Catholicism in a Campaign

[Dogbrain]

Worrying about calling the residents of Constantinople Byzantines instead of Romanoi is (IMO) comparable to wanting to refer to Americans as English - just because we started out as 13 English colonies doesn't mean we are still English.

Do we consider ourselves to be "English" or "Americans"? Did the Romaiosini consider themselves to be "Byzantians" or "Romans"? Your simile is utterly wrong.

 

[Templar1129]

Interesting... but mostly irrelevant to my point.

Here's another link: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Byzantine_Empire

Clearly there was such a thing. Whether it called itself by that name or not is irrelevant. I don't think the ancient Egyptians ever used the terms "Old Kingdom" and "New Kingdom", but we do now.

Anyway, the "Catholic Church" really didn't exist in 500 AD. So a person wanting to run a Catholic from that period had better be willing to create an entire alternate history, because there was no such thing at the time.

A quote from the writings of St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch and martyr. He lived in the first and second century:

"Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the CATHOLIC CHURCH." —Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8

 

[aramis erak]

A few bits that seem to be escaping the discussion but are important to understand about the Christian Churches in the Early period...
especially the second century.

Most important is this: The Gnostics were a larger sect than what we now call orthodox (note the lower case). The Marcionists were a different, and significant group. But both the Gnostics and the Marcionists were still attending the local "orthodox" churches. In many cases, the clergy or even bishops were members of one of the alternate sects.

The first church council is in AD 48 - The council of Jerusalem. It is in this council that the separation from Judaism begins (before the end of the temple) as its decision admits non-Jews to the Christian Community without requiring the Mosaic Law's requirements for the Mosaic Covenant. (It also establishes that Peter and James together make binding decisions, as well as Petrine authority. It's also interesting in that Peter's prior behaviors in the scriptures indicate the decision is not consistent with Peter's conservatism...)

By 200, we have the formal hierarchy in place in most regions.
Several regions had elected a patriarch to replace the founding apostle. Rome, Byzantium, Antioch, Alexandria, and Chaldea each had a patriarch.
Cities had a Bishop. The bishop lead the services. The Bishop ordained Chorbishops, Priests, and Deacons for the city and its town and village surrounds. The bishop also ordained the Deaconesses, Subdeacons, Acolytes, Lectors, Cantors, thurifers, candlebearers, and Porters... all of which are attested to by 200 AD. Not all locations had all of them, but almost all had deaconesses, subdeacons, and acolytes.
Chorbishops were ordained for outlying communities, due to the hardships of service attendance. They also were permitted to ordain the minor orders (Subdeacons, Acolytes, Lectors, Cantors, and Porters), but it is unclear whether or not the
Priests, ordained by the Metropolitan Bishops, served their ordaining bishop or one of his Chorbishops, assissting in the liturgy.
Deacons assisted the bishops in tending the poor, the sick, the widows, the orphans.
No one's sure about deaconesses' role outside baptism of women (both initatory/sacramental, and monthly post-mensus)
Subdeacons and below were justbecomeing formalized by 200...

Bishops were ordained by one of several methods:

• one of the 12 could ordain them. (Noting that by the 2nd quarter of the 2nd C, none of the originals was left, but perhaps Matthius might have been.
• A neighboring bishop could ordain them.
• a designated successor might be ordained a bishop by his predecessor, as Linus was by Peter. (at least apochryphally, perhaps even in fact.)
• If there was a patriarch, the patriarch could.

The double handing of post Nicea (that is, two bishops being common, or even needed, to ordain a new bishop) appears to be fourth century.

There was a duty of daily observance of morning and evening prayer by clergy. We do not know the forms, but it's safe to assume the Jewish forms were slowly morphing. The liturgy of the Hours wasnt in its full forms until the 4th C.

There was no canon of scripture. 6 gospels are known to have been in broad use... 5 of which survive. (Matthew, Mark, Luke,) and two more have recently been largely refound: Thomas, and much of Mary. I forget the name of the other Gnostic gospel. A Variant of Luke was in use by Marcion. John's Gospel comes into use mid 2nd C.
Common use included the Infancy Gospels - Noting that James Protoevangelion was a mid-2nd addition; it wasn't adopted at Nicea (325) for liturgical use, but wasn't condemned until 405. Most of Catholic and Orthodox (note the capitals) teaching on Mary is from James' inancy gospel.
The letters of Paul, Peter, Linus, Cletus, Anacletus, and of several apostles were in circulation, but largely not widely dispersed. Paul to the Romans seems to be one of the most widespread. Of these, the ones from Linus, Cletus, and Anacletus are almost (but not quite) reissues o Paul's and Peter's instructions... and hence would be deemed unneeded in the canon at Nicea (325).
The Judeo-Christians retained the entirety of the Jewish Bible - in Greek speaking areas, the Septuagint; in the east, the Hebrew version.
The Psalms were used in almost all communities.
The sayings gospels were popular - these are just quotes, largely, much like Thomas' Gospel. One or more of these may be the source of the semi-mythical Q. Many of them would later be condemned...

The liturgical praxis is documented, but not the text. By mid 2nd, it was a gathering of the faithful and the students, a reading, a psalm, and a gospel reading, possibly also a reading from an epistle and or a homily/sermon. The students would be dismissed with one or more of the deacons at this point, while the faithful remained. This was followed by the commemoration - which may have been more than just a communion service. The students and the failthful would then rejoin for a meal as a community.
We know that ordinations were done during the communion service, but not exactly when.

Note that Marcionism was denounced as a gross heresy by the Church.

True, but some aspects of Marcionism still strongly influence the Catholic Churches even to the present... the early versions of the Divine Liturgy in the Byzantine Rite (both those in communion with Byzantium and those in communion with Rome) uses only the Psalms as far as OT readings, and to this day, that's still mostly the case. The paraliturgical services ("Liturgy of the Hours") are where the Byzantines use OT readings. Until the expulsion of the Gnostics, many bishops tried to keep things fairly undivided...

In the context of the early church, 2nd C, four strains run through...
The Jewish Christians - adhering to Noahic and Mosaic covenants. (The Armenian Rite retains this, except for circumcision.)
The Jamesian Christians - adhering to the Noahic covenant, but the Mosaic (other than the 10 commandments) being optional.
The Gnostics - with secret wisdom taught, possibly even during the liturgy. There are a few small sects surviving to this day. When not in dominance locally, they may have attended the Jewish or Jamesian services, then gone off for their own.
The Marcionists. In general, they were either in charge, and teaching from the front, or not in charge and Attending, but preaching their variation in study groups.
There may have been areas with female clergy as well.

WHen you have divided communities being supppressed, then you tend also to see the lowest common denominator being the usual...

Also, in the 2nd C, we get the first dedicated permanent structures...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Just going to point out that prior to Templar1129’s post, this thread had been in the tomb since John-Paul II was the pope…*

IT HAS RISEN!







* and 2 days after I joined ENWorld.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Just going to point out that prior to Templar1129’s post, this thread had been in the tomb since John-Paul II was the pope…*

IT HAS RISEN!







* and 2 days after I joined ENWorld.

Took more than 3 days though.

 

[aramis erak]

Ah, yes, that tired old lie--quite typical of such dishonest claims manufactured by 19th-century antiquarians. Abbess Brigid (you can't even spell her name correctly) of Kildare was a real woman, who really founded an abbey in Kildare. Her existence can be readily verified.

In the case of Brigid, it's not transfer.
In the case of the now formally removed from the canon of saints (proclaimed by Pope Benedict) of more than a dozen British "saints" who were never ratified by councils nor popes (including one of the two Sts Bran), a handful of similarly non-canonized Africans, and a few such other European "saints by tradition"... Prior to Trent, a regional Patriarch (Jerusalem - Roman, Jerusalem - "greek", Jerusalem - Armenian, Ukrainian, Alexandria - Copt, Alexandria - Greek, Chaldea, Lisboa, Braga) with his synod could canonize, but many saints were, in the 600's to 1400's, simply added by the local bishops. The Commission for Defense of the Faith (The modern name for the inquisition) estimated about 10% of the Roman Calendar's saints were never formally canonized by even a national synod in local council. SOme of those cannot be documented other than by the calendar for the regional church and attending paraliturgical and liturgical text. The most egregious were removed from the Roman, Dominican, and Ambrosian calendars by Pope Benedict XVI... of those which survived the cuts from the commission for the Roman Missal.

Note that Orthodoxy requires patriarchal or synodal unity for declaring saints. The Romanovs were Canonized by the Patriarch of Russia, and the other synods largely simply ignored that, but the OCA, according to several priests I've talked to, has added them to the roll of martyrs in response.

 

[Ixal]

I havent followed the discussion, but when you include catholicism or christianity in general the best thing you can use its the organization the rituals and all the other trappings. That is more lore and details than all other fantasy religions have combined at it would be a shame not to use it.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

While I would normally consider this particular potato rather too hot to handle - even given its venerable age of 18 years - I think it's worth pointing out a single, basic truism about any commentary regarding early Christianity:

• A lot of people assert a lot of things as though they were categorically true, based on early aetiological myths which the church committed to writing from the 2nd Century CE onwards, and for which we have no extant written sources dating to before the 3rd or 4th Century CE. These treatises were penned by people with theological agendas.

And that is all I have to say on the matter.

 

[aramis erak]

While I would normally consider this particular potato rather too hot to handle - even given its venerable age of 18 years - I think it's worth pointing out a single, basic truism about any commentary regarding early Christianity:

• A lot of people assert a lot of things as though they were categorically true, based on early aetiological myths which the church committed to writing from the 2nd Century CE onwards, and for which we have no extant written sources dating to before the 3rd or 4th Century CE. These treatises were committed to writing by people with theological agendas.

And that is all I have to say on the matter.

There is actually a lot of documentation - the various letters of the popes of Rome and Alexandria discuss a lot; 2nd and 3rd century copies have been found, and they match the later versions of same.
The Gnostic scriptures have been found in a variety of archaeological finds - most monasteries simply buried their decanonized scriptures. Which is where the oldest versions of some scriptures are found, as well as decanonized at Nicea epistles from Alexandrian and Roman Popes. It's worth noting that the Pauline and Petrine epistles were found in digs in Egypt - and it is known they were ordered read by the Popes of Alexadria.
We have a number of second century references in other sources noting the organization. Josephus being the best known, but far from the only, Roman non-christian source.
Many of the sources are not readily available online; the translations are still in copyright. Others are only published in their original languages.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

There is actually a lot of documentation - the various letters of the popes of Rome and Alexandria discuss a lot; 2nd and 3rd century copies have been found, and they match the later versions of same.
The Gnostic scriptures have been found in a variety of archaeological finds - most monasteries simply buried their decanonized scriptures. Which is where the oldest versions of some scriptures are found, as well as decanonized at Nicea epistles from Alexandrian and Roman Popes. It's worth noting that the Pauline and Petrine epistles were found in digs in Egypt - and it is known they were ordered read by the Popes of Alexadria.
We have a number of second century references in other sources noting the organization. Josephus being the best known, but far from the only, Roman non-christian source.
Many of the sources are not readily available online; the translations are still in copyright. Others are only published in their original languages.

Sorry, not biting.

For a range of insightful views and perspectives around early Christianity I find this forum quite stimulating:

Linkie