Concerning the early Holy Fathers and The Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nolite_Timere
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Nolite_Timere

Guest
Does anyone have a link to good resources regarding these two things;
  1. The structure of mass to it’s earliest traceable point (obviously after the last supper, but pre 1st council)
  2. The supporting evidence for the Lineage of the early Fathers after St Peter, St Paul, St Linus & St Anacletus. Leading up to the 1st century and afterwards, basically.
Many thanks in advance,

Marc.
 
Preferably not Wikipedia also before someone says that 😃
 
Does anyone have a link to good resources regarding these two things;
  1. The structure of mass to it’s earliest traceable point (obviously after the last supper, but pre 1st council)
One of the earliest descriptions of the structure of the Mass is this one from St. Justin Martyr: On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place.

The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.

When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things.

Then we all rise together and offer prayers for ourselves…and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.

When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.

Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren.

He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts.

When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: ‘Amen.’

When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the “eucharisted” bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent. source The Catechism cites this from St. Justin’s Apology 1, paragraphs 65 - 67, the full context of which can be read here: newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm (Scroll to Chapter 65)
  1. The supporting evidence for the Lineage of the early Fathers after St Peter, St Paul, St Linus & St Anacletus. Leading up to the 1st century and afterwards, basically.
I think you mean “leading up to the second century and afterwards,” not leading up to the first century. The first century was from 1 A.D to 100 A.D. and the first pope, St. Peter the Apostle, lived and died in the first century. It would be hard to have popes “leading up to the 1st century” because that would require popes before Christ.

Anyway, one of the earliest lists of popes from Peter up through the second century is the list given by St. Irenaeus in 180 A.D. This is in his book Against Heresies Book 3 Chapter 3 Paragraph 3, which can be read here: newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm (scroll to paragraph 3)

There is one source for a possible earlier list. Some of the Church Fathers said that the early Catholic chronicler Hegesippus wrote a history of the Church in five volumes before his death in 180 A.D. (Now, by itself that date isn’t much earlier than St. Irenaeus, but keep reading.) Unfortunately, Hegesippus’ history hasn’t survived. However, a man named Eusebius relied upon Hegesippus’ material to compose his own 10-volume History of the Church, which is now one of the earliest examples of a surviving Church history. You can read it here: newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm

Eusebius lists the popes who succeeded Peter as a major part of his narrative – he doesn’t list them all at once from 64 A.D. to 325 A.D., but instead devotes a chapter of each book of his Church History to listing the popes who held office during the period he covers in that volume. Now, since he relies upon and quotes Hegesippus so much, and since Hegesippus visited Rome when he composed his lost 5 volume Church History, I think it is safe to infer that Eusebius draws his list of popes from Hegesippus.

Hegesippus probably got his list from the Church of Rome itself when he visited it before writing his Church History in 180 A.D. Thus, the list he used is probably older than 180 A.D., and that is probably the list that shows up, divided into parts, throughout the Church History of Eusebius.

So we have good evidence of who was pope from Peter through the fourth century, and very good documentation after that as well.

Please let me know if that is helpful. God bless!

**EDIT :: I just realized you asked for a lineage of Fathers after St. Peter and Paul, not just a lineage of popes. Sorry if I misunderstood you, I still hope that what I wrote is helpful
 
=Nolite Timere;12540812]Does anyone have a link to good resources regarding these two things;
  1. The structure of mass to it’s earliest traceable point (obviously after the last supper, but pre 1st council)
  1. The supporting evidence for the Lineage of the early Fathers after St Peter, St Paul, St Linus & St Anacletus. Leading up to the 1st century and afterwards, basically.
Many thanks in advance,
List of Pope from newadvent.org

newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

From our Catechism:
1345 As early as the second century we have the witness of St. Justin Martyr for the basic lines of the order of the Eucharistic celebration. They have stayed the same until our own day for all the great liturgical families. St. Justin wrote to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161) around the year 155, explaining what Christians did:

On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place.
The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.

When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things.

Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.

When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.

Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren.

He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts.

When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: ‘Amen.’

When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the “eucharisted” bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent"
 
What do you mean by “pre 1st council”? Wasn’t the first council the Council of Jerusalem, mentioned in the Bible in Acts 15?

If you are looking for a description of the Mass in the Bible, Acts 2:42 describes the basic elements of the Mass:
And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

St Paul describes the Mass’s Liturgy of the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians, chapters 10 and 11.

The Didache, in chapters 9 and 10, written in the first century, contains some Eucharistic prayers.

St Justin Martyr’s First Apology, in chapters 61 and 65-67, written about A.D. 155, has a fairly detailed description of the Mass. Chapter 61 describes a Mass with a baptism. Chapters 65-67 describe a regular Sunday Mass.

St Irenaeus’s Against Heresies, in book 3, chapter 3, written about A.D. 189, provides a list of the first twelve bishops of Rome:
  1. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
  2. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. . . . To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
 
Yes these are all very helpful, and yes I did mean past the first century rather than leading up to it, I muddle my words very often - you’ll soon learn this about me 🙂

Thank you all for your (name removed by moderator)ut, I’ve got enough resources here to keep me going for several hours now !

Pax
 
I saw something within the last week or two of a new book on the early liturgy - but was busy and didn’t write down the name; and did not recognize the author. The indication was that it was a new book.
 
I’m not familiar with him. Not good I take it?
It’s complicated. In his book ‘Why Priests?” Wills does describe the early history of the Catholic faith and the Mass. It essentially began as a community of believers meeting in private homes before there were priests and before there became what is the Catholic Church. This much is historical, well documented and an interesting and informative account of the earliest Mass.

But Wills apparently would prefer to leave it right there and return to that very tradition. In the earliest Mass there was the sharing of bread and wine but no Consecrated Eucharist (since there were not yet priests or a priesthood). The book questions the validity of the priesthood itself, saying that both Christ and Paul taught against the establishment of a priesthood, which Wills says is first mentioned only in Hebrews around 80 A.D., that the account in Hebrews is dubious and that Hebrews was only later accepted into the Canon of Scripture. And he presents a formidable argument (though that is not to say I agree with it). It raises for Wills a question of the validity of the Church itself as an authoritative institution and of the validity of its hierarchy—but he says he firmly believes in the Catholic faith. The book is opaque and somewhat academic, and likely not a good place to start. Though it is informative about the earliest Mass, I couldn’t recommend the book even for that purpose. That’s it in a nutshell, but it is of course more complex. Kind of sorry I mentioned it, and it shouldn’t become a side issue and detract from the your request. I just wouldn’t recommend this particular book. But, on the other hand, there is good information in the book concerning the origins of the Mass and, thinking about it, the early sections could be read for that purpose. It is informative, but then Wills goes on into very controversial territory.
 
I just can’t say - I don’t think it is, but my fault for not writing down the title and author when I saw it. Mostly, I passed over it thinking it looked interesting, but there simply is no time in the 24 hours to read it.

I went back over most of what I have been reading in the last several weeks, and cannot find it.

😊
 
I just can’t say - I don’t think it is, but my fault for not writing down the title and author when I saw it. Mostly, I passed over it thinking it looked interesting, but there simply is no time in the 24 hours to read it.

I went back over most of what I have been reading in the last several weeks, and cannot find it.

😊
6200 posts! Wow, we’ll give you a pass this time. HA!
I’ll keep lookin…the topic does sound interesting.

So far, I’ve found this from Paulist Press:
paulistpress.com/Products/0604-2/liturgy.aspx
 
6200 posts! Wow, we’ll give you a pass this time. HA!
I’ll keep lookin…the topic does sound interesting.

So far, I’ve found this from Paulist Press:
paulistpress.com/Products/0604-2/liturgy.aspx
That sounds closer (although I don’t see a date of publication, and my recollection was that the book was relatively new).

And $80 would slow me down, no matter what.

I also looked through Ignatius Press, but nothing sounded right - interesting, but not what I had run across.
 
That sounds closer (although I don’t see a date of publication, and my recollection was that the book was relatively new).

And $80 would slow me down, no matter what.

I also looked through Ignatius Press, but nothing sounded right - interesting, but not what I had run across.
It’s $56 on Amazon and I think they reference a 2012 publication date, so no, it’s not new.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top