Here is an interesting thread from a small church in La Vista, Nebraska, located six miles from the Iowa state line. Why and when did Catholicism start? ...Scottish Monk
Much of the material on this website (negative in implication as it is) has a very trivial air to it. Does it really matter when small ceremonies came in? The issues of salvation, authority, and objective truth are more important. Regardless, there are a few historical errors. 30. Establishment of Lent and Good Friday. Fasting on Fridays and during Lent - A.D. 998 Augustine speaks of the 40 day period of penance somewhere, as does Cyril of Jerusalem in his first catechetical lecture. Augustine also has liturgical sermons, some of which deal with the Passion of the Lord as a holy-day. Leo I of Rome has several of the same. Simply because there was some canon law formed by Rome in 998 regarding these practices, does not mean they were invented in that year. This is a common fallacy of this website. 34. Rosary beads introduced - A.D. 1090 Prayer beads are hundreds of years older than that. They originate from the monastic practice of using pebbles to count the number of times the Lord's Prayer was said. 41. Confirmation begins - A.D. 1547 This is a good example of some inaccuracies on this website. There are paintings by Romanists from the 15th century which represent seven Sacraments, amongst which is that of Confirmation. Here is one by Rogier van der Weyden, painted about 100 years before Trent was convened. Confirmation is in the left panel of the triptych, underneath the angel in golden vestments.
Consular... Perhaps you can give us an interpretation of all of the scenes in the painting by Rogier van der Weyden--and tell us about the dogs, if you please. ...Scottish Monk
Scottish Monk, I heed your request with pleasure. I am no art expert, but a little research, logic & common sense can yield a lot. The angelic text is a little small to read for me, though I am sure it has some florid Latin title of each sacrament. The people gathered around the baptismal font, those walking away from the Confirmation, and the woman reading on the right panel, are most likely those who commissioned the painting. It was the custom, back then, in genre paintings, to include the patrons who paid for it. A crucifixion scene dominates the foreground This is a traditional altar piece of the 15th century; almost every altar piece had a crucifixion in the middle. The crucifix here, specifically, is the mystical event from which all their sacraments flow. 1. We are baptised into His death, 2. Confirmed with the Spirit that left His person upon dying, 3. Confess and are Absolved: washed in His blood shed upon the Cross, 4. in the Eucharist re-present His sacrifice upon the Cross for sins, 5. in Ordination other-Christs are made to continue the sacrifice, both in their lives and on the altar, 6. we are wed in matrimony as a sign of the marriage which took place between Christ and the Church upon the Cross, and 7. we are anointed as we physically die and may be saved from eternal decay because of the Cross. LEFT PANEL Starting from the foreground, a priest is preparing to baptize a baby by anointing its senses. The white angel symbolises the purity of the washing. Back a little and to the right, a bishop in a cope and mitre is confirming a child and anointing his forehead with chrism. A sacristan or acolyte holds the oils, to the bishop's left. The golden angel represents the heavenly and divine Spirit descending. The dog between the first two sacraments is a loyal hound, similar to a greyhound or whippet. These are associated with loyalty, speed, courage, and energy. Apart from possibly being one of the family dogs (church-interior paintings often have dogs in them for hundreds of years), the hound is a sign of faith continuing and striving: loyalty to baptism, and courage given by the Holy Ghost in Confirmation: to send the soul on its way, running the race and hunting down sin. Back yet more and toward the roodscreen or chancel, a priest with his head covered (not sure why, must read Medieval customs) grants absolution to a penitent. Another penitent waits, kneeling. The red angel stands for the blood of Christ coming through the sacrament to wash the sins away, leaving penitents white as snow. It looks as if a cathedral chapter is being held in the left background. CENTRAL PANEL Here the crucifix (with S. John and a fainting S. Mary) stands as a portrait in which the elevation of the Eucharistic host is framed, in the background. Its context behind the Cross represented the developing idea that the Mass is a proper sacrifice (rather than merely a sacrifice of our praise and thanksgiving), so the ultimate sacrifice was painted above its altars. An acolyte/server lifts the back of the priest's chasuble with his left hand to take some of the weight and constriction away from the priest's arms as he elevates the bread; with his right hand, the acolyte holds a staff with a burning candle atop, to symbolize the re-entrance of the light of the world into the world. An angel adores the host, its message wrapped around the altar. Significantly, it looks as if the statue of the Madonna, holding Christ, is the thing to which the Eucharist is being addressed or elevated. Some sort of prayer (perhaps the penitential confession at the foot of the altar) is being carried out behind the gates to the left of the altar. RIGHT PANEL From the background, a bishop wraps a newly-ordained priest's hands together and anoints them to be holy and set apart from other hands, so he may perform absolution and consecrate the Eucharist. Interestingly, Catholic theology of clericy defined seven orders in ascending dignity, the final three of which were proper clergy: In Training: Porter (doorkeep, a seminarian who looked after a church as a sexton might) In Training: Lector (learning to read the Epistle, among other things), In Training: Exorcist (mostly symbolic), In Training: Acolyte (served as the master of altar boys & acolytes during large services) Proper Clergy: Sub-deacon (read the Epistle, did minor things in the Eucharist), Proper Clergy: Deacon (read the Gospel, performed minor actions during Communion), Proper Clergy: Priest (if educated enough, said the sermon; consecrated the Eucharist; absolved sins; captained a parish) Bishops were just considered "high priests", or "the fullness of the priesthood". In 1964, Vatican II abandoned the seven-fold and three-fold order, moving to the order of Deacon, Priest, and Bishop as in the early Church. Apart from the distinction of having a darker colour than the angels to the left, I am unsure why the Ordination angel is brown. I will not conjecture. Next down, between background and foreground, is their sacrament of matrimony. A man delivers the ring and says "I do", the form of the sacrament. An already-pregnant-looking wife symbolises the fecundity & ultimate purpose marriage. The angel has blue robes, which are often associated with the Virgin Mary, and thus purity, innocence, and chastity. In the foreground a dying man is about to be anointed by a priest, who receives the last of the holy oils. Interestingly, Vatican II detached this "extreme unction" (last anointing) from its deathly context, and made it an anointing of the sick, so this painting is out of date. You don't need me to tell you what the black angel represented. The dog between matrimony and the last rites may represent the fidelity of such little creatures (in marriage), or the last gasp of godly faith by a bright and living soul as it dies. Little dogs always represent either loyalty or fruitfulness in marriage (women were often depicted holding them). Since this dog is between the two sacraments, he may serve a twofold purpose, as the hound in the leftmost paragraph. This is a typical Renaissance example of symmetry and balance. Note that all seven angels don darker raiment as life proceeds from the early vigour to its inevitable end: memento mori.
Dear Scottish Cousin, Why did Catholicism start? Because God willed it! He appeared on earth in human form ( the Second Person of the Holy Trinity,) to bring about the New Covenant and redeem mankind. When did Catholicism start? It was in an upper room in Jerusalem some two thousand years ago. Read about it in the Book of Acts! For some the New Covenant is still active!
Highchurchman, you know this thread is about Romanism. Don't pretend that the Romanists haven't completely usurped the title "Catholic" for themselves. They've associated themselves with it so heavily that, in popular culture, "Catholic" means "Romanist", sadly.
I disagree entirely! From a personal standpoint, I have been an Anglican Catholic for some 79 years. In that time I have never admitted to being a protestant,( from one to nine, I didn't even care). Neither I might say has the Church in England ever used the title in a theological way. After the so called Glorious Revolution, the English Convocation was asked by the Calvinist, William of Orange to use the term Protestant when in correspondence with the Protestants in Europe. They politely declined pointing out that the Church had never held the theories and so had no need of the definition. This was at a time when William had an army of some ten thousand protestants of north european origin, as an army of occupation in this country! The term was used ,sadly, by individuals to show their protests against papal adventurism in English Politics. See The High Church Party. C.H.S. George Every, S.S.M 1956 Interestingly at the state school I attended when I was five, we were taught that the Church arrived here via sent Paul. Also that our Bishops attended the seven councils. It is the weak behaviour of Anglicans conceding the Roman Claims, that has caused the pass to be sold. I oftimes trawl through the copies of the local newspaper to follow the arguments and objections by Church people to Romans trying to claim catholicity!
What do you mean by 'theological' here? Well of course they never held the theories of Continental Dutch in the Netherlands for example, who were Calvinist. But I find it hard to believe they'd reject the term 'Protestant' after so many Anglican theologians used it profusely. This sounds like something out of a non-juror's dream. Surely the papal adventurism was in more than just English Politics.
Hi All... This might be another "great thread." Lots of good stuff flowing in the lava. Thank you. Please continue. As the OP, I am learning a great deal. ...Scottish Monk
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I was taught that Protestantism in its classical guise was Lutheranism. however Jewel, Hooker and certainly Burnet, use the term and Charles the First did also, even so, we are talking about the Church in England. We are not a collection of individuals, we are the Church of God, or at least a Communion within it! When the sons of Edward Hyde, were putting the finishing touch to the Great Rebellion, they were told by the great Sancroft, last real Archbishop of Canterbury to my mind, not to use the term and to change the references to Catholic! As for Bramhall, had you read my letter I did say that the term was used by individuals to signify their opposition to Rome and I also have used the term schismatical to describe the Roman Church.
I should like to point out that John Cosins, the Bishop of Durham, wouldn't receive the Housling from the Calvinists during his exile in France, though they were kind enough to offer support, pointing out to them that they supported the English heretics who caused the trouble in the first place! I would be very much surprised if you could show a statement of the Church in England stemming from any major theological document or source using the term Protestant to describe our beliefs?
I'd love to learn more about this incident! Good on the reverend Bishop, the Puritans had executed the King just a few years earlier.
Scottish Monk, I'll try to give you a summary of history I've learned... Leaving the "why" aside, it's honestly hard to say when Catholicism started. Assuming "Roman" Catholicism is meant, there's a great hodgepodge in history. There are certainly very few vestiges of Roman theology of the Eucharist, the Papacy, and Grace in the early Fathers. One or two popes claimed to "be" Peter in the early days, but when they tried to exercise some divine right that they assumed they possessed by virtue of the "Petrine office", the rest of the Church opposed them. Look up Victor I in the AD 180s. He tried to excommunicate the entire Eastern church over its calculation of Easter, but the whole church told him off - including Western bishops. Roman Catholicism developed in stages. In the mid-8th century, the areas traditionally under Roman oversight slowly recovered from the devastation of the Muslim invasions. Only Rome was left almost untouched by the wars. Germany was isolated, fragmented, and not entirely Christian, so it played no part. French and Spanish dioceses, historically the largest ones, began asking Rome to send her theologians to help re-train and fill up the decimated priesthood. Papal claims that used to be rebuked in the early Church - such as Rome's universal jurisdiction over the whole Church - began to spread, without anyone left to question them. With the East cut off by the Muslim control of the Mediterranean, and the crusades 300 years away, no one was left with competent theological strength to resist what had once been fought against. The roots of Romanism are extremely complicated. Roman Bishops were very closely linked to the East and Constantinople for a long time. Several Popes were of Greek extraction in the century before AD 750. The Emperors of the East confirmed all papal elections, and Rome had to wait for their approval. It's my theory that the rise of Charlemagne in the impoverished West, gave Rome an excuse to begin making its claims of Church-wide jurisdiction as it had tried to do before. Leo III of Rome's struck a deal to crown Charlemagne as Emperor, a very serious break from the traditional recognition of Eastern Imperial jurisdiction. The East found this intolerable, and protested the false coronation of Dec. 25, 800. I find it very disturbing that this was basically just a deal - Rome got quite a lot of land north of Tuscany, in fulfillment of their promise to crown a holy, divinely-appointed King-Emperor. Seeds of traditional, classical, imperial Roman Catholicism were planted by Nicholas I of Rome, 858-867. He was the first Bishop of Rome (after 60 years of Roman Episcopal power extending over Italy and influencing the Emperors in Aachen) to claim that Rome not only has spiritual authority over every last Christian and bishop in the Church, but also that the Church has a divine right to secular power. This Roman error itself lasted well into the 19th and 20th centuries; see Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors of 1864, which condemns anyone who says that Rome has no right to political, secular, and economic power in world affairs. From Nicholas I to Vatican II in the 1960s, Rome was adamant in claiming secular power. They crowned popes, after investing them with robes of episcopacy, and they carried them around on secular thrones. This happened as recently as 1963. One particularly disgusting but of trickery in Rome's history was the insistence on the legitimacy of the Donation of Constantine. It was allegedly a legal document drawn up by the emperor Constantine after Nicaea in 325. The emperor had apparently "donated" the entire western half of his unmanageably-large empire to the bishop of Rome. It was found out by the Roman humanist Lorenzo Valla, 600 years later, that this was a complete forgery made by canon-lawyers of the Roman school. The damage had already been done, however, as it had been insisted for hundreds of years that this donation was legitimate. This, combined with Charlemagne's coronation and gift of lands to Leo III, cemented the mindset of "Roman Exceptionalism", if you want to use American terminology. Transubstantiation was first used as a word in reference to the Eucharist at Lateran IV in 1215. The Assumption of Mary was believed by Romans for quite a while before 1950, when it was solemnly defined as true; problem is, that the account of the Virgin's Assumption was invented by Gnostics in the 4th century: see the Transitus Literature. Rome claims that her doctrines about the Virgin, the Church, the Eucharist, Grace, Authority, and Truth are all attested in the early Fathers. Since this has been shown absolutely false by Catholic and Protestant historians alike, Rome has lately developed something called "The Development of Doctrine", which seeks to give a smooth explanation of why certain "infallible" truths are not obvious in the early Church. Since the history of Romanism is so convoluted, they have to make up a process by which they can appeal only to themselves for what was and is true. I believe Roman Catholicism started in the heart of man at the Fall. The ecclesiastical expression of it is just our usual pride, arrogance, tyranny, and darkness of soul: the things of fallen man, only write large.
Romanism is not a natural phenomena, it was a cancer or growth that took 1500 years to come to fruition! Opposition to the false teaching had struggled for over 1400 years. The Orthodox Church had been driven (1054 ) apart from the West; in Britain , the Church there ,had reputedly rejected as early as 607 A.D. the gross aspirations to papal domination in the west by the statement of S. Dinooth, Abbott of Bangor - Iscoed and the British bishops. This was at a Conference within N.Wales or West Britain. In England the Saxon Kings had refused Continental domination of the Church in England, basing their authority on the Canons of the Early Church . The Norman, William the First, refused to acknowledge the Romanist claims, even though the pope had supported William's invasion of England. Henry I and the Norman Bishops discussed withdrawal from the communion of the Roman Church. The medieval Councils of the Western Church carried on a very obvious war with the various Bishops of Rome, imprisoning them, sacking others whilst at least one did a runner into oblivion. At no time did Henry the Eighth go beyond the laws of his predecessors. No pope was able to enter England without permission of the State,i.e. King or Parliament, neither could his servants; the Church was constrained from seeking permission from Rome for answer to English Church problems.Bishops on the whole were appointed on the say so of the monarch, rather than the papacy. S. Tom More, who is usually thought to be a strong servant of the pope, in a letter to Crumwell, denied the Pope's Supremacy, claiming authority rested with the Seven Councils. At this time the Anglican Bishops accepted or affirmed eight of them. Interestingly there was very little support of the Bishop of Rome from the Church in England. We must remember, that while the Church, through the Councils, fought and won their case against the papacy, they had no means of imposing their will and it was the Monarchs who used their muscle to preserve the Roman Bishop. He was at the end of the day, as Bishop of Rome, not only an ecclesiastical, but a Monarch of great lands in Northern Europe.
Part 2. 'Roman Catholicism', as we know it, has a history of struggle behind it from the very early days of that See. It was, initially, the bishop of Rome trying to break out of the chains, Church Tradition, had laden him with, Revelation scripture and the councils, thus preventing him from usurping the power of the Catholic Bishops and turning the Catholic Church in to a Catholic Sect! He started off with a run of luck, first of all, the Churched accepted claims that the Roman See, was founded by two apostles,S.S Paul and Peter, there was doubt about the latter, but it was finally allowed. Then, the See of Rome became a Dept. of State for the Emperor's Christian subjects while the Bishop of Rome himself, served as the unofficial , Minister for Christians, for several of the Christian emperors. Un-official but very real in truth. In return he got to use the state police to enforce his own will as a gesture of appreciation from the state. At one time we find him repossessing two houses at the Emperor's command, another time we find ,"S."Leo sending his police over the French Alps to the Lerins Community to arrest one of the monks for for opposing Leo's wishes. He was taken over in the midst of winter, but escaped and returned to the monastery at Lerins. Years later other minor points fell in to the Bishop of Rome's pockets,when the Western Empire disappeared, the prestige and the authority of the Roman State fell in to the hands of the already replete Bishop. From nowhere, came the Will, of the Emperor of Constantine the Great,it had been lost and when found ,(about 500 yrs later,) it had left practically the whole of then world, or Roman Empire, to the then pope and his successors. Later another find brought the Bishop more luck ,a series of finds substantiated the claims of the Roman Bishop.( Isadorian Decretals.) Later on the Bishops were to inherit the City of Rome, virtually and all the Northern March's of Italy , thus making the Bishop in to a virtual king! But both the Will and the isadorian Decretals were found to be forgeries, though this was not till 800 yrs had elapsed. The fact that we've to remember is that the Bishop of Rome had no authority other than a bishop and that all the rest was bluff! The Council given honour of Primate of the West, was given largely because, there were the two saints, or apostles who were believed to have brought Christianity to Rome and his position as erstwhile parish priest to the Emperor! There is nothing in either Revelation, Scripture or Holy Tradition to support the claim of the Bishops of Rome.
If Roman Catholicism, as we know it today extends back to the early Church of Rome, why do a continuous line of Anglican theologians and scholars tell us loud and clear that the Roman Catholic Church is a creation of the Council of Trent?,(!545/ 1564.) 1." The term Roman as used in the Articles refer to the specific teachings of the Council of Trent. In Diarmid McCulloch's excellent history of the Reformation in Europe, he points out that there were no Roman Catholics in Europe in 1500.....The Roman Church recast itself at the long running Council of Trent!". Bishop Chartres,Bishop of London. FAith & Worship,No 56, pg11.2005. "Such writers as Field and others in our Church have always written of the Council of Trent as the great agent in severing the papal communion ,formally & specifically from that which is Catholic and stamping it papal & Roman." 39 Articles, T.P. Boulbee. " The Counter Reformation was not the mending of an old Church, but the making of a new church .H. Thorndyke. Works.1845. "The phrase'"Roman Catholic,' should properly be used only of the Roman Communion after Trent!" C.B. Moss. The Christian Faith, Ch 7, pg 468.
Thanks to everyone. These are excellent posts! I plan on going back and studying them in depth in the next few days. ...Scottish Monk