The Sign of Jonah...HELP!!!

[Mailman]

For the record, my colleague CEM5 is in error that the Eucharist was celebrated daily from the beginning. This was only the case in certain communities for periods of time. Since a valid Eucharist was one at which the Bishop or his representative was presiding, many communities only had Eucharist once a year.

That is not the reason why the Lord’s Supper [Eucharist, as you call it] was celebrated once a year by the early Christians. The old Passover was held once a year according to the commandment of the Lord (Ex. 13:10), to be observed as “an ordinance for ever” (Ex. 12:17) – “an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever” (v. 24). When Jesus introduced the NT Passover Supper He only changed the manner of its observance, not the date or frequency it was to be celebrated, which by God’s commandment fell on the eve of every 14th of Nisan. The primitive Church of the apostles continued on this tradition as we can see in Acts 12:3-4 and 20:6.

The Catholic historian, Eusebius, tells of early Christians observing the Passover on the 14th of Nisan because that was the tradition handed down to them by the apostles. He writes: “A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour’s Passover… the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to hold the old custom handed down to them. He himself, in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the church of Rome, set forth in the following words the tradition which had come down to him:

“ ‘We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord’s coming… Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles… and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord… and Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraeseas, bishop and martyr from Eumenia… the bishop and martyr Sagaris… the blessed Papirius, or Melito…. All these observed the fourteenth day of the Passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect but following the rule of faith’ “ (Ecclesiastical History, book V).

 

[Mailman]

Catholics recognize that Jesus is our Sabbath. Our rest is completely fulfilled in Him, and we keep the Sabbath by remaining in Him, who has rested from His labors. We do this on the Lord’s Day (the first day of the week) to commemorate His resurrection from the dead. This is the custom that was passed on to us by the Apostles, as is reflected in the excerpt from Justin Martry I posted above.

The church historian Kurtz says that Justin Martyr was a Greek, drawn to Platonic views of God and to a Stoical theory of ethics. His theology leaned toward speculation, ethics of Greek philosophy, and Alexandrian-Hellenistic concepts of scriptural understanding. He represented Christianity as the true philosophy and was opposed to the Mosaic Law (A Church History, Vol. 1).

Walker, in his work, A History of the Christian Church, summarizes Justin’s life and philosophy by saying that he was born of heathen ancestry in ancient Samaria. As a student of philosophy he was a Stoic, an Aristotelian, a Pythagorean, and a Platonist. Walker says it was Justin’s conviction that Christianity was the oldest, truest and most divine of the philosophies. Thus, his convictions were the result of his own experience. Justin conceives the content of the Christian message in terms similar to contemporary heathen philosophy. He views the gospel as a new law (like non-Pauline Christianity) which teaches a form of asceticism. His belief in Christ borders on Gnosticism, in the sense that his emphasis on the divine Logos omits the significance of the historical Jesus. Walker says that Justin’s theology was essentially rationalization, with little of the profound religious content found in Paul, John, or even Ignatius (pp. 50-52).

Justin Martyr was antagonistic toward the Sabbath and anything “Jewish.” According to Moeller (History of the Christian Church, p.173), Justin so hated the Jews that he ridiculed their observance of the use of unleavened bread, saying that the significance of unleavened bread was to baptize the soul from wrath, covetousness, envy, and hatred, and to purify the body. He went on to criticize the Jews because they understood all things in a carnal sense only, and supposed it to be piety to do such things when their souls were filled with deceit (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, p.201, “Dialogue with Trypho”). On the same book, Justin Martyr commented that the Jews were commanded to abstain from certain kinds of foods in order to keep God before their eyes while they eat and drink, so that they would not depart from God as they were prone to do (p. 204). And regarding the observance of the Mosaic Law, Martyr allowed those who were weak-minded to observe such institutions as those given by Moses, but he did not approve. He felt it was all right to fellowship with them as long as they did not proselytize, but went on to say that those who accept Christ and then go back to legalism shall by no means be saved (p. 218).

From these comments we can clearly see Justin Martyr’s pagan background and leanings, and his bias and hatred toward anything Jewish. Should we expect him to support observance of the Sabbath when the Sabbath is the mark of a Jew?

In Paul’s earliest epistles he says, “the mystery of iniquity doth already work” (II Thess. 2:7). Paul apparently wrote this about 50 or 51 A.D. Even that early, there were already false teachers. In Acts 20:29-30, Paul delivered this final message to the local churches: “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things to gain disciples after them.” I believe Justin Martyr was one of those “grievous wolves” speaking “perverse things” but arose much later, in the second century.

 

[Mailman]

Catholics recognize that Jesus is our Sabbath. Our rest is completely fulfilled in Him, and we keep the Sabbath by remaining in Him, who has rested from His labors. We do this on the Lord’s Day (the first day of the week) to commemorate His resurrection from the dead.

The justification of Sunday observance rests upon the truth of a Sunday resurrection. But was it the custom of the apostles and early Church to celebrate the resurrection on Sunday? Let’s check the historical record of the observance of the day called “Easter,” a festival celebrated to commemorate the resurrection.

The church historian Bede, in his Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation, writes that, “John “the disciple whom Jesus loved”], following the customs of the Law, used to begin the Feast of Easter [correctly, the Passover] on the evening of the fourteenth day of the first month, whether it fell on the Sabbath or any other day.”

But where did John’s custom come from? From the very example of Jesus Christ! “Nor did our Lord, the Author and Giver of the Gospel, eat the old Passover or institute the Sacrament of the New Testament to be celebrated by the Church in memory of His Passion on… [any other day], but on the fourteenth” (Eccl. History, III, 25).

Now, notice Bede said John observed Easter on the 14th, “whether it fell on the Sabbath or any other day.” Why would Bede associate Easter with the Sabbath? Were Christians then observing Christ’s resurrection on the Sabbath, the seventh day of the week?

The church historian Socrates in his Ecclesiastical History, book V, says: “While therefore some in Asia Minor observed the day above-mentioned [he means that some continued to observe Passover on the 14th as the apostles did] others in the East kept this feast on the Sabbath indeed….”

So, Christians then were observing Easter/Passover on Saturday, not Sunday! It must have been universally understood by the churches at the time that the resurrection happened on the Sabbath. Socrates confirms this as he continued to write: “For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrated the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this.”

Notice it. Rome stopped Saturday observance of the “sacred mysteries.” It stopped to switch to Sunday observance, of course. We can also see here that the Passover was being transformed from an annual memorial into a weekly memorial in honor of the resurrection, which occurred on Saturday. These weekly “Passovers” were called the “sacred mysteries.” A part of those ancient mysteries was later the festival of Easter, which the Roman Church placed on a Sunday. The Roman practice prevailed and so we now have Easter celebrated on Sunday and the Eucharist/Mass every Sunday.

In commenting on those who did not observe the Passover in accordance with the practice of the apostles, Irenaeus wrote to Bishop Victor of Rome, “We mean Anicetus, and Pius, and Hyginus, and Telephorous, and Xystus [or Sixtus]. They neither observed it [the true Passover on the 14th] nor did they permit those after them to do so” (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I).

Here is the first record, by a Catholic, of the fact that the Roman bishops no longer observed the Passover at the correct God-given time, but on Sunday. It was Sixtus who was the first recorded individual to prevent the proper observance of the Passover, and to celebrate the so called “sacred mysteries” on a Sunday. Irenaeus speaks further of him, declaring that his doctrine was in direct “opposition” to the practices of the remainder of the churches.

Clearly, the celebration of Christ’s resurrection on Sunday did not begin with the apostles in the first century, but with Sixtus in the second century, after the death of John the Apostle. It was not a custom passed on by the apostles but an innovation of the second century to dissociate a Gentile church from Judaism, the Sabbath being regarded as representing Judaism.

God bless.

 

[guanophore]

That is not the reason why the Lord’s Supper [Eucharist, as you call it] was celebrated once a year by the early Christians. The old Passover was held once a year according to the commandment of the Lord (Ex. 13:10), to be observed as “an ordinance for ever” (Ex. 12:17) – “an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever” (v. 24). When Jesus introduced the NT Passover Supper He only changed the manner of its observance, not the date or frequency it was to be celebrated, which by God’s commandment fell on the eve of every 14th of Nisan. The primitive Church of the apostles continued on this tradition as we can see in Acts 12:3-4 and 20:6.

The Catholic historian, Eusebius, tells of early Christians observing the Passover on the 14th of Nisan because that was the tradition handed down to them by the apostles. He writes: “A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour’s Passover… the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to hold the old custom handed down to them. He himself, in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the church of Rome, set forth in the following words the tradition which had come down to him:

“ ‘We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord’s coming… Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles… and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord… and Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraeseas, bishop and martyr from Eumenia… the bishop and martyr Sagaris… the blessed Papirius, or Melito…. All these observed the fourteenth day of the Passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect but following the rule of faith’ “ (Ecclesiastical History, book V).

It seems that you are confusing the Church’s celebration of the Pascha with Eucharist. Yes, the Eucharist is inextricably connected with the Pascha, but the celebration of it occurred as often as a valid celebration could be held, and eventually, daily.

 

[guanophore]

From these comments we can clearly see Justin Martyr’s pagan background and leanings, and his bias and hatred toward anything Jewish. Should we expect him to support observance of the Sabbath when the Sabbath is the mark of a Jew?

No, Mailman, what we can see from these “comments” is the biased attitudes of the theologians who are reading Justin Martyr. Of course he came from a Pagan background, just as did all of the early Greek converts. He was not biased and hateful toward “anything Jewish”. This is an attitude that is being read into his work by those who are trying to discount his beliefs as Catholic. The Church was born “of the Jews”, Jesus and all the Apostles were Jews. Justin criticizes the faithless, whether they are Jew or Gentile, just as Paul did.

In Paul’s earliest epistles he says, “the mystery of iniquity doth already work” (II Thess. 2:7). Paul apparently wrote this about 50 or 51 A.D. Even that early, there were already false teachers. In Acts 20:29-30, Paul delivered this final message to the local churches: “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things to gain disciples after them.” I believe Justin Martyr was one of those “grievous wolves” speaking “perverse things” but arose much later, in the second century.

Yes, it makes sense that you would have to discount such men, since their writings accurately reflect the Teaching of the Apostles being clearly Catholic. However, he was respected by the successors of the Aposltes as holding and teaching that One Faith of the Apostles. All those who canonized the NT accepted him as such. Therefore, if you think him a wolf among sheep, then you must suspect those who created the NT canon to also be wolves, and if they were, then you can have no confidence in your bible, formed by those who believed as Justin did.

 

[guanophore]

The justification of Sunday observance rests upon the truth of a Sunday resurrection. But was it the custom of the apostles and early Church to celebrate the resurrection on Sunday?

Yes. This stems from the appearance of Jesus to them “on the first day of the week”. And, since all the early church was Jewish, there was no reason for them to cease attending synagogue, which they continued to do on the seventh day of the week. They saw no conflict between their Jewish faith and being Christian. For them, believing in the Messiah was the fulfillment of being a Jew.

Let’s check the historical record of the observance of the day called “Easter,” a festival celebrated to commemorate the resurrection.

The church historian Bede, in his Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation, writes that, “John “the disciple whom Jesus loved”], following the customs of the Law, used to begin the Feast of Easter [correctly, the Passover] on the evening of the fourteenth day of the first month, whether it fell on the Sabbath or any other day.”

But where did John’s custom come from? From the very example of Jesus Christ! “Nor did our Lord, the Author and Giver of the Gospel, eat the old Passover or institute the Sacrament of the New Testament to be celebrated by the Church in memory of His Passion on… [any other day], but on the fourteenth” (Eccl. History, III, 25).

Now, notice Bede said John observed Easter on the 14th, “whether it fell on the Sabbath or any other day.” Why would Bede associate Easter with the Sabbath? Were Christians then observing Christ’s resurrection on the Sabbath, the seventh day of the week?

The church historian Socrates in his Ecclesiastical History, book V, says: “While therefore some in Asia Minor observed the day above-mentioned [he means that some continued to observe Passover on the 14th as the apostles did] others in the East kept this feast on the Sabbath indeed….”

So, Christians then were observing Easter/Passover on Saturday, not Sunday! It must have been universally understood by the churches at the time that the resurrection happened on the Sabbath. Socrates confirms this as he continued to write: “For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrated the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this.”

Mailman, it is good that you are reading history and trying to learn the Truth about the faith of the Aposltes, but you are still missing some essential elements. There has been a division in the observance of the Pascha since the early days of the Church, no doubt. However, your error is in equating the observation of the Lord’s Day with the timing of the Pascha. You see, the early Church celebrated the Lord’s Day as the first day of the week because that was the day he appeared to them. The timing of the Passover is another matter.

the other point you have missed relates to certain liturgical realities that it is impossible for you to know, having been separated from the 'Apostolic succession. You see, the Pascha lasts for three days (which is why it is called the Triduum), and Eucharist is celebrated several times within those days (except for good Friday).

Socrates as an historian had a limited view of the facts. It was not a matter of “ceasing”, but indeed, there was an inconsistency in the universal church. There was much more of the empire celebrating on the first day of the week than just Rome and Alexandria. The problem was so seriously impairing for the economy of the Empire that it was a major reason for Constantine convening the Council of Nicea. Half of his subjects were observing the seventh day as holy, and the other half the first day. This resulted in commerce coming to a grievious slowing or a halt two days of the week. He wanted the bishops to choose one of the days.

Notice it. Rome stopped Saturday observance of the “sacred mysteries.”

All I notice is that Socrates believed this was the case. It is an error on his part based upon his lack of more information. I find it interesting that you are willing to dismiss Justin as a wolf, because he espouses a Catholic view, but you are willing to accept Socrates as if he was writing inerrant scripture.

It stopped to switch to Sunday observance, of course. We can also see here that the Passover was being transformed from an annual memorial into a weekly memorial in honor of the resurrection, which occurred on Saturday.

No, Mailman. The Passover was then, and still now, celebrated only once a year by the Apostolic Church. You are confusing Eucharist (celebrated weekly or daily) with Passover, which is only celebrated yearly.

These weekly “Passovers” were called the “sacred mysteries.”

No. The sacred mysteries refer to the sacramental life of the Church.

 

[guanophore]

A part of those ancient mysteries was later the festival of Easter, which the Roman Church placed on a Sunday. The Roman practice prevailed and so we now have Easter celebrated on Sunday and the Eucharist/Mass every Sunday.

No, Mailman. The Roman practice has only prevailed here in America and Northern Eurpoe. The other 22 Rites of the Catholic Church, the Orthodox, and Oriental parts of the Church have never had, and do not now have “Roman” prevelance. They celebrate the Lord’s Day on the first day of the week because this is what was received from their Apostles. The majority of these are not even in communion with the bishop of Rome.

You see, in order for you to pursue such theories, you would have to find a way to excuse away all these other practicing communities that are not influence by Rome. Good luck with that!

Not only that, the festival of “Easter” was not “placed on a Sunday” as you suggest, by Rome. The Pasca, or celebration of the Lord’s resurrection, has always been celebrated on the first day of the week, because that is the day the Lord appeared in their midst. This was going on for centuries before there even was a “Roman” rite.

In commenting on those who did not observe the Passover in accordance with the practice of the apostles, Irenaeus wrote to Bishop Victor of Rome, “We mean Anicetus, and Pius, and Hyginus, and Telephorous, and Xystus [or Sixtus]. They neither observed it [the true Passover on the 14th] nor did they permit those after them to do so” (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I).

Mailman, I think in order for any pursuit of this topic to be of any value, it would be necessary for you to separate the controversy over the setting of the date for the celebration of Easter from the practice of celebrating Eucharist on the first day of the week. They are two separate issues.

Here is the first record, by a Catholic, of the fact that the Roman bishops no longer observed the Passover at the correct God-given time, but on Sunday. It was Sixtus who was the first recorded individual to prevent the proper observance of the Passover, and to celebrate the so called “sacred mysteries” on a Sunday. Irenaeus speaks further of him, declaring that his doctrine was in direct “opposition” to the practices of the remainder of the churches.

You will certainly get no arguement from me on this point.

Clearly, the celebration of Christ’s resurrection on Sunday did not begin with the apostles in the first century, but with Sixtus in the second century, after the death of John the Apostle.

No, Mailman, you have it backwards. The apostolic practice of celebrating Eucharist on the first day of the week was the only reason Sixtus wanted it changed. They had celebrated the resurrection on the first day for so many centuries, it seemed to him improper that the Pasca should not fall on the first day of the week.

It was not a custom passed on by the apostles but an innovation of the second century to dissociate a Gentile church from Judaism, the Sabbath being regarded as representing Judaism.

Ok, well, I will commend you to your mythology, a speculation you must clearly hold in order to keep your faith practice intact. I admire your tenacity, though it is misplaced.

If you really espoused the faith of those who you are using to support your view, you would have to become Eastern Orthodox.

 

[CEM5]

Where in Acts? Is it too difficult to give a chapter and verse?

If you read the biblical accounts carefully and without any preconceived ideas in your mind here is what you will learn:

1. 1 Cor. 16 says nothing about gathering for a weekly service to do the collection.
2. The collection was a special one, specific for the needy in Jerusalem only and not to other “less fortunate churches.” See 1 Cor. 16:3 which is corroborated by Rom. 15:26.
3. This outpouring of support may have been that described in Acts 11, when a famine prompted members to “send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea… by the hands of Barnabas and Saul” (v. 28-30).
4. The verses say nothing about worshipping on Sundays.
5. The collection was meant to stop when Paul comes to Corinth: “… that there be no collections when I come.” It was done at one specific time, when Paul passed through – “I will come by you in Spain.”
6. The verses say nothing about collecting money.
7. It says, “Let every one of you lay by him in store.” They were to lay by, store up. Store up by himself – at home. Not lay by at the church house – lay by him – at home. And they were to “store up” – store up whatever they have gathered in their farms that day, “so that there be no gatherings when I come.” Fruits, vegetables, grains, are gathered out of the ground and stored – kept in storage until ready to be transported.
8. 1 Cor. 16:4, “and if it be meet that I go also, they shall go with me” – coupled with verse 3 referencing “them,” shows that it took several people to transport this collection to Jerusalem. This would not be necessary if it was simply cash and coins being collected.

To say 1 Cor. 16 shows Sunday was already being observed by the apostles as 1) the resurrection day and 2) the Christian day of worship, is to read into the Bible an unwarranted personal opinion.

You are making assumptions in interpreting these scriptures. The first assumption you made is that Jesus’ resurrection caused the huge earthquake. But Matthew tells us, unequivocally, what caused the earthquake. He writes: “And behold there was a great earthquake: FOR the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door and sat upon it” (28:2). Now, had Jesus rose that very moment when the earthquake occurred, He would surely have appeared to the women right there and then when they approached the tomb. But Mary went inside the tomb and left the place without seeing Jesus (v. 8). Only much later did Jesus appear to them (v. 9).

The second assumption you made is that the resurrected Jesus could not leave the tomb because of the stone blocking the door and so the angel had to be sent to roll back the stone. But Jesus had now been glorified. He was now spirit and not subject to the physical laws.

Hello Mailman,

I make no assumptions – the Bible is quite clear!

Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week, when we met to break bread, Paul was holding a discussion with them; since he intended to leave the next day, he continued speaking until midnight. Gathering to “Break Bread” is what the Mass was called - partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ. This is Sunday.

2 Cor 8 – 1 We want you to know, brothers and sisters, about the grace of God that has been granted to the churches of Macedonia; 2 for during a severe ordeal of affliction, their abundant joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part. 3 For, as I can testify, they voluntarily gave according to their means, and even beyond their means, … 11 now finish doing it, so that your eagerness may be matched by completing it according to your means. 12 For if the eagerness is there, the gift is acceptable according to what one has—not according to what one does not have. 13 I do not mean that there should be relief for others and pressure on you, but it is a question of a fair balance between 14 your present abundance and their need, so that their abundance may be for your need, in order that there may be a fair balance. **Paul is urging those who have to share with those who are in need according to their means. **

Acts 4 – 32 Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. 33 With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. 34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. 35 They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. 36 There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”). 37 He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. **Early on the community of faithful Christians shared their belongings and gave their collections to the Apostles (the first Bishops of the Church) for them to disbribute evenly so no one was without. **

I would urge you to read the Bible in context and turn to learned men of old whose wisdom and learning we have access to.

No where have I ever said that Jesus could not leave the tomb because the stone blocked Him. Please do not mistakenly say things I have not written. Please reread my posts.

 

[CEM5]

The Roman Catholic Church - yes - but not God’s Church.

The Passover was instituted an ordinance forever (Exo. 12:17, 24). At the last Passover supper Jesus changed the manner of observance of this ordinance. No longer do we kill a lamb and eat it, since the Lamb of God has been sacrificed once and for all. Instead, we take the bread, as His broken body, and the wine, as His shed blood, as a memorial, looking back to His death.

We are told to observe this ordinance once a year: “Thou shalt keep this ordinance in his season from year to year.” Christ set us an example (1 Pet. 2:21), observing it at its set time once a year (Luke 2:41-42).

In the first institution of this ordinance we read: “And when the hour was come, he [Jesus] sat down, and the twelve apostles with him… And he took bread… this do in remembrance of me. Likewise…” (Luke 22:14, 19-20)

I know all about that. I grew up a Catholic and studied in Catholic schools all the way to college.

Hi Mailman,

Christ is the Lord of the Sabbath as He explained to us. He is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, and the Passover was a foreshadowing of the Eucharist/Mass.

Do this in remembrance of me…Jesus did not say once a year, nor did any of the Apostles teach that. It would behoove you to recall that Christ built His Church upon the foundation of Peter (as THE ROCK) and the Apostles. The Bible attests to this very clearly. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth:
1 Tim 3:15 - if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.As well, read the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and the Didache - that is the “Teaching of the 12 Apostles”. It clearly states about gathering for the Eucharist on the Lord’s Day (Sunday). The same words are still used at Mass during the consecration of the Bread and Wine.

Your argument about doing this only once a year falls very short. Do you go to Temple and slaughter lambs and oxen as well? This too was to be forever and was part of Passover! Many animals were sacrificed.

Many people grow up Catholic and attend Catholic schools and are taught the catechism, and hear but do not listen. You chose to reject the wisdom and teachings of the Apostles (Sacred Tradition) as was handed down. That is your prerogative, since God gave us free will to chose and accept or reject. I also grew up Catholic, attended Catholic schools and continued my studies past college. So, you went one route, and I another. I choose to stay with God’s truth, and I searched diligently for that truth - not accepting with blind eyes, but a sincere heart.

 

[CEM5]

For the record, my colleague CEM5 is in error that the Eucharist was celebrated daily from the beginning. This was only the case in certain communities for periods of time. Since a valid Eucharist was one at which the Bishop or his representative was presiding, many communities only had Eucharist once a year.

The practice of daily communion is peculiar to the Latin Rite, but it was not even practiced this way in the beginning for centuries.

Thank you guanophore,

Although you are correct that in*** certain*** cases it was not celebrated daily in some communities, history, however, points out that Eucharist was celebrated daily from the beginning. I will provide a Catholic source:

www.newadvent.org/cathen/06278a.htm

I quote (bold and italics added by me): "Without specifying how often the faithful should communicate, Christ simply bids us eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, and warns us, that if we do not do so, we shall not have life in us (John 6, etc.). The fact, however, that His Body and Blood were to be received under the appearances of bread and wine, the ordinary daily food and drink of His hearers, would point, to the frequent and even daily reception of the Sacrament. The manna, too, with which He compared “the bread which He would give”, was daily partaken of by the Israelites. Moreover, though the petition “give us this day our daily bread” does not primarily refer to the Eucharist, nevertheless it could not fail to lead men to believe that their souls, as well as their bodies, stood in need of daily nourishment. In this article we shall deal with (I) the history of the frequency of Holy Communion, (II) the present practice as enjoined by Pius X.

History
In the early Church at Jerusalem the faithful received every day (Acts 2:46). Later on, however, we read that St. Paul remained at Troas for seven days, and it was only “on the first day of the week” that the faithful “assembled to break bread” (Acts 20:6-11; cf. 1 Corinthians 16:2). According to the “Didache” the breaking of bread took place on “the Lord’s day” (kata kyriaken, c. xiv). Pliny says that the Christians assembled “on a fixed day” (Ep. x); and St. Justin, “on the day called Sunday” (te tou heliou legomene hemera, Apol., I, lxvii, 3, 7). It is in Tertullian that we first read of the Liturgy being celebrated on any other day besides Sunday (On Prayer 19; De Corona, c. iii). Daily reception is mentioned by St. Cyprian (De Orat. Domin., c. xviii in P.L., IV, 531); St. Jerome (Ep. ad Damasum); St. John Chrysostom (Hom., iii in Eph.); St. Ambrose (in Ps. cxviii, viii, 26, 28 in P.L., XV, 1461, 1462); and the author of the “De Sacramentis” (V, iv, 25; P.L., XVI, 452).

It should be noted that in the early Church and in the patristic ages, the faithful communicated, or at any rate were expected to communicate, as often as the Holy Eucharist was celebrated (St. John Chrysostom loc. cit.; Apostolic canons, X; St. Gregory the Great, Dial. II, 23). They received even oftener, since it was the custom to carry away the Sacred Elements and communicate at home (St. Justin, loc. cit.; Tertullian, “Ad Uxorem”, II, v; Euseb., Church History VI.44). This was done especially by hermits, by dwellers in monasteries without priests, and by those who lived at a distance from any church. On the other hand, we find that practice fell far short of precept, and that the faithful were frequently rebuked for so seldom receiving the Holy Communion (see especially St. John Chrysostom, loc. cit., and St. Ambrose, loc. cit.). St. Augustine sums up the matter thus: “Some receive the Body and Blood of the Lord every day; others on certain days; in some places there is no day on which the Sacrifice is not offered; in others on Saturday and Sunday only; in others on Sunday alone” (Ep. liv in P.L., XXXIII, 200 sqq.).

We are indeed blessed that today our Church has enough Priests to provide and offer Daily Mass, just as it was first celebrated in Jerusalem from the beginning. History also records that even marriage ceremonies had to be put on hold (as well as baptisms) until a Priest could be available in remote communities during the (and here I cannot recall exactly, but think during the “Dark Ages”).

blessings,
CEM

 

[Mailman]

It seems that you are confusing the Church’s celebration of the Pascha with Eucharist. Yes, the Eucharist is inextricably connected with the Pascha, but the celebration of it occurred as often as a valid celebration could be held, and eventually, daily.

The Pascha or Passover is an OT festival which foreshadows the sacrifice and death of Christ. Your church, technically, does not celebrate this festival because it does not recognize the continuation of this festival in the NT times. What it celebrates is Easter (from “Estre” a pagan goddess), a festival commemorating the resurrection of Christ from the dead.

The problem is that your church says Easter is a celebration of the Pascha to commemorate the resurrection. But the Passover is not a celebration of Christ’s resurrection, but of His death! Then the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist, which should have been the one called the Pascha because it involves Christ’s sacrifice, is made distinct from the Pasch. The reason why is because your church does not believe it was the Passover [or Pascha] that Jesus was having with His disciples on the eve of His death.

This view is seen in the Origen’s comment when he said, “Observe that in the law we never find it said, ‘Your passover;’ but in all the passages quoted the phrase occurs once without any adjunct, while we have three times ‘The passover of the Lord.’ To make sure that there is such a distinction between the passover of the Lord and the passover of the Jews…” (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol.IX, p.388).

Origen’s use of the terms “passover of the Lord” and “passover of the Jews” to distinguish between the OT Passover and the Lord’s Supper is a clear indication of the Gentile churches’ anti-Jewish sentiments that eventually led to the change in the celebration of the true Pascha, and the abrogation of anything “Jewish,” like the weekly Sabbath and the annual Holy Days.

What I have shown so far in my posts is that the churches used to celebrate the Pascha on the 14th of Nisan using the bread and wine following the example of the apostles. But later on some of the churches which were celebrating the resurrection every week incorporated the partaking of the bread and wine [which they call “the sacred mystery”] into the celebration. These weekly celebrations occurred on the Sabbath because they then believed the resurrection happened on a Sabbath.

But Alexandria and Rome introduced more innovations to the celebration of the Pascha. Rome established Easter as the Pascha but it was now to celebrate the resurrection, not the “sacred mysteries” or the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper. According to the historian Baur, it was due to Rome’s emphasis on liturgical form that they regulated the Passover with reference to the day of the resurrection (The Church History of the First Three Centuries, Vol. II, p.283). The West emphasized the resurrection, with its Friday crucifixion and Sunday resurrection tradition, while the Eastern church emphasized the crucifixion as the significant meaning. This, as Baur says, made the Western viewpoint subjective, while the Eastern viewpoint was objective and dogmatic (Vol. I, p.167).

As for the Lord’s Supper, the historian Harnack tells us that the Alexandrians saw here, as in everything else [because of their pagan background], the mystery behind the mystery; and while they accommodated the church, they wished to be continually nourished by a perpetual Eucharist. As Harnack says, everywhere the service was departing from its original significance (Outline of the history of Dogma, p. 115). This explains why the Eucharist was eventually celebrated daily.

This problem of theological difference arose because of the opposition Gentile Christians had toward Jewish Christianity. The historian Neander says it was opposition to Judaism that led to the special observance of Sunday in place of the Sabbath, because the Sabbath was regarded as representing Judaism. And it was the same opposition to Judaism that led to the setting aside Saturday as a fast day (History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church by the Apostles, Vol. I, pp.295-296).

This same anti-Jewish feeling, according to Baur, expressed itself in the Council of Nicea’s declaration (325 A.D.), which rejected the 14th day Passover and forced conformity to the Roman Church’s observance of Easter Sunday (Vol. I, pp. 172-173).

The historian Arthur Stanley, in his work Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church, confirms this view when he says that the Passover controversy represented the struggle between the historical, apostolic tradition and the new Christian Catholic spirit which was striving to separate itself from its Jewish birthplace. The justification given for the change was that Christians should not keep the Passover” … on the same day as was kept by the wicked race that put the Savior to death” – observance of that day was, by then, viewed by many as an impious absurdity (p.154-155).

Harnack states that the new law concept in the Roman Church was not Jewish, but rather anti-Jewish, which at the same time left room for the slipping-in of Old Testament commandments into the church (pp. 75-76).

So here we see how and why the Passover celebration [the Pascha], originally held every 14th of Nisan by the primitive Church, became a festival called Easter; how and why the Lord’s Supper which was supposed to be the theme of the NT Passover became a separate celebration called the Eucharist; and how and why the Lord’s Supper evolved into a daily celebration from one held annually on the eve of the Pasch.

 

[Mailman]

Hi Mailman,

Christ is the Lord of the Sabbath as He explained to us. He is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, and the Passover was a foreshadowing of the Eucharist/Mass.

What you are saying is that the Passover had been fulfilled in Christ so we don’t have to observe it now. If the Passover were fulfilled in Christ, why did Jesus institute bread and wine and instruct His disciples to continue observing it? (Luke 22:19, I Corinthians 11:24–25).

Notice that right before partaking of the bread and wine, when they were all seated because “the hour was come,” Jesus said, “With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer” (Luke 22:15). Christ Himself said this was the Passover they were eating. How do you explain this?

You said the Passover was a foreshadowing of the Eucharist. If that is so, why is the Eucharist distinct from the Pascha [Passover]? And also, what has Easter, a festival commemorating the resurrection, got to do with the Passover (your church calls Easter a celebration of the Pascha)?

Your argument about doing this only once a year falls very short. Do you go to Temple and slaughter lambs and oxen as well? This too was to be forever and was part of Passover! Many animals were sacrificed.

As I have said on my previous posts, the slain lamb has now been replaced with the bread and wine. The Passover is still observed. Only its manner of observance has changed.

May I ask you this?

1. What is the meaning and significance of the Passover?
2. What is the meaning and significance of the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist?
3. What is represented in the lamb eaten during the Passover?
4. What is represented in the bread taken in your Eucharist?

 

[guanophore]

What you are saying is that the Passover had been fulfilled in Christ so we don’t have to observe it now.

No, Mailman. What we are saying is that Jesus IS our passover Lamb, and the method He gave us to memorialize it is taken out of the Passover celebration.

If the Passover were fulfilled in Christ, why did Jesus institute bread and wine and instruct His disciples to continue observing it? (Luke 22:19, I Corinthians 11:24–25).

Because He Himself knew that He would become our Lamb of Sacrifice.

Notice that right before partaking of the bread and wine, when they were all seated because “the hour was come,” Jesus said, “With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer” (Luke 22:15). Christ Himself said this was the Passover they were eating. How do you explain this?

What need is there to “explain” it? It is what it is?

You said the Passover was a foreshadowing of the Eucharist. If that is so, why is the Eucharist distinct from the Pascha [Passover]? And also, what has Easter, a festival commemorating the resurrection, got to do with the Passover (your church calls Easter a celebration of the Pascha)?

Passover is the forshadowing of the Eucharist. In the Passover, a Lamb is consecrated, sacrificed, and consumed in an enactment of the deliverance of Israel from slavery. In the Eucharist, bread and wine are consecrated, offered and consumed in and enactment of our deliverance to the slavery of sin.

What is called “Easter” here in the West, or the Pasca in the East is a series of liturgical celebrations that corresponds and commemorates the events surrounding His institution of the Sacraments, and His sacramental death.

As I have said on my previous posts, the slain lamb has now been replaced with the bread and wine. The Passover is still observed. Only its manner of observance has changed.

For us, Jesus is the slain lamb,and He is present under the appearances of bread and wine. It is not a 'replacement" but an anamnesis.

May I ask you this?

1. What is the meaning and significance of the Passover?
2. What is the meaning and significance of the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist?
3. What is represented in the lamb eaten during the Passover?
4. What is represented in the bread taken in your Eucharist?

I have addressed all of these in the last two posts. I did so for the benefit of any that might be reading, since I am fairly certain that no attempt to educate you about the One Faith that was passed down to us from the Apostles will have any impact.

One who must spend so much energy trying to disavow the Teaching of the Apostles must have very strong motivation.

You will remain in my prayers, Mailman.

 

[guanophore]

 The Pascha or Passover is an OT festival which foreshadows the sacrifice and death of Christ. Your church, technically, does not celebrate this festival because it does not recognize the continuation of this festival in the NT times.  What it celebrates is Easter (from “Estre” a pagan goddess), a festival commemorating the resurrection of Christ from the dead.

Perhaps your faith community does not, Mailman, and it may be just one more of the Apostolic Traditions that you have lost as a result of being separated for over 500 years. However, the Church founded by Christ has celebrated it, all over the world, since the night of the Last Supper.

When you continue in your study of the history of your faith, you will discover this is true, because the Pasca is what underlies the argument about the date when Easter would be celebrated. The Eastern Church calculated Easter according to the Pascha calendar, after the custom of the Jews, where the Western Church did not. However, both sides celebrated the Passover observance after the manner that Christ established.

   The problem is that your church says Easter is a celebration of the Pascha to commemorate the resurrection. But the Passover is not a celebration of Christ’s resurrection, but of His death! Then the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist, which should have been the one called the Pascha because it involves Christ’s sacrifice, is made distinct from the Pasch. The reason why is because your church does not believe it was the Passover [or Pascha] that Jesus was having with His disciples on the eve of His death.

Mailman, you have been here for a long time,and I think you know by now that it is considered rude for you to come to CAF and tell us what we believe. You are in error, because the Church founded by Christ believes that “salvation is of the Jews”,a nd that the Last Supper occurred during the Passover. The Church celebrates Passover like the Jews did, as a season. Within that season, or festival week, if you will, there are a series of liturgical celebration of the washing of the feet, the last supper (including Christ’s institution of the Eucharist after the meal), the crucifixion, and the resurrection. For those who have received the Apostolic faith, this is all contained in the Pasca.

 This view is seen in the Origen’s comment when he said, “Observe that in the law we never find it said, ‘Your passover;’ but in all the passages quoted the phrase occurs once without any adjunct, while we have three times ‘The passover of the Lord.’ To make sure that there is such a distinction between the passover of the Lord and the passover of the Jews…” (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol.IX, p.388).

Apparently you are trying to say that Origen is referring to the celebration of the Pasca by Apostolic Christians as belonging to the Jews, instead of to the Lord?

Do you consider the writings of Origen to be equal to Scripture?

Origen’s use of the terms “passover of the Lord” and “passover of the Jews” to distinguish between the OT Passover and the Lord’s Supper is a clear indication of the Gentile churches’ anti-Jewish sentiments that eventually led to the change in the celebration of the true Pascha, and the abrogation of anything “Jewish,” like the weekly Sabbath and the annual Holy Days.

It is true that there existed both anti-Jewish and anti-Gentile sentiment that is reflected in the NT and afterward. However, when you make broad, sweeping assertions like, this, you do but reveal your own limited experience of history. In order for such a statement to be true, then you would have to demonstrate that it applies to the Eastern church as well as the West. Since you cannot, it renders the assertion false.

What I have shown so far in my posts is that the churches used to celebrate the Pascha on the 14th of Nisan using the bread and wine following the example of the apostles. But later on some of the churches which were celebrating the resurrection every week incorporated the partaking of the bread and wine [which they call “the sacred mystery”] into the celebration. These weekly celebrations occurred on the Sabbath because they then believed the resurrection happened on a Sabbath.

There is no dichotomy here as you seem to think, Mailman. Jesus instituted Eucharist at the close of the Pascal sacrifice on the Passover just before He became the pascal sacrifice for us. He used the bread and the wine to become the anamnesis of His Body and Blood.

The early Christians celebrated this “breaking of the bread” every day, unti they were expelled from Jerusalem in about 70 AD. When the Church became vigorously persecuted by the State, it was necessary to go underground. Those found gathering for Eucharist may all be put to death. This reduced the frequency and public nature of the anamnesis.

The early Christians were all Jews. It was quite clear to them which day was Sabbath (seventh day of the week) and which day was the Lord’s Day (the first day of the week). Though they believed he left the grave on the Sabbath, He did not appear to them until “early in the morning on the first day of the week”. It is His appearance, and what they believed would be his imminent return that they gathered to anticipate.

 

[guanophore]

But Alexandria and Rome introduced more innovations to the celebration of the Pascha. Rome established Easter as the Pascha but it was now to celebrate the resurrection, not the “sacred mysteries” or the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper.

I think perhaps maybe you defined “Easter” in one of your earlier posts. But there was no separation in the early church between the Pasca and the resurrection. The Church continues to celebrate both events as a unified whole today, just as it has for 2000 years.
The church understands Jesus to be the lamb that was slain for our sins. He is our Passover, our sacrifice. In the Passover, the sacrificed Lamb is consecrated and consumed. This is how the church celebrates the Eucharist.

    According to the historian Baur, it was due to Rome’s emphasis on liturgical form that they regulated the Passover with reference to the day of the resurrection (*The Church History of the First Three Centuries*, Vol. II, p.283). The West emphasized the resurrection, with its Friday crucifixion and Sunday resurrection tradition, while the Eastern church emphasized the crucifixion as the significant meaning. This, as Baur says, made the Western viewpoint subjective, while the Eastern viewpoint was objective and dogmatic (Vol. I, p.167).

Both things are true, as usual. Your attempts to create separation and division holds no merit. The Eastern Church celebrates the crucifixion as inseparably connected to the Resurrection. Try attending an Eastern Liturgy sometime. It iwill become abundantly clear to you that this separation you are trying to create is an artificiality of your mind.

As for the Lord’s Supper, the historian Harnack tells us that the Alexandrians saw here, as in everything else [because of their pagan background], the mystery behind the mystery; and while they accommodated the church, they wished to be continually nourished by a perpetual Eucharist. As Harnack says, everywhere the service was departing from its original significance (Outline of the history of Dogma, p. 115). This explains why the Eucharist was eventually celebrated daily.

On the contrary, the reason it was separated daily was BECAUSE of it’s original significants. Those who have received the Apostolic Faith also received from the Apostles that Jesus’ teaching “unless you eat my body,and drink my blood, you shall not have life within you” refers to the Eucharist. Christians devoted to life in Christ gathered daily (just as they do today) to celebrate Eucharist, from which they draw life in Him.

This problem of theological difference arose because of the opposition Gentile Christians had toward Jewish Christianity. The historian Neander says it was opposition to Judaism that led to the special observance of Sunday in place of the Sabbath, because the Sabbath was regarded as representing Judaism. And it was the same opposition to Judaism that led to the setting aside Saturday as a fast day (*History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church by the Apostles*, Vol. I, pp.295-296).

Again you are suffering from a myopic rendering of History. Palestine, Syria, Asia, India and all points East never suffered this animosity with Judaism. you are trying to draw a universal conclusion from isolated evidence.

 

[guanophore]

This same anti-Jewish feeling, according to Baur, expressed itself in the Council of Nicea’s declaration (325 A.D.), which rejected the 14th day Passover and forced conformity to the Roman Church’s observance of Easter Sunday (Vol. I, pp. 172-173).

Well, Baur has made a mistake, as you will find if you explore an Eastern Liturgical Calendar. What happened at Nicea was that the Bishops chose the first day of the week as the day upon which His Resurrection would be celebrated. This prevented the empire from griding to a screeching halt for two days a week.

The historian Arthur Stanley, in his work *Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church*, confirms this view when he says that the Passover controversy represented the struggle between the historical, apostolic tradition and the new Christian Catholic spirit which was striving to separate itself from its Jewish birthplace. The justification given for the change was that Christians should not keep the Passover” … **on the same day as was kept by the wicked race** that put the Savior to death” – observance of that day was, by then, viewed by many as an impious absurdity (p.154-155).

Sounds like your historian is the one who is suffering from anti-semitism.

There is nothing wicked about the Jewish race, and the Scripture is clear that Christianity was born wholly out of the Jewish faith and worship.

Harnack states that the new law concept in the Roman Church was not Jewish, but rather anti-Jewish, which at the same time left room for the slipping-in of Old Testament commandments into the church (pp. 75-76).

It is an interesting set of books you have there, Mailman. The truth is, however, that the Church recieved moral instruction from the Apostles, all of whom were faithful Jews,and the OT commandments were never separated from the faith. There was no possibility for them to “slip in” later, because they had been there the whole time. If you read the early Fathers, you will find that the Jewish moral teaching was taken wholly into the early church.

So here we see how and why the Passover celebration [the Pascha], originally held every 14th of Nisan by the primitive Church, became a festival called Easter;

On the contrary, Mailman, you have shown nothing of the kind. And none of your “evidnence” (opinions of myopic historians) explains how it is that the Whole Church, including the East, has NEVER called this annual celebration of the death and resurrection of christ “Easter” (a European term). The Church celebrates, then as now, Pasca, which is a season that includes the Passover, the Passion, and the Resurrection.

how and why the Lord’s Supper which was supposed to be the theme of the NT Passover became a separate celebration called the Eucharist; and how and why the Lord’s Supper evolved into a daily celebration from one held annually on the eve of the Pasch.

I see no point in trying to respond to this, since you have already demonstrated that you do not perceive the Eucharist being celebrated in the NT when the believers gathered. You seem to believe that all instances of “breaking of bread” are only meals, and did not include Eucharist. It is clear that you are unable to accept any evidence that does not support your preconceived notions.

 

[Mailman]

No, Mailman. What we are saying is that Jesus IS our passover Lamb, and the method He gave us to memorialize it is taken out of the Passover celebration.

Because He Himself knew that He would become our Lamb of Sacrifice.

So, the Passover and the Eucharist have the same meaning and significance. They only differ in their manner of observance – the use of the lamb for the Passover, and the bread and wine for the Eucharist. Did I get that right?

What need is there to “explain” it? It is what it is?

Passover is the forshadowing of the Eucharist. In the Passover, a Lamb is consecrated, sacrificed, and consumed in an enactment of the deliverance of Israel from slavery. In the Eucharist, bread and wine are consecrated, offered and consumed in and enactment of our deliverance to the slavery of sin.

So, the Passover and the Eucharist have the same meaning and significance. They only differ in their manner of observance – the use of the lamb for the Passover, and the bread and wine for the Eucharist. Did I get that right?

What is called “Easter” here in the West, or the Pasca in the East is a series of liturgical celebrations that corresponds and commemorates the events surrounding His institution of the Sacraments, and His sacramental death.

Oh, ok. So, Easter has nothing to do with the resurrection?

 

[Mailman]

Perhaps your faith community does not, Mailman, and it may be just one more of the Apostolic Traditions that you have lost as a result of being separated for over 500 years. However, the Church founded by Christ has celebrated it, all over the world, since the night of the Last Supper.

When you continue in your study of the history of your faith, you will discover this is true, because the Pasca is what underlies the argument about the date when Easter would be celebrated. The Eastern Church calculated Easter according to the Pascha calendar, after the custom of the Jews, where the Western Church did not. However, both sides celebrated the Passover observance after the manner that Christ established.

As I explained before, the churches used to celebrate the Passover on the correct God-given date and according to Christ’s example. But later on changes were made. The Western church moved the celebration to Sunday to memorialize the resurrection. Although there was strong opposition to this change from the Eastern churches, eventually, during the time of Constantine, they were strong-armed into observing Passover also on a Sunday according to the Roman Church’s practice. This celebration came to be known as Easter, a festival commemorating the resurrection of Christ.

Mailman, you have been here for a long time,and I think you know by now that it is considered rude for you to come to CAF and tell us what we believe. You are in error, because the Church founded by Christ believes that “salvation is of the Jews”,a nd that the Last Supper occurred during the Passover. The Church celebrates Passover like the Jews did, as a season. Within that season, or festival week, if you will, there are a series of liturgical celebration of the washing of the feet, the last supper (including Christ’s institution of the Eucharist after the meal), the crucifixion, and the resurrection. For those who have received the Apostolic faith, this is all contained in the Pasca.

Your church does not celebrate the Passover, but Easter. It celebrates Easter as a season, yes, just like the Passover. But the similarity ends there. Easter is not celebrated on the same date as the Passover. Nor is it celebrated in the same manner as the Passover. The Orthodox churches may call their celebration “Pascha” but it is a far cry from the biblical Passover. The label may be the same but the content is not.

But there is a connection between your Easter and the Passover of the Jews as, “the Jewish feast was taken over into the Christian Easter celebration” (Catholic Encyclopedia, “Easter”). The churches initially celebrated the Passover in ITS season and according to Christ’s example, but in the Roman church “another consideration predominated. Every Sunday of the year was the commemoration of the resurrection of Christ…this Sunday became the Christian feast of Easter” – so says your Catholic Encyclopedia.

Now, you claim your church celebrates the Passover with a series of celebration that include the celebration of the resurrection (Did you conveniently forget to mention that in your other post?). But that is not how the Passover is celebrated after the manner that Christ established. The Passover that Christ established is no different from the old Passover [except for the bread and wine]. Its meaning and significance is the same. As you said, it is an enactment of our deliverance from sin, just as the old Passover was an enactment of the Israelites’ deliverance from slavery. Where does the resurrection fit in there? No, your church does not celebrate the Passover. What it celebrates is Easter, “the principal feast of the ecclesiastical year… the greatest feast…” – that Sunday of the year which was celebrated by the Roman Church in commemoration of the resurrection.

Even Justin Martyr (I hope you won’t disown him now) says that the feast days are only for the Jews. He says that while the Sabbath and other precepts were given to the Jews as a sign, God also gave them statutes and laws that were not good. He infers it is these feast days and Sabbaths that God hates. He says the Sabbath and other rites were not observed prior to Moses, that the only reason given was because of sin – and since they were not required before Abraham, there is no need to observe them now (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, pp. 202-206). Justin goes on to say that it is the eighth day that show a mysterious import which the seventh day does not possess. Since the Passover was a type of Christ and circumcision a type of the true circumcision we are circumcised through Him who rose on the first day of the week, however, called the eighth day (pp. 206, 215) – thus Easter had to be celebrated on a Sunday.

Justin says the reason the Jews kept the Sabbath, circumcision, and feasts was because of their transgression and hardness of heart. Circumcision, he says, was given to the Jews that they might suffer the things they now justly suffer. He added that Melchizedek, the priest of the Most High, was uncircumcised and that the righteous men of old did not keep the Sabbath, yet they were pleasing to God (pp. 203, 204). So, according to Justin’s theology, because Gentile Christians have no hardness of heart and are not prone to sin, they are not to keep the festivals of the Jews.

 

[Mailman]

Apparently you are trying to say that Origen is referring to the celebration of the Pasca by Apostolic Christians as belonging to the Jews, instead of to the Lord?

Do you consider the writings of Origen to be equal to Scripture?

Your church does not celebrate the Passover, but Easter. It celebrates Easter as a season, yes, just like the Passover. But the similarity ends there. Easter is not celebrated on the same date as the Passover. Nor is it celebrated in the same manner as the Passover. The Orthodox churches may call their celebration “Pascha” but it is a far cry from the biblical Passover. The label may be the same but the content is not.

But there is a connection between your Easter and the Passover of the Jews as, “the Jewish feast was taken over into the Christian Easter celebration” (Catholic Encyclopedia, “Easter”). The churches initially celebrated the Passover in ITS season and according to Christ’s example, but in the Roman church “another consideration predominated. Every Sunday of the year was the commemoration of the resurrection of Christ…this Sunday became the Christian feast of Easter” – so says your Catholic Encyclopedia.

Now, you claim your church celebrates the Passover with a series of celebration that include the celebration of the resurrection (Did you conveniently forget to mention that in your other post?). But that is not how the Passover is celebrated after the manner that Christ established. The Passover that Christ established is no different from the old Passover [except for the bread and wine]. Its meaning and significance is the same. As you said, it is an enactment of our deliverance from sin, just as the old Passover was an enactment of the Israelites’ deliverance from slavery. Where does the resurrection fit in there? No, your church does not celebrate the Passover. What it celebrates is Easter, “the principal feast of the ecclesiastical year… the greatest feast…” – that Sunday of the year which was celebrated by the Roman Church in commemoration of the resurrection.

Even Justin Martyr (I hope you won’t disown him now) says that the feast days are only for the Jews. He says that while the Sabbath and other precepts were given to the Jews as a sign, God also gave them statutes and laws that were not good. He infers it is these feast days and Sabbaths that God hates. He says the Sabbath and other rites were not observed prior to Moses, that the only reason given was because of sin – and since they were not required before Abraham, there is no need to observe them now (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, pp. 202-206). Justin goes on to say that it is the eighth day that show a mysterious import which the seventh day does not possess. Since the Passover was a type of Christ and circumcision a type of the true circumcision we are circumcised through Him who rose on the first day of the week, however, called the eighth day (pp. 206, 215) – thus Easter had to be celebrated on a Sunday.

Justin says the reason the Jews kept the Sabbath, circumcision, and feasts was because of their transgression and hardness of heart. Circumcision, he says, was given to the Jews that they might suffer the things they now justly suffer. He added that Melchizedek, the priest of the Most High, was uncircumcised and that the righteous men of old did not keep the Sabbath, yet they were pleasing to God (pp. 203, 204). So, according to Justin’s theology, because Gentile Christians have no hardness of heart and are not prone to sin, they are not to keep the festivals of the Jews.

It is true that there existed both anti-Jewish and anti-Gentile sentiment that is reflected in the NT and afterward. However, when you make broad, sweeping assertions like, this, you do but reveal your own limited experience of history. In order for such a statement to be true, then you would have to demonstrate that it applies to the Eastern church as well as the West. Since you cannot, it renders the assertion false.

The Eastern churches for a while remained steadfast to the faith and continued to observe the Pascha according to the practice of the Jewish Christians. In the closing decades of the 2nd century, Polycrates remained the only Christian leader of prominence there who was faithful to the example of the apostles and the Jerusalem Church. Toward the end of the 2nd century, Victor, the Roman bishop, had begun labeling Polycrates and his followers as heretics. They were now sources of discord and schism in the church. Polycrates remained faithful despite increasing pressure and isolation from supposed “fellow Christians.” But after his death, there were no other strong, prominent leader among those faithful churches in Asia Minor. So, their numbers shrank and the churches there eventually lost ground to the much more popular and accommodating Roman church. The anti-Jewish feelings of the Roman church finally rubbed off on them.

 

[Mailman]

There is no dichotomy here as you seem to think, Mailman. Jesus instituted Eucharist at the close of the Pascal sacrifice on the Passover just before He became the pascal sacrifice for us. He used the bread and the wine to become the anamnesis of His Body and Blood.

The early Christians celebrated this “breaking of the bread” every day, unti they were expelled from Jerusalem in about 70 AD. When the Church became vigorously persecuted by the State, it was necessary to go underground. Those found gathering for Eucharist may all be put to death. This reduced the frequency and public nature of the anamnesis.

There is no doubt among church historians that the primitive Christians kept the Law of God including the Sabbath and holydays. According to the historian Latourette, original Christianity appeared as another sect of Judaism; and the early Christians observed the Jewish law, including ceremonies, circumcision, and the dietary laws (A History of Christianity, p. 67).

It is impossible to assume that the early Christians were “breaking bread” [partaking the Lord’s Supper] daily prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, in his work entitled From Sabbath to Sunday, says that the Jerusalem church was made up of Jewish converts who were possibly administered by ex-priests, all “zealous of the law” (p. 143). In a footnote, Bacchiocchi comments on a work by Lino Randellini, who held that the Jerusalem church for an indeterminate period of time was made up of circumcised Hebrews who appeared as a sect within Judaism. They frequented the temple, celebrated the feasts, and observed the Sabbath, among other things (p. 143).

Bacchiocchi, in commenting about the impossibility of Sunday worship being introduced by the Jerusalem church prior to 70 A.D. quotes the well-recognized specialist on early Christianity, W. D. Davies who says, “Everywhere, especially in the East of the Roman Empire, there would be Jewish Christians whose outward way of life would not be markedly different from that of the Jews. They took for granted that the gospel was continuous with Judaism; for them the new covenant, which Jesus had set up at the Last Supper with His disciples and sealed by His death, did not mean that the covenant between God and Israel was no longer in force. They still observed the feasts of Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles; they also continued to be circumcised, to keep the weekly Sabbath and the Mosaic regulations concerning food. According to some scholars, they must have been so strong that right up to the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 they were the dominant element in the Christian movement” (From Sabbath to Sunday, p. 151).

The early Christians were all Jews. It was quite clear to them which day was Sabbath (seventh day of the week) and which day was the Lord’s Day (the first day of the week).

Yes, it was quite clear to them which day was the Sabbath. It was also quite clear to them that the first day of the week was a common work day. They were Jews, remember?

Though they believed he left the grave on the Sabbath, He did not appear to them until “early in the morning on the first day of the week”. It is His appearance, and what they believed would be his imminent return that they gathered to anticipate.

If they believed Jesus rose on the Sabbath, why would they make the first day of the week a special day in honor of the resurrection?

So, you agree with me then that the early Christians believed the resurrection happened on the Sabbath and not on the first day of the week?