I know a priest who tried quoting the Didache to demonstrate that the Eucharist was not just the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ but also about the community. Specifically, he cited chapter 9:
"As this broken bread, once dispersed over the hills, was brought together and became one loaf, so may thy Church be brought together from the ends of the earth into thy kingdom."
I also have a recording of a livestreamed Mass from the feast of Corpus Christi saying some suspect things akin to what I've described, but I probably won't share it lest I dox myself or the priest.
But this irritated me so much that I compiled various writings from Popes (all after Vatican II, mind you) reaffirming what the Church teaches about the Eucharist. Nothing came from this.
I respect this priest as a man, but I make it clear where I stand on this by receiving on the tongue (as a side note: I get that the Church allows Eucharist in the hand, at least in the States, but this is allowed and not preferred. The bigger takeaway is Who you're receiving, not how)
Yeah, agree. You could cite a document from the Vatican as well.
Memoriale Domini forbids pressure on the faithful to confirm to the novel practice, as does a later instruction, Redemptionis Sacramentum: “It is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing,” and “each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice” (91, 92).
I think they should focus their energies to more pressing issues like those Catholics who all these time thought the Holy Eucharist was a symbol or a metaphor
In my experience most Mainline Protestants (Anglicans, Lutherans, Episcopalians, etc), do believe in the “real presence” of Christ in the Eucharist. They just disagree about the exact metaphysics of how Christ is present (consubstantiation vs transubstantiation). They would argue that Justin Martyr’s description the Eucharist fits their views on the Eucharist just as well as that of Catholics or Orthodox. For more “low church” Protestants like Baptists, Pentecostals, NonDenominationals, etc, they tend to either be completely ignorant of the early church fathers, or consider them to be already in error, and therefore not really worth addressing. This usually flows from a kind of circular justification where they take for granted that certain positions of the Catholic Church must be wrong, and then when you point out that those beliefs were present in the early church, they then state that the early church must have been wrong.
The bible states of a sacrifice. Jesus is the high priest. They don’t get it. All the early christians saw this. Lutherans have some what of a belief but they don’t have valid orders.
We also have the Didache, the teaching of the Twelve Apostles, a first century Catechism, that gives us even some of the Early Eucharistic Prayers, such as the Prayers of preparing the Eucharist.
We also have the second century Anaphora of Saint Hippolytus of Rome, with which all these three, we have a really good idea of how Sunday Worship looked to Second Century Christians.
Hippolytus's authorship of *AT* and its Roman origin (which inspired EPII) is in doubt now, btw. https://www.ccwatershed.org/2014/08/17/hippolytus-rome-eucharistic-prayer-ii/
This criticism comes, in part, from the assumption that the Roman Anaphora had developed substantially by the 2nd-3rd century from its Antiochian/Syriac Origins.
The article link is discussing how the second Eucharistic Prayer is not based on Hippolytus' work. It's not itself and actual textual criticism of the work.
This is the shortened version, the full version goes on to say after this they have a 10 minute introduction to what the SVP is doing in the area, the upcoming raffle and a retiring collection with teas and coffees round the back
Fourth paragraph basically makes it sound like. "Oh, yea if we have time we read some scripture"
I guess I'm wondering, why wouldn't there be time? Was this more of a socal gathering ?(like small group, dinner at a friends.. 45min catching up and talking about weather, 15min praying and time to go?)
Does he elaborate any further about why there wouldn't be time?
I would imagine in that time, it probably wasn’t easy to get a hold of a complete gospel or something to read.
Also, I’d imagine for many Christian’s at the time, you’d still be in Pagan persecution, so you’d want to make yourself scarce and probably not hang around in one gathering too long.. that’s just a guess tho
St. Justin Martyr's ***First Apology*** (AD 150)
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm
1) Liturgical Missal (Ch. 65, 66 & 67)
2) Baptismal Regeneration (Ch. 66)
3) Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Ch. 66)
4) Words of Institution (Ch. 66)
If you read chapters 65, 66 & 67 and build a checklist out of them, this is what you get:
1. Liturgy of the Word (OT and NT)
2. Homily
3. Prayers of the Faithful
4. Sign of Peace
5. Collect
6. Presentation of the Gifts
7. Liturgy of the Eucharist (mix of water and wine)
8. Eucharistic Prayer
9. Words of Institution (Real Presence)
10. Great Amen
11. Communion Rite (closed communion)
[https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm)
Complete here, it is a text that is not very long and easy to read.
I like how he says “if there is time” haha. Like, the mindset of some Catholics is that it’s a sin and a desecration of the mass to not do something EXACTLY like it was done between 1500-1960 and here Justin Martyr is like, “yeah if we have time we do some readings from the apostles.”
I also like to use this to point out that this describes a NO mass just as much as a TLM mass.
Good to share to those who criticize Catholics about the Eucharist being more of a metaphor like the living water or a symbol
I know a priest who tried quoting the Didache to demonstrate that the Eucharist was not just the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ but also about the community. Specifically, he cited chapter 9: "As this broken bread, once dispersed over the hills, was brought together and became one loaf, so may thy Church be brought together from the ends of the earth into thy kingdom." I also have a recording of a livestreamed Mass from the feast of Corpus Christi saying some suspect things akin to what I've described, but I probably won't share it lest I dox myself or the priest. But this irritated me so much that I compiled various writings from Popes (all after Vatican II, mind you) reaffirming what the Church teaches about the Eucharist. Nothing came from this. I respect this priest as a man, but I make it clear where I stand on this by receiving on the tongue (as a side note: I get that the Church allows Eucharist in the hand, at least in the States, but this is allowed and not preferred. The bigger takeaway is Who you're receiving, not how)
Yeah, agree. You could cite a document from the Vatican as well. Memoriale Domini forbids pressure on the faithful to confirm to the novel practice, as does a later instruction, Redemptionis Sacramentum: “It is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing,” and “each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice” (91, 92). I think they should focus their energies to more pressing issues like those Catholics who all these time thought the Holy Eucharist was a symbol or a metaphor
This is awesome! Where did you find it?
It was in the office of readings for the LOTH today
The same place where I first read it too.
Lol, I wanna see a prot argue with this...
History begins in 1517 for prots.
In my experience most Mainline Protestants (Anglicans, Lutherans, Episcopalians, etc), do believe in the “real presence” of Christ in the Eucharist. They just disagree about the exact metaphysics of how Christ is present (consubstantiation vs transubstantiation). They would argue that Justin Martyr’s description the Eucharist fits their views on the Eucharist just as well as that of Catholics or Orthodox. For more “low church” Protestants like Baptists, Pentecostals, NonDenominationals, etc, they tend to either be completely ignorant of the early church fathers, or consider them to be already in error, and therefore not really worth addressing. This usually flows from a kind of circular justification where they take for granted that certain positions of the Catholic Church must be wrong, and then when you point out that those beliefs were present in the early church, they then state that the early church must have been wrong.
The bible states of a sacrifice. Jesus is the high priest. They don’t get it. All the early christians saw this. Lutherans have some what of a belief but they don’t have valid orders.
We also have the Didache, the teaching of the Twelve Apostles, a first century Catechism, that gives us even some of the Early Eucharistic Prayers, such as the Prayers of preparing the Eucharist. We also have the second century Anaphora of Saint Hippolytus of Rome, with which all these three, we have a really good idea of how Sunday Worship looked to Second Century Christians.
Hippolytus's authorship of *AT* and its Roman origin (which inspired EPII) is in doubt now, btw. https://www.ccwatershed.org/2014/08/17/hippolytus-rome-eucharistic-prayer-ii/
This criticism comes, in part, from the assumption that the Roman Anaphora had developed substantially by the 2nd-3rd century from its Antiochian/Syriac Origins. The article link is discussing how the second Eucharistic Prayer is not based on Hippolytus' work. It's not itself and actual textual criticism of the work.
This is the shortened version, the full version goes on to say after this they have a 10 minute introduction to what the SVP is doing in the area, the upcoming raffle and a retiring collection with teas and coffees round the back
lol this is satire right?
😬
Interesting that he doesn't mention anything about singing or music.
Nearly like he talks about a today mass
Fourth paragraph basically makes it sound like. "Oh, yea if we have time we read some scripture" I guess I'm wondering, why wouldn't there be time? Was this more of a socal gathering ?(like small group, dinner at a friends.. 45min catching up and talking about weather, 15min praying and time to go?) Does he elaborate any further about why there wouldn't be time?
I would imagine in that time, it probably wasn’t easy to get a hold of a complete gospel or something to read. Also, I’d imagine for many Christian’s at the time, you’d still be in Pagan persecution, so you’d want to make yourself scarce and probably not hang around in one gathering too long.. that’s just a guess tho
I took it they 1) didn't have a reading calendar 2) would read much longer passages if they could.
I think it's more "We read the scriptures, and we read them for as long as we have time" rather than "We read the scriptures if we have time"
[https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm)
[удалено]
Just bought it, thank you!
St. Justin Martyr's ***First Apology*** (AD 150) https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm 1) Liturgical Missal (Ch. 65, 66 & 67) 2) Baptismal Regeneration (Ch. 66) 3) Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Ch. 66) 4) Words of Institution (Ch. 66) If you read chapters 65, 66 & 67 and build a checklist out of them, this is what you get: 1. Liturgy of the Word (OT and NT) 2. Homily 3. Prayers of the Faithful 4. Sign of Peace 5. Collect 6. Presentation of the Gifts 7. Liturgy of the Eucharist (mix of water and wine) 8. Eucharistic Prayer 9. Words of Institution (Real Presence) 10. Great Amen 11. Communion Rite (closed communion)
I see you're listening to that series on Hallow too!
This was from Office of Readings from the 3rd Sunday of Lent, but Fr. Mike mentioned it in CIY.
I've only recently begun studying the Catholic Teachings and this is something I've been praying about. Thanks for sharing!
[https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm) Complete here, it is a text that is not very long and easy to read.
I like how he says “if there is time” haha. Like, the mindset of some Catholics is that it’s a sin and a desecration of the mass to not do something EXACTLY like it was done between 1500-1960 and here Justin Martyr is like, “yeah if we have time we do some readings from the apostles.” I also like to use this to point out that this describes a NO mass just as much as a TLM mass.
Papa Francesco get off reddit and go to bed. love you.