened the door, preached the pure Gospel, no Law, just pure Gospel.

Acts 17:22-34

Paul Addresses the Areopagus​

22 So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription: ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,[c] 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28 for​

​

“‘In him we live and move and have our being’;[d]​

as even some of your own poets have said,​

​

“‘For we are indeed his offspring.’[e]​

29 Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. 30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”​

​

From vs. 32-34 we all note that just as today, some refuse the Holy Spirt and the Gospel, and others receive it, and embrace it. Pauls Spirit led tactics to use, rather than condemn their paganism to turn them to Christ.

​

32 Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, “We will hear you again about this.” 33 So Paul went out from their midst. 34 But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.​

This is why I get my back up every time I hear someone beraiting all Christian practices that they disagree with (which is hate motivated speach against traditional Christians), when St. Paul, equally troubled by the paganism of the Athenians, use their pagan devotion to turn them to Jesus Christ and His Gospel.

Scriptural Quotes are from ESV Bible Gateway

​

Click to expand...

The real tragedy of course is that people who abhorr traditional Christianity desire to convert us, on the basis of the idea that the Christianity we practice is somehow false or defective. It’s very sad because meanwhile there are a great many unchurched Christians and even more people who have become estranged, in part due to the rhetoric of some denominations on the fringes and the assumption that all Christians fall into this category.

The Liturgist said:

The real tragedy of course is that people who abhorr traditional Christianity desire to convert us, on the basis of the idea that the Christianity we practice is somehow false or defective. It’s very sad because meanwhile there are a great many unchurched Christians and even more people who have become estranged, in part due to the rhetoric of some denominations on the fringes and the assumption that all Christians fall into this category.

Click to expand...

BTW, a joyous and blessed Ascention Day to you and everyone here at CF! Pastor and I celebrated the Lutheran Mass tonight.

MarkRohfrietsch said:

BTW, a joyous and blessed Ascention Day to you and everyone here at CF! Pastor and I celebrated the Lutheran Mass tonight.
View attachment 379437

Click to expand...

I keep forgetting today is Ascension on the Western calendar because my mind is locked into celebrating it next week! Christ has ascended!

(the traditional response to this is “From Earth to Heaven!” although “Indeed, He is Ascended!” is also known; another beautiful greeting we don’t see as much is the post-Theophany/Epiphany greeting, “Christ is baptized!” response: “In the Jordan!”)

The Liturgist said:

Not true, that’s a conspiracy theory. The Council of Nicaea was convened to decide the question of Arianism

Click to expand...

I am not talking about the Council of Nicaea. Rather practices relating to worship and culture.

There were a number of pagan ideas that were blended with Christianity culturally. Hellenistic thinking influenced everyones worldview. Just like enlightement did. It changed the way the church understood the world.

The Liturgist said:

This is completely false.

Firstly, the celebration of the Incarnation of God in the person of Jesus Christ and of his passion and death on the Cross, and His bodily resurrection from the dead and Ascension, are not Pagan, by definition. They literally cannot be Pagan.

Click to expand...

I never said anything about the truth of the gospel. I said that by the time the church became the State religion of the empire it had gained social and political power and was being influenced by gnostism and the world. Which happened to be pagan and hellenistic.

The Liturgist said:

Secondly, the feast of the Resurrection was celebrated since the First Century, and it was celebrated according to surviving documentary evidence since the Second Century

Click to expand...

I am not disputing the worship and celebration of Christs death and resurrection. This is clear and I agree was the central form of worship that all agreed on from the Last Supper. Christians were gathering in upper rooms and small synagogues breaking bread.

I am talking about the fringe rituals and practices that were introduced over time. That chip away at the church and compromise it.

The Liturgist said:

At the Council of Nicaea, no decision was taken concerning Christmas.

Click to expand...

I never said that.

The Liturgist said:

That this coincided with a minor Roman observance and with the Saturnalia is purely coincidental and was not remarked upon historically, but in the 19th century neo-Pagan cults attempted to stake a claim to Christmas, by falsely associating it with various evil pagan celebrations.

Click to expand...

Once again I am not talking about the truth of the event but the disputes and disagreements on when Christ was born and hense when to celebrate or worship it.

Its similar to the Sabbath day. Its not that there event did not happen or is a truth we should observe. But rather disputes over the timing and methods of how it should be practiced and worshipped.

I was not just pagan and gnostic influences. There were many different ideas and disputes going on. We see the disagreements and splits happening around the same time as gosticism and the alternative Christian churches were popping up around the 2nd century. But especially as time went by.

This is when we see the writings of fathers like Tertillian against these heresies. Especially against the continuation of Jewish rituals in the church.

The Liturgist said:

My sources for the above statement are

Click to expand...

I cut the sources out to fit within the word limit. You have done a good research. I am not disputing these core teachings and truths for the church.

The Liturgist said:

Of course contrary to the arguments of some Restorationists Scripture does not provide a history of the Church after around 80 AD when St. John the Beloved Disciple wrote down what our Lord wished to communicate to certain churches in Revelation, rather, it discusses future events. Importantly it must be stressed that the Great Apostasy occurs in the end times, thus, the idea of 19th century Restorationists returning us to practices of the early church somehow lost in the fourth century, when in reality the fourth century is when the doctrine of the Trinity was preserved, is not credible in light of Matthew 16:18 which promises the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church.

Click to expand...

The research you have done establishing the truth and consistent belief and practices of the early church are what we need to base todays worship and truth on.

Now more than ever Christs church is being inundated with false ideas and teachings. Even to the point where Gods word itself from the bible is being subverted.

The Liturgist said:

Nor can you make this a Protestant vs. Catholic issue, since most Protestants reject this idea, including all traditional Protestants

It should be stressed that of the two ecumenical councils in the fourth century, there were only two Papal legates among the 318 Holy Fathers at Nicaea, and of the 150 at Constantinople, there were no representatives of the Church of Rome. And the main proposal made by the Roman legates at Nicaea, that of implementing Roman-style clerical celibacy church-wide, was voted down by the bishops.

Click to expand...

As a result of the developing alternative interpretations today we have a fractured church splintered into a 1,000 pieces. It doesn't matter what the issue was or where it happened in the east or west. The end result is a divided church. When Christ church is to be of one mind and spirit.

Its the dividing that makes the truth relative. So that compromises are accommodated. Which is what we have today.

The Liturgist said:

Not true - non-Christian worship practices had already been excluded as of Acts 15. See Against Heresies by St. Irenaeus of Lyons. There is no Gnostic influence in Orthodox Christianity,

Click to expand...

What do you regard as Orthodox. I am talking about the Judao Christian church out of the west.

Gosticism was a natural outgrowth of hellenistic thinking and beliefs. It was and still is the greatest threat to the church because it is based on dualism.

This tendency has been evident both in the secular, Greek strain of Western history (Platonism, Neoplatonism, etc.) and in the religious adaptations of that strain (mysticism, much of monasticism, and the abundance of taboos designed to keep believers from the world).

Gnosticism’s Influence on Early Church Monasticism and Asecticism
The argument has been made that the preponderance of ascetic practices, found in pagan thought before the existence of Christianity suggests that Hellenistic intellectual norms permeated the Church at a very early date. This had a marked effect on the development of monasticism and peculiar, extra-biblical doctrines ranging from the admonishment to have sex only for procreation to propitiatory penances.

The Liturgist said:

whereas a strong Jewish influence was retained, including the threefold daily prayers, adopted from Judaism, the twice weekly fast, adopted from Judaism, but moved to Wednesday and Friday to commemorate the betrayal and crucifixion of Christ our God,

Click to expand...

Which is not biblical as to these days.

The Liturgist said:

the Eucharist as a daily sacrifice, adopted from Judaism and replacing the sacrifices in the Temple, and the Jewish table blessing, which informed the shape of the ancient Syriac Aramaic liturgy known as the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, which remains in use until the present. Also the use of mitres and other vestments are directly continued over from Judaism.

Click to expand...

Yes the church retain some of the Jewish practices as they felt appropriate. But this was not scriptual as far as how this was practiced. It was a determination made by the church. The same as the other traditions like sex and chastity, penance ect.

The Liturgist said:

The church never changed the Sabbath to Sunday. In the fourth century, the Roman Catholic Church persuaded the Roman government under St. Theodosius in 380, the first Christian Emperor after several decades of Arianism,

Click to expand...

I thought you said the church was never influenced by such heresies.

The Liturgist said:

and the one who actually made Christianity the state religion, to renamed the seventh day from Dies Saturnae to Sabbato. Likewise, the Orthodox in all countries where we constitute a majority renamed the seventh day to a name reflecting the Sabbath.

Click to expand...

When Constantine conquered the pagan hordes and brought them into the church they were observing the day of the sun under the pagan sun god. In order to make it more convenient for them to make the change to the new Christian religion, Constantine accepted their day of worship, Sunday, instead of the Christian Sabbath which had been observed by Jesus and His disciples.

Remember that the way had been prepared for this already by the increasing of anti-Jewish feelings. Those feelings would naturally condition many Christians to swing away from something which was held religiously by the Jews.

This was imposed on Christianity through a strong civil law issued by Constantine as the Emperor of Rome.

Here are historians, Catholics and Protestants, speaking in harmony about what actually took place in the fourth century. The Catholic Church reinforced that act in one church council after another. Many official statements from Catholic sources are made, claiming that the church made the change from Saturday to Sunday.

Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, p. 153. “The church after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath or seventh-day of the week to the first, made the third commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord’s day.”

The Catholic Mirror of September 23, 1894, puts it this way: “The Catholic Church for over one thousand years before the existence of a Protestant by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday.”

One more statement taken from the book, The Faith of Millions, p. 473. “But since Saturday, not Sunday, is specified in the Bible, isn’t it curious that non-Catholics who profess to take their religion directly from the Bible and not from the Church, observe Sunday instead of Saturday?

Yes, of course, it is inconsistency but this change was made about fifteen centuries before Protestantism was born, and by that time the custom was universally observed. They have continued the custom even though it rests upon the authority of the Catholic Church and not upon an explicit text from the Bible.

That observance remains as a reminder of the Mother Church from which the non-Catholic sects broke away like a boy running away from home but still carrying in his pocket a picture of his mother or a lock of her hair.”

How The Sabbath Was Changed | Sabbath Truth

Background investigation of how the Sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday

www.sabbathtruth.com

The Liturgist said:

so people attempting to do this are basically rejecting three Gospels in order to prop up a misinterpretation of one Gospel.

Click to expand...

I agree. But this is the problem. That churches rise up disagreeing and making their own interpretations. This has been happening from a very early stage. It seems that the newness of the church just after Christ with the disciples still alive kept things in check. Witnesses were still around and belief was unified and strong. People were dying for that truth.

But not too long after the disciples were gone it seems all sorts of ideas were challenging the church and it was hard to keep in check. The fact that we have such a divided church on what is Gods word and worship is the evidence today. If the early church around the 4th century did have a clear and strong doctrine and worship then this would have still been evident even today.

The Liturgist said:

This is not unlike how those who deny the Real Presence or even the spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist will point to 1 Corinthians chapter 11 but insist that it be read in a manner that contradicts the equivalent passages in Matthew, Mark, 1 Corinthians chapter 10, and Luke (at least as far as the Blood of our Lord is concerned) not to mention John chapter 6 (which some of them deny has any connection to Holy Communion, but this of course makes no sense.

Click to expand...

I think its in the nature of how humans and cultures develop. Enlightenment brought in the idea that everything can be questioned and maybe what is claimed to be truth and Gods word is not what people say.

This allowed rationalisations of different interpretations and led to more splits in the church. I mean we have denominations based on different interpretations of everything from Christs divinity to priesthood and marriage. Even the need for sacrements and the eucharists being rationalised away or into something else.

The Liturgist said:

It should be noted that there are no Scriptural verses prohibiting worship on the First Day, there are no verses indicating gentiles were required to keep the Torah, there are no verses indicating the early church after the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 believed gentiles should keep the Torah, but several that say the opposite, for example, Galatians 3:15-5:15, and the celebration of the Resurrection of our Lord is simply the continuation of the Jewish custom of Pascha.

Click to expand...

I think its one of those issues where its not clear and also not a core issue. Like circumcision you can take it or leave it. But some have taken these compromises to then compromise core doctrines. As though the bible is just a guideline and churches can work out for themselves the truth.

The Liturgist said:

And if anyone even thinks of mentioning Christmas Trees or Easter Bunnies, they will have to contend with the fact that those appear in no traditional liturgies of any ancient church. Eggs and many other foodstuffs are blessed at Agapa Vespers on the afternoon of Pascha.

Click to expand...

As mentioned this was more a social and cultural practice that got attached to Christs birth. The pagan practices got mixed in with Christian ones and it seems the pagan ones took over. Because for most of the 20th century and today it seems people are more interested in celebrating Christimas than the birth of Christ as saviour.

The Liturgist said:

Also the name Easter with its supposed pagan connections does not make Pascha, the feast of the Resurrection, a pagan falllacy - that is the Nominal Fallacy - and it ignores the fact that in most languages the Feast of the Resurrection is referred to as Pascha or with another word derived from the Hebrew Pesach, for example, in Dutch, the holiday is called passen.

Click to expand...

I don't think many Christians know that. Certainly not westernised ones. They probably know more about santa. Or what present they will get from him.

I will come back to the rest. I agree that none of this detracts or changes the truth of Gods word and Christs church. I am speaking more about how the world and pagan ideas and power came in and corrupted the church.

It is good that you make clear the truth that has always stood because after centuries of false beliefs and ideas its needed now more than ever. What you describe in the early church that clarified the gospel and was lost to the world needs to be the foundation that the church today gets back to.

Thanks Steve

@stevew

You presented three links to books that are not official publications of the Roman Catholic Church, and that on this issue actually contradict the Missale Romanum (take a look at one sometime, you’ll see that Sunday is clearly written as Sabbato, and that this was the case in missals published in the 1890s, 1910s, 1930s, and whenever the inconsequental Protestant source you mentioned wrote.

Meanwhile I will continue to rely on books written by serious historians, such as the faculty of Oxford and Cambridge among other authors I cited. It would be appreciated if you were to read the sources I cited, and I shall reply to your post in after six months time if, having done so, you still have concerns regarding the historical accuracy of my sources, or if you believe I have fundamentally misrepresented or misquoted them.

If you have difficulty accessing any of the sources I have mentioned, feel free to send me a PM and I will endeavor to assist you, although all of them are quite common and most can be accessed through your local library and online and in accessible e-book format, since these constitute important works of Patristic and academic provenance, as opposed to obsolete and out-of-print Roman Catholic material (I did not see any links to Protestant content but I have seen Protestants argue in favor of a supposed change of the Sabbath to Sunday even on this site, and in the case of Protestants such a change is more believable since very few of them actually worship on the Sabbath as well as Sunday, whereas most Orthodox Christians do, as well as all Orthodox and Catholic clergy and religious (nuns, monks, etc.

Also it is of course extremely important that you review at least some sources pertaining to this issue from an Eastern Orthodox and ideally an Oriental Orthodox and an Assyrian perspective, since your entire argument rests on the false Catholic vs. Protestant argument and ignores the existence of several churches outside of the Roman Empire which would have broken communion with the church inside if they deemed that it departed from the apostolic faith (and indeed, later would, in the fifth century, over Chalcedon, with the exception of the Church of Georgia, which remained Chalcedonian, but the Church in Mesopotamia and India was divided rather between Nestorians and Oriental Orthodox, and the Church of Armenia, and the Coptic, Numidian and Ethiopian churches became Oriental Orthodox, and all retained Sunday as their primary day of worship, all of them predating the establishment of the secular Sunday law under St. Constantine or of Sunday as the state religion under St. Theodosius.

God bless you!

stevevw said:

I am not talking about the Council of Nicaea. Rather practices relating to worship and culture.

There were a number of pagan ideas that were blended with Christianity culturally. Hellenistic thinking influenced everyones worldview. Just like enlightement did. It changed the way the church understood the world.

I never said anything about the truth of the gospel. I said that by the time the church became the State religion of the empire it had gained social and political power and was being influenced by gnostism and the world. Which happened to be pagan and hellenistic.

I am not disputing the worship and celebration of Christs death and resurrection. This is clear and I agree was the central form of worship that all agreed on from the Last Supper. Christians were gathering in upper rooms and small synagogues breaking bread.

I am talking about the fringe rituals and practices that were introduced over time. That chip away at the church and compromise it.

I never said that.

Once again I am not talking about the truth of the event but the disputes and disagreements on when Christ was born and hense when to celebrate or worship it.

Its similar to the Sabbath day. Its not that there event did not happen or is a truth we should observe. But rather disputes over the timing and methods of how it should be practiced and worshipped.

I was not just pagan and gnostic influences. There were many different ideas and disputes going on. We see the disagreements and splits happening around the same time as gosticism and the alternative Christian churches were popping up around the 2nd century. But especially as time went by.

This is when we see the writings of fathers like Tertillian against these heresies. Especially against the continuation of Jewish rituals in the church.

I cut the sources out to fit within the word limit. You have done a good research. I am not disputing these core teachings and truths for the church.

The research you have done establishing the truth and consistent belief and practices of the early church are what we need to base todays worship and truth on.

Now more than ever Christs church is being inundated with false ideas and teachings. Even to the point where Gods word itself from the bible is being subverted.

As a result of the developing alternative interpretations today we have a fractured church splintered into a 1,000 pieces. It doesn't matter what the issue was or where it happened in the east or west. The end result is a divided church. When Christ church is to be of one mind and spirit.

Its the dividing that makes the truth relative. So that compromises are accommodated. Which is what we have today.

What do you regard as Orthodox. I am talking about the Judao Christian church out of the west.

Gosticism was a natural outgrowth of hellenistic thinking and beliefs. It was and still is the greatest threat to the church because it is based on dualism.

This tendency has been evident both in the secular, Greek strain of Western history (Platonism, Neoplatonism, etc.) and in the religious adaptations of that strain (mysticism, much of monasticism, and the abundance of taboos designed to keep believers from the world).

Gnosticism’s Influence on Early Church Monasticism and Asecticism
The argument has been made that the preponderance of ascetic practices, found in pagan thought before the existence of Christianity suggests that Hellenistic intellectual norms permeated the Church at a very early date. This had a marked effect on the development of monasticism and peculiar, extra-biblical doctrines ranging from the admonishment to have sex only for procreation to propitiatory penances.

Gnosticism’s Influence on Early Church Monasticism and Asecticism

Several crucial doctrines separate Roman Catholicism/Eastern Orthodoxy/Etcetera from Reformed Christianity. Among these are the beliefs in baptismal regeneration, propitiatory penances, and the ide…

orthodoxchristiantheology.com

Which is not biblical as to these days.

Yes the church retain some of the Jewish practices as they felt appropriate. But this was not scriptual as far as how this was practiced. It was a determination made by the church. The same as the other traditions like sex and chastity, penance ect.

I thought you said the church was never influenced by such heresies.

When Constantine conquered the pagan hordes and brought them into the church they were observing the day of the sun under the pagan sun god. In order to make it more convenient for them to make the change to the new Christian religion, Constantine accepted their day of worship, Sunday, instead of the Christian Sabbath which had been observed by Jesus and His disciples.

Remember that the way had been prepared for this already by the increasing of anti-Jewish feelings. Those feelings would naturally condition many Christians to swing away from something which was held religiously by the Jews.

This was imposed on Christianity through a strong civil law issued by Constantine as the Emperor of Rome.

Here are historians, Catholics and Protestants, speaking in harmony about what actually took place in the fourth century. The Catholic Church reinforced that act in one church council after another. Many official statements from Catholic sources are made, claiming that the church made the change from Saturday to Sunday.

Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, p. 153. “The church after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath or seventh-day of the week to the first, made the third commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord’s day.”

The Catholic Mirror of September 23, 1894, puts it this way: “The Catholic Church for over one thousand years before the existence of a Protestant by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday.”

One more statement taken from the book, The Faith of Millions, p. 473. “But since Saturday, not Sunday, is specified in the Bible, isn’t it curious that non-Catholics who profess to take their religion directly from the Bible and not from the Church, observe Sunday instead of Saturday?

Yes, of course, it is inconsistency but this change was made about fifteen centuries before Protestantism was born, and by that time the custom was universally observed. They have continued the custom even though it rests upon the authority of the Catholic Church and not upon an explicit text from the Bible.

That observance remains as a reminder of the Mother Church from which the non-Catholic sects broke away like a boy running away from home but still carrying in his pocket a picture of his mother or a lock of her hair.”

How The Sabbath Was Changed | Sabbath Truth

Background investigation of how the Sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday

www.sabbathtruth.com

I agree. But this is the problem. That churches rise up disagreeing and making their own interpretations. This has been happening from a very early stage. It seems that the newness of the church just after Christ with the disciples still alive kept things in check. Witnesses were still around and belief was unified and strong. People were dying for that truth.

But not too long after the disciples were gone it seems all sorts of ideas were challenging the church and it was hard to keep in check. The fact that we have such a divided church on what is Gods word and worship is the evidence today. If the early church around the 4th century did have a clear and strong doctrine and worship then this would have still been evident even today.

I think its in the nature of how humans and cultures develop. Enlightenment brought in the idea that everything can be questioned and maybe what is claimed to be truth and Gods word is not what people say.

This allowed rationalisations of different interpretations and led to more splits in the church. I mean we have denominations based on different interpretations of everything from Christs divinity to priesthood and marriage. Even the need for sacrements and the eucharists being rationalised away or into something else.

I think its one of those issues where its not clear and also not a core issue. Like circumcision you can take it or leave it. But some have taken these compromises to then compromise core doctrines. As though the bible is just a guideline and churches can work out for themselves the truth.

As mentioned this was more a social and cultural practice that got attached to Christs birth. The pagan practices got mixed in with Christian ones and it seems the pagan ones took over. Because for most of the 20th century and today it seems people are more interested in celebrating Christimas than the birth of Christ as saviour.

I don't think many Christians know that. Certainly not westernised ones. They probably know more about santa. Or what present they will get from him.

I will come back to the rest. I agree that none of this detracts or changes the truth of Gods word and Christs church. I am speaking more about how the world and pagan ideas and power came in and corrupted the church.

It is good that you make clear the truth that has always stood because after centuries of false beliefs and ideas its needed now more than ever. What you describe in the early church that clarified the gospel and was lost to the world needs to be the foundation that the church today gets back to.

Thanks Steve

Click to expand...

Please, re-read my rather short post above, both the scripture and my comments. #13

Then I have a very simple question: If we follow St. Paul's lead and take pagan devotion, and turn it arround to promote the Gospel, as he did in Athens, does that Gospel not "Sanitize" such devotion when it is now redirected to the Lord our God?