Any information about Mass from the 1st century?

  • Thread starter Thread starter EphelDuath
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

EphelDuath

Guest
Pre-Latin, anti-Nicene Mass; when it was in Koine Greek (or Aramaic? I’m not really sure).

There’s a book by Mike Aquilla called “Mass of the Early Christians,” though I’m under the impression that it’s more about post-Nicene Mass than the Apostolic age’s traditions.

Any good sources of information about it?
 
Sadly, what you are asking for is not really available. Perhaps the best description of the Liturgy of the early Church is found in Justin Martyr’s description (First Apology). And, of course, the term “Mass” would not apply – that would be anachronistic since the word “Mass” derives from the dismissal at the end of the Latin Mass of the 7th and 8th century (“Ite missa est.”) The expression that the Church used was “Breaking of the Bread” and, later, Liturgy.

Fr. Josepf Jungmann, S.J. includes this material, and more, in his Mass of the Roman Rite.

Deacon Ed
 
Deacon_Ed said:
Sadly, what you are asking for is not really available. Perhaps the best description of the Liturgy of the early Church is found in Justin Martyr’s description (First Apology). And, of course, the term “Mass” would not apply – that would be anachronistic since the word “Mass” derives from the dismissal at the end of the Latin Mass of the 7th and 8th century (“Ite missa est.”) The expression that the Church used was “Breaking of the Bread” and, later, Liturgy.

Fr. Josepf Jungmann, S.J. includes this material, and more, in his Mass of the Roman Rite.

Deacon Ed
Click to expand...
I do not think that the term “Mass” comes from the 7’th or 8’th century. I will have to check sources here…I recall reading that as early as the first century the term “Mass” was used as a description by the early Church…particularly in Rome- to disguise what they were going to attend.

Ken
 
We really don’t have any solid information about what Mass was like in the Early Church, contrary to what liturgical revolutionaries told us back in the 60’s in an effort to turn the altar around, introduce the “prayers of the faithful” and a number of other innovations that may or may not have been part of the Mass of the Early Church.
 
HOW CHRIST SAID THE FIRST MASS By James L. Meagher, D.D.

Shows how the traditional Mass sums up the entire Old Testament worship from the time of Adam to the time of Christ, how even minute details of the present Mass were used by Christ in the very First Mass, and how they have come down to our day with the same symbolic into the history and tradition of every aspect of Hebrew worship and shows clearly how Our Lord blended and wove them all together into the beautiful liturgy we call the Mass.

That’s the blurb from marianland.com/eucharist09.html

Fr Meagher goes into extraordinary detail in this book.

Another book that is easier to read, but informative, is The Story of The Mass: From the Last Supper to the Present Day by Pierre Loret.
 
Eileen_T said:
HOW CHRIST SAID THE FIRST MASS By James L. Meagher, D.D.

Shows how the traditional Mass sums up the entire Old Testament worship from the time of Adam to the time of Christ, how even minute details of the present Mass were used by Christ in the very First Mass, and how they have come down to our day with the same symbolic into the history and tradition of every aspect of Hebrew worship and shows clearly how Our Lord blended and wove them all together into the beautiful liturgy we call the Mass.

That’s the blurb from marianland.com/eucharist09.html

Fr Meagher goes into extraordinary detail in this book.
Click to expand...
I don’t mean to appear pompous and disaparage your suggestion, but Fr. Meagher’s book is not a good one to read if one is looking for a hisotrical explanation. Aside from the fact that the book is liberally sprinkled with inspiration from mystics, he tries to superimpose the Classical Mass over the Last Supper, and show continuity for where there is none and for things that appeared much later. The difference between his book adn books like The Mass by Fr. Fortescue, The Mass of the Roman Rite by Fr. Jungmann, or the works of Cagin, Cabrol or Gassner is quite vast. Each of them makes their own assumptions and mistakes but its not to the extent he does.
 
AJV said:
I don’t mean to appear pompous and disaparage your suggestion, but Fr. Meagher’s book is not a good one to read if one is looking for a hisotrical explanation. Aside from the fact that the book is liberally sprinkled with inspiration from mystics, he tries to superimpose the Classical Mass over the Last Supper, and show continuity for where there is none and for things that appeared much later. The difference between his book adn books like The Mass by Fr. Fortescue, The Mass of the Roman Rite by Fr. Jungmann, or the works of Cagin, Cabrol or Gassner is quite vast. Each of them makes their own assumptions and mistakes but its not to the extent he does.
Click to expand...
I am in the process of reading this book, about halfway throug. I haven’t come across the inspiration from any mystics as yet. A priest friend who is sort of regarded as “right of Trent” recommended the book. Which mystics are you referring to might I ask?
 
The only reliable evidence of the first century divine liturgies is a handful of apologetics references, and a few dozen illustrations in caves and archaeological digs.

One of which shows three celebrants, ad populem, with the third being a woman. Her face has been deleted from it by application of force… She may have been a deaconess. It is clearly the liturgy, since the bread and wine are central, and the table scraps of a meal are peripheral.

The big problem with the illustrations which survive is a complete lack of context; we don’t know how orthodox these liturgies were, who they were celebrated by, nor when. We do know from various dating methods when they were done… and thus the liturgies shown probably predate them.*

*if not, then they are prescriptions for the liturgy in pictorial form.
 
Eileen_T said:
I am in the process of reading this book, about halfway throug. I haven’t come across the inspiration from any mystics as yet. A priest friend who is sort of regarded as “right of Trent” recommended the book. Which mystics are you referring to might I ask?
Click to expand...
It is not directly mentioned that it is from so-and-so. But if you see many of the details regarding Calvary (and Adam’s Skull), the direction faced, who did what at the Last Supper- they are all provided in the accounts of mystics such as Ven. Agreda, Emmerich, St. Gertude and many others.
 
From the first Apology of St. Justin Martyr, circa. 150:

Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γeνοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

And this food is called among us Εuχαριστiα [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone.
 
About the only thing we can truthfully say is that they were all different. Each particular church had its own customs concerning the Eucharist and they all, except for the majority of Gnostics and a few other groups accepted the Real Presence, What happened in Antioch didn’t necessarily happen in Jerusalem or in Constantinople or in Rome. There were similarities as all the liturgies were based to some extent on Jewish Temple observances, but they were all somewhat different.

Other than that there was very little in common at the start… The Roman Church took the lead in establishing some form of order over these disparate groups and after some time the Roman Rite came to be the predominant rite of the Church. Not the only by any means but the predoninant,

It wasn’t until the council of Trent that the Roman Rite was firmly established over the whole Church. Even then there were regional variations and some rites of great antiquity were allowed to co-exist along with the Roman Rite.
 
Aramis said:
The only reliable evidence of the first century divine liturgies is a handful of apologetics references, and a few dozen illustrations in caves and archaeological digs.

One of which shows three celebrants, ad populem, with the third being a woman. Her face has been deleted from it by application of force… She may have been a deaconess. It is clearly the liturgy, since the bread and wine are central, and the table scraps of a meal are peripheral.
Click to expand...
Call me a cynic…but maybe you could back up these claims with sources?
 
universalindult said:
Call me a cynic…but maybe you could back up these claims with sources?
Click to expand...
The woman (deaconess?) was shown on a history channel program on the early church. She is shown with the hand of blessing; so are the others at the altar; the vestments are simple and the painting was attributed to late second century. It is not known if it depicts common practice or not…

Note well: the Greek Orthodox have reinstated the order of deaconess, and they are in the Altar, at least at their ordination. Do a search in the archives and those threads may show up.

The appostolic constitutions also make references to deaconesses.

That they existed is known. If they had liturgical ministries, besides baptism, is uncertain. That the modern Greek Orthodox deaconesses do is inherent in their purpose: to provide the deacon’s liturgy of the presanctified gifts in remote women’s monasteries, according to Rev. Fr. Ambrose.
 
Chadwick, et. al… point to the notion that Koiné Greek would have been used. This is the major language spoken in in the first and second centuries a.d. Latin was much like what English is today.
I watched “Everest Beyond the Limit.” There were 5 people talking five languages, the Sherpa said, “Speak English.” Latin was the gov’t language, the international language at the time. Only in the 3rd century did it become the vernacular in Rome, according to Chadwick.

Father Schemmann does point to the fact that the early Christians met in houses. As we have seen, only bits and pieces of info are available. Didache, Apostolic Confessions…
 
This thread reminds me of the Society of St. Pius I (if you haven’t seen that site or the inside joke behind it, then that’s a shame…). The site, even if it pokes fun at some groups, does come up with some rather hard facts into it…
 
There are actually some good books on the subject of the early Mass, although you might have to get them at a used bookstore or places like abebooks.com

The two best, classics, are “The Mass of the Roman Rite, Its Origins and Development” by Joseph Jungmann, SJ (a two volume set).

Second is “The Mass, A Study of the Roman Liturgy” by Adriuan Fortescue.

I also have a book “Doors to the Sacred, A Historical Introduction to Sacraments in the Catholic Church”, by Joseph Martos, that has about 35-40 pages on the early Mass.
 
Aramis said:
The woman (deaconess?) was shown on a history channel program on the early church.
Click to expand...
The history channel is notoriously anti-Catholic in its presentation of “history.”

If you accept their claims at face value, that is your prerogative, but don’t expect thinking Catholics to accept their claims as a legitimate source in this kind of debate.
 
universalindult said:
The history channel is notoriously anti-Catholic in its presentation of “history.”

If you accept their claims at face value, that is your prerogative, but don’t expect thinking Catholics to accept their claims as a legitimate source in this kind of debate.
Click to expand...
I find the bias of the channel quite manageable (ignore their conclusions). The illustration speaks for itself, and they tend to be honest about dates.
 
The Ancient Assyrian & the Syrian Orthodox have somewhat unbroken tradition of liturgy from the 1st century. Both churches believe that it was the apostles who formulated their form of liturgy which in the Assyrian Church was by apostles Addi & Mari. Addi was one of the 70 in Luke 10. This liturgy is in Eastern Aramaic. The Orthodox liturgy of James is also in Western Aramaic. However, the present from of their liturgy could have undergone modifications which may not have necessarily removed all the traces of what they believe where handed to them by the Apostles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top