The early church were not religious in the way RCC is today. Everything was practical seeing ministries and responsibilities being exercised and recognised. What I find hard to see is how fluid this is, a fundemental faith of love and peace, became this dogmatic, violent, dictatorial dictatorship which the church finally emerged as.
I suppose the problem is simple, how do you decide what is authoritive and what is not, and how do you excommunicate those who fall into heresy. Once you get more power centric, with a priesthood and the laity, you then have something to defend. You then like here, start to say those who oppose your point of view are "satanic", therefore worthy of death, which given the right power you carry out. Dare I say it, but the prodigal son approach of letting people go their own way, but distinguishing yourself as a believing community did not appear high on the agenda.
What I find interesting is how many high church people through communion say they put Jesus at the centre of their faith, where as it is more like a lucky charm or medicine you take to cleanse you before the next set of sins you fall into.
The picture of Jesus turning on the light so you do not hurt yourself is not there. Ofcourse walking in the light of Jesus love is thinking about the cross every moment, but this is a confirmation of a heart change, not a ceremony that cleans a dirty vessel. How can you tell when you hurt someone else? Because a book of law tells you. Well then it is too late, and you have lost the relationships you thought you had.
My heart always gets broken when talking to catholics, for though we love the same Lord, so much is distorted, it is hard to not think they are slaves to their condition without any cure.