History of the Roman Rite Mass: From Jesus to Constantine (1st-3rd century) 

If you were an avid bible reader you would never have become roman catholic.

​@@wesleysimelane3423but other so call churches of 50,000 + is a false man made churchessss, can't count them, like the pagan hindu gods uncountable. Too many churchesss and gods too. No that's too confussing to be a Faith in Almighty God creator of heaven and earth.

@@wesleysimelane3423 If you weren't ignoring inconvenient Scripture, you would be part of the Church founded by Christ.

@@drstewart Show me in scripture the assumption of mary, celebration of feast days of dead catholic "saints", dulia, hyper-dulia and even the immaculate conception of Mary......Catholicism is not bible based.

@@wesleysimelane3423Show the scripture that says “everything must be in the Bible”.

Quote from the Justin Martyr paragraph "And i will not accept the sacrifice at your hands" Is that the proof we need that the host should only be taken on the tongue!?

@@gtibruce Catholics routinely say that the all the Church Fathers agreed with the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist and transubstantiation. That’s not true. “But if it be unlawful even to speak of this, and if for men to partake of the flesh of men is a thing most hateful and abominable, and more detestable than any other unlawful and unnatural food or act,” (Athenagoras 133-190 AD, On the Resurrection of the Dead, 8). ** “For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble.” (Augustine, 354-430 AD, Letter 98:9). ** “‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord,” (Augustine, 354-430 AD, On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24). ** “And He blessed the wine, saying, ‘Take, drink: this is my blood’ - the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word ‘shed for many, for the remission of sins’ - the holy stream of gladness.’” (Clement of Alexandria, 150-215 AD, The Instructor, 2:2). ** “Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: ‘Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,’ describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, (Clement of Alexandria, 150-215 AD, The Instructor, 1:6). ** For just as he, who was priest of the Gentiles, is not represented as offering outward sacrifices, but as blessing Abraham only with wine and bread, in exactly the same way our Lord and Saviour Himself first, and then all His priests among all nations, perform the spiritual sacrifice according to the customs of the Church, and with wine and bread darkly express the mysteries of His Body and saving Blood.” (Eusebius, 263-339 AD, Demonstratio Evangelica, 5:3). ** “For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body… to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body,” (Eusebius, 263-339 AD, Demonstratio Evangelica, 8:1). ** “…nor the bread by which he represents his own proper body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the ‘beggarly elements’ of the Creator,” (Tertullian, 155-220 AD, Against Marcion, 1:14)

@@wesleysimelane3423 Copied and pasted from an anti-Catholic website. I looked up the very first quote from Athenagoras, and he is NOT talking about the Eucharist at all, so this is proof that the people you are listening to are liars. The false claim these liars make is in the first sentence: "Catholics routinely say that the all the Church Fathers agreed with the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist and transubstantiation. That’s not true." Yet none of the quotes show that the person rejects the teaching on the Eucharist. We know that St. Augustine explicitly taught that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. He is a doctor of the Church and one of the greatest theologians in history, so why are you pulling out these off-topic quotes? Read an actual book and quote teachings that address the actual topic.

I don’t merely prefer it; it’s objectively better.

@@jefffinkbonner9551 real

Quote from the Justin Martyr paragraph "And i will not accept the sacrifice at your hands" Is that the proof we need that the host should only be taken on the tongue!?

You can not defend the catholic church. The bible is clear about her, "that great harlot who will seek to change the law and the times and who shall make many drunk with her wine(false doctrines)".

There is no such thing as a "Protestant Christian". The Church of Christ is the Holy Catholic Church. Christianity is Catholicism, and Catholicism is Christianity. If a person is Protestant, he or she might agree with some of the dogmas and doctrines of Catholicism/Christianity, but his/her Protestantism does not make him/her Christian. Protestantism exists only to destroy the Catholic/Christian Church, which Jesus Himself built for the salvation of souls.

@@wesleysimelane3423Where does it say the Catholic Church is the great harlot?

Just a guess sounding it out, "kah-vuh-ra"? thanks.

Exactly, more like HHah-voo-rĀh (like a Spanish pronunciation of “Javurá”), not “ChavOOrah” like he pronounces it

From the Didache or St Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians?

If you're looking to save some money at a used bookstore, I know a lot of people just get a 1955 Missal. I believe the only change is the addition of the name of St. Joseph to the Roman Canon (which you can add yourself) and some technicalities about feast rankings. The missals from the 50's will likely have more reverent artwork than a missal printed in the 60s.

A Chaburah meal was a ritualized religious meal that was not tied to the solemnity of Passover - it is my understanding that the term Seder Meal specifically refers to the Passover Meal ritual.

@@historiaecclesiastica Thank you! So Chaburah is more like an ordinary weekly Sabbath meal? What is your opinion on Catholics having Seder meals to educate on the fulfillment in the Mass? I am of a Traditional Catholic perspective. I don't think we should conflate these?

I am listening to this section on Chabura meal again. I am trying to grasp this. Thank you

Every year after teaching the Exodus story I hold a Seder with my students to give them some context to understand how the Israelites were prepared for the Eucharist for some thousand years. I haven't thought about the danger of conflating the two. I can see the danger of conflation if not enough instruction is given into the radical difference between the two liturgies and transubstantiation isn't taught sufficiently and if it isn't made extremely clear that the Seder Meal is purely symbolic while the Eucharist is truly a sacrificial partaking in the flesh of the Crucified. @@corilv13honey9

@@historiaecclesiastica Thank you, I appreciate your answer. God Bless!

It should be but Modernists despise history.

The modern Catechism writes that using the terms bread and wine to refer to the consecrated offerings is appropriate because Jesus and St Paul both used that sort of language to refer to the Eucharist. That seems to be a reasonable point. However I agree that using that sort of language is unhelpful to restore belief in the true presence to today’s Catholics.

@@historiaecclesiastica Jesus said, " I am the living bread " before the last supper , not during or after the last supper. Paul " Words of Consecration does not include , " Unto remission of sins " , so, they are invalid.. CCC , a creation of Cardinal Ratzinger and John Paul II, gives a wrong definition of Mass.

@@eugenebastian8351 could you explain what you are saying here?

@@garyolsen3409 The Latin Church teaches that bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus ( Transubstantiation) when the Priest says the Words of Consecration. So it is illogical for the Priest to say ," When we eat this bread and drink this cup......." , Immediately after Consecration. This error is there both in the Tridentine Mass and in the Bugnini Mass. There is an option for an alternate oration in both.

@@eugenebastian8351 I'm Traditional rite, you don't need to school me. You run your thoughts together, try not to do that so everyone can understand you.

I'm sure this gentleman knows, as most non-Modernist Catholics surely do, that there aren't any who are actually contenders presently, lol. We also know well that God has, and may, use anyone, even pagans, to accomplish His will.

Certainly not. Christ effects the change. He transubstantiated the first Host in the Last Supper, and looking at His apostles, immediately said "Do this in memory of me." He would not command them to do something He did not grant them the power to do.

@@historiaecclesiastica . You can't be serious amere human creating the God of the universe from a wafer. There's no logic in this. Jesus at the passover transformed Himself into bread? I don't think so. Please spare me.

@@historiaecclesiastica . This alone is more than sufficient for me to never ever consider Catholicism. I will definitely pass this on.

@@historiaecclesiastica . You also need to check the history of your position. Like the Lateran council of 1215 and the council of trent.

@@ewaldradavich7307 You are Dammed if you receive the Eucharist “Unworthily.” (I Corinthians 11:27-29) How can that be if its symbolic? (405 A.D.) Theodore: “[Christ] did NOT say, ‘This is the SYMBOL of but, this is my body.’ my blood,’ the EUCHARIST.” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1) (33 A.D.) “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have NO life in you.” (John 6:53) (Mt. 26:26-29) (Luke 22:19-20) (70 A.D.) The Didache: Sunday, “Offer the Eucharist… in every place & time… a pure sacrifice.” (14:1-3) (CCC 1322-1419) (430 B.C.) “Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering.” (Malachi 1:11) (189 A.D.) St. Irenaeus: “Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made.” (Against Heresies Book 5 Chapter 2 Verse 3) (110 A.D.) St. Ignatius (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2, 7:1) "Those who hold heterodox do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus are perishing.” (155 A.D.) Justin Martyr (First Apology 66): “Eucharist is the flesh and blood of that Jesus.”

Nah. False on its face. John 10:25-30: "Jesus answered them: I speak to you, and you believe not: the works that I do in the name of my Father, they give testimony of me. But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep. My sheep hear my voice: and I know them, and they follow me. And I give them life everlasting; and they shall not perish for ever, and no man shall pluck them out of my hand. That which my Father hath given me, is greater than all: and no one can snatch them out of the hand of my Father. I and the Father are one." Matthew 3:16-17: "And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. And behold a voice from heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Not just a "witness." Christ's Church was founded, and the subject of His divinity established, well before the false teachings of Charles Taze Russell.

Thank you for your thoughtful comment. Please note that all of these quotes demonstrate that Sacraments have a symbolic dimension, but none deny that Sacraments also have an actual Grace transmitted through that symbol. Below is a response to most of the quotes you shared. “But if it be unlawful even to speak of this, and if for men to partake of the flesh of men is a thing most hateful and abominable, and more detestable than any other unlawful and unnatural food or act,” (Athenagoras 133-190 AD, On the Resurrection of the Dead, 8). Catholics do believe that cannibalism is unlawful and detestable, which is the reason that the Lord gives us his flesh and blood under the outward accidents of bread and wine, which interact with our digestive system as bread and wine. “For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble.” (Augustine, 354-430 AD, Letter 98:9). - St. Augustine is not denying that Sacraments have an actual effective Grace, though in this quote he is drawing attention to the symbolic aspect of sacraments. Sacraments are both symbols as well as effective transmitters of grace. Augustine also said: "What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ, and the chalice is the blood of Christ." The followers of Jesus thought his commands in John 6 commanded a vice, which is why they left Him. They, however, were incorrect in doing so - the Eucharist reveals how the command to eat His flesh and drink His blood, which are true food and true drink is not a sin or vice. Clement of Alexandria's quote that "elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: ‘Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,’" highlights the symbolic aspect of the Sacrament, which is undeniable, however, it also effects an actual grace. Clement of Alexandria also said: “Eat ye my flesh,” He says, “and drink my blood.” Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. O amazing mystery. We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving Him if we can, to hide Him within; and that, enshrining the Savior in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh.” (Paedagogus 1:6) The rest of the quotes you shared also refer to the symbolic element of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, but they do not deny the substantial reality of Christ's true presence, which all of these Church Fathers accepted. Many of them spoke of the true presence in other places, though they did so incidentally rather than apologetically. Tertullian's quote is in response to gnostics who denied that Christ had a body at all, so he was arguing primarily that Jesus had a physical body, he wasn't describing the Eucharist per se - though no where in your quote provided did he deny that the symbol did not also communicate the actual presence of Christ. One gets that impression only when reading it with a post-Protestantism Eucharistic debate lens, which is out of its historical context. No legitimate Christians denied the true presence until the 16th century, so clear articulations directly addressing the Protestant heresy regarding the Eucharist don't emerge until then. God bless you.

​@@historiaecclesiasticaThank you for your accurate, charitable and patient reply here.

You are Dammed if you receive the Eucharist “Unworthily.” (I Corinthians 11:27-29) How can that be if its symbolic? (405 A.D.) Theodore: “[Christ] did NOT say, ‘This is the SYMBOL of but, this is my body.’ my blood,’ the EUCHARIST.” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1) (33 A.D.) “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have NO life in you.” (John 6:53) (Mt. 26:26-29) (Luke 22:19-20) (70 A.D.) The Didache: Sunday, “Offer the Eucharist… in every place & time… a pure sacrifice.” (14:1-3) (CCC 1322-1419) (430 B.C.) “Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering.” (Malachi 1:11) (189 A.D.) St. Irenaeus: “Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made.” (Against Heresies Book 5 Chapter 2 Verse 3) (110 A.D.) St. Ignatius (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2, 7:1) Those who hold heterodox do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus are perishing.” (155 A.D.) Justin Martyr (First Apology 66): “Eucharist is the flesh and blood of that Jesus.” Early Christian worship is Catholic! YES! (CCC 830-854, 975) Sunday mass, confess sins in church then EUCHARIST, fast Wednesday & Friday, pray our father, “Baptize pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.” (70 A.D.) “The Didache” (7:1, 4:14, 14:1) (Mathew 28:19) Infant Baptism pours thrice upon the head into the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit as well (2 Corinthians 2:11-12)

A major theme of my video “why the Douay Rheims Bible is the greatest English translation” is that the Masoretic tradition, the only surviving Hebrew text, is a corrupted 9th century text that was intended to de-Christianize the Old Testament by Jewish rabbis.

the person who wrote the Gospel of John is......roll of drums......ST JOHN THE DISCIPLE. all the ancient Gospels of St John SAY they are the Gospel of John, from all over north Africa, the middle east, what we now call Turkey etc. if you have actual, extensive EVIDENCE which casts doubt on the authorship it would be interesting to see.

Then don't watch them Karen

@@St_AngusYoung GFY!

@@buzzledoux7572 not very Christian of you Karen. Peace be with you Karen.

@@buzzledoux7572 GFY? You call that manners? Hypocrite.

@@buzzledoux7572 - saying that is gross and disrespectful!