Fidelity to the Word
Our Lord and His Holy Apostles at the Last Supper

A blog dedicated to Christ Jesus our Lord and His True Presence in the Holy Mystery of the Eucharist

But Christ having come a high priest of the good things to come, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation, nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption.

Hebrews 9:11-12

Sunday, April 30, 2006

Levavi oculos

Psalm 120
God is the keeper of his servants.

I have lifted up my eyes to the mountains, from whence help shall come to me. My help is from the Lord, who made heaven and earth. May he not suffer thy foot to be moved: neither let him slumber that keepeth thee. Behold he shall neither slumber nor sleep, that keepeth Israel. The Lord is thy keeper, the Lord is thy protection upon thy right hand.

The sun shall not burn thee by day: nor the moon by night. The Lord keepeth thee from all evil: may the Lord keep thy soul. May the Lord keep thy going in and thy going out; from henceforth now and for ever.


Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Which Hobbit Are You?

Samwise Gamgee
You are 69% Insular, 61% Sociable, and 23% Cupidinous!
You are the salt of the earth. You enjoy all the simple pleasures of life and want to share those with your friends and family. You are quite content where you are and have no desire to go anywhere else. You frequently have the mistaken impression that people like you far better than you deserve. I wish I could meet you in person.
My test tracked 3 variables. How you compared to other people your age and gender:
free online datingfree online dating
You scored higher than 96% on Insular
free online datingfree online dating
You scored higher than 37% on Sociable
free online datingfree online dating
You scored higher than 26% on Cupidinous
Link: The Which Hobbit Are You? Test written by fordim
on Ok Cupid, home of the 32-Type Dating Test


Follow-up (5/18/2006)
Independent testing confirms that I am, in fact, Samwise Gamgee:

Which Lord of the Rings character and personality problem are you?

Congratulations! You're Sam!
Take this quiz!


Make A Quiz More Quizzes Grab Code


Update 6/12/2006:
I am still Samwise Gamgee, Esq.

I'm Samwise Gamgee!

Cynical and clumsy, but loyal and brave, you're Samwise Gamgee!

"I can't carry it for you, but I can carry you and it as well. So up you get! Come on, Mr. Frodo dear! Sam will give you a ride. Just tell him where to go, and he'll go."

Which hobbit in the fellowship of the Ring are you?

Take Other Caffeine Nebula Quizzes

Labels: , ,

Monday, April 24, 2006

Summer Music Colloquium 2006


Sunday, April 23, 2006

Indult Schmindult

Puella Paschalis is less than completely overjoyed at the prospect of a universal indult, seeing in it a looming choice between boredom and irreverence. She also objects to traditionalists speaking negatively of the NO, since the two missals are equivalent.


As long as the NO masses are said with mangled words of consecration (claiming Jesus said "for all" instead of "for many"), it is not clear (to me) that the NO and TLM are equivalent. However, my view is a minority view. Most of the commentary I have read celebrates the prospect of a freely available traditional Mass without disparaging the new Mass at all.

If you want to keep going to the new Mass, great, keep going to the new Mass, and may it be an instrument of God's grace to draw you closer to Him. I agree that "the NO is not per se some kind of automatic route into inevitable happy-clapping"; most Sundays I go to the NO myself.

I do find the traditional Mass to be a more clear-cut act of worship, with stronger expressions of piety that just naturally nudge people towards reverence in the rest of the Mass. But I think the difficulty of worship in Latin would be enough to keep most Catholics going to the new Mass, even if they had a choice. Why not go to one or a few traditional Masses yourself, and judge whether this is a form of worship to which you can imagine the majority of church-going Catholics returning? It might put your mind at ease.


11/9/06 update:
Puella is still thinking about the Traditional Mass, and Fr. Finigan has some helpful comments for her here, here and here.

Labels: ,

Divine Mercy Sunday

The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love. He will not always chide, nor will he keep his anger for ever. He does not deal with us according to our sins, nor requite us according to our iniquities. For as the heavens are high above the earth, so great is his steadfast love toward those who fear him; as far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us. As a father pities his children, so the LORD pities those who fear him. For he knows our frame; he remembers that we are dust. As for man, his days are like grass; he flourishes like a flower of the field; for the wind passes over it, and it is gone, and its place knows it no more. But the steadfast love of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting upon those who fear him, and his righteousness to children's children, to those who keep his covenant and remember to do his commandments.

Psalm 103:8-18

For the sake of His sorrowful Passion
have mercy on us and on the whole world.

For the sake of His sorrowful Passion
have mercy on us and on the whole world.

For the sake of His sorrowful Passion
have mercy on us and on the whole world.

Holy God, Holy Mighty One, Holy Immortal One,
have mercy on us and on the whole world.

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Translation Evolution

[my comment on this post]

According to this web page, the original 1965 ICEL translation of the Roman Canon translated "pro multis" as "for all men". Combining that with the Order of the Mass in the webpage Jon mentioned (copyright 1966) and comments found here, the translation of "pro multis" appears to have evolved as follows:
1965 - ICEL translates pro multis as "for all men" for the vernacular Mass
1966 - the translation is corrected by someone to "for many" for the official English version of the 1965 missal.
1967 - Late in the year, ICEL again renders "pro multis" as "for all men", for the new Eucharistic prayers. This time, the translation sticks, until around
1980 - "pro multis" is now translated as "for all"

Is this correct? I welcome corrections, large or small.

[no replies - it was bit off topic]


The 1966 version of the 1965 missal is also available here.



God, whose law it is that he who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despite, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.

- Aeschylus Agamemnon

[Probably as good an answer as I will find for my friend's question about why God allows suffering -- the same answer that Elihu gives to Job.]


A Catholic college student posted her own thoughts on suffering recently here. I need to spend more time myself thinking about the redemptive value of suffering.

A good way to start would be by reading David Greenstock's Comfort for the Sick and Dying. I read this some years ago and remember it as a book that lived up to its name. My mother read it while she was dying and was so inspired she bought several to give to friends and family.


I couldn't find the translation of Agamemnon from which the quote was taken, but I did find two other versions of the play online. Here is how they render the wisdom quote:

'Tis Zeus alone who shows the perfect way
Of knowledge: He hath ruled,
Men shall learn wisdom, by affliction schooled.

In visions of the night, like dropping rain,
Descend the many memories of pain
Before the spirit's sight: through tears and dole
Comes wisdom o'er the unwilling soul-
A boon, I wot, of all Divinity,
That holds its sacred throne in strength, above the sky!

(Translated by E. D. A. Morshead)

For Jove doth teach men wisdom, sternly wins
To virtue by the tutoring of their sins,
Yea! drops of torturing recollection chill
The sleeper’s heart, ’gainst man’s rebellious will
Jove works the wise remorse:
Dread Powers, on awful seats enthroned, compel
Our hearts with gracious force.

(Translated by John Stuart Blackie)

Labels: , ,

Sunday, April 16, 2006

Easter, 2006

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

John 3:16

Lord our God,
by the resurrection of Your Son,
You have forever illumined the world.
Through the power of Your Spirit,
grant that those who sit in darkness
and in the shadow of death,
may be born anew,
and that Your light may shine on them
for ever and ever. Amen.
(from the Glenstal Book of Prayer)

Labels: , ,

Friday, April 14, 2006

Good Friday, 2006

(Image from the Paris WebMuseum)

Today is Good Friday.

So they took Jesus, and he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called the place of a skull, which is called in Hebrew Gol'gotha. There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, and Jesus between them. Pilate also wrote a title and put it on the cross; it read, "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." Many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, and in Greek.

The chief priests of the Jews then said to Pilate, "Do not write, `The King of the Jews,' but, `This man said, I am King of the Jews.'"

Pilate answered, "What I have written, I have written."

John 19:17-22

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God,
Creator of Heaven and earth, Saviour of the world,

Behold I who am unworthy and of all men most sinful,
humbly bow the knee of my heart before
the glory of Thy majesty and praise Thy Cross and Passion,
and offer thanksgiving to Thee, the King and God of all,
that Thou wast pleased to bear as man all labours and hardships,
all temptations and tortures,
that Thou mightest be our Fellow-sufferer and Helper,
and a Saviour to all of us in all our sorrows, needs, and sufferings.

I know, O all-powerful Lord, that all these things
were not necessary for Thee,
but for us men and for our salvation
Thou didst endure Thy Cross and Passion
that Thou mightest redeem us from all cruel bondage to the enemy.

What, then, shall I give in return to Thee, O Lover of mankind,
for all that Thou hast suffered for me, a sinner?
I cannot say, for soul and body and all blessings come from Thee,
and all that I have is Thine, and I am Thine.
Yet I know that love is repaid only by love.
Teach me, then, to love and praise Thee.

Trusting solely in Thine infinite compassion and mercy, O Lord,
I praise Thine unspeakable patience,
I magnify Thine unutterable exhaustion,
I glorify Thy boundless mercy,
I adore Thy purest Passion,
and most lovingly kissing Thy wounds, I cry:
Have mercy on me a sinner,
and cause that Thy holy Cross may not be fruitless in me,
that I may participate here with faith in Thy sufferings
and be vouchsafed to behold also the glory of Thy Kingdom in Heaven.


Labels: , , , ,

Four Jesuses or One?

The Resurrection in the Four Gospels
by Fr. Larry Kowatski

Our parish audio-visual library has a recording of a lecture by Fr. Kowatski on the four Gospels. As I listened to him speak, I wondered whether he believes that Jesus really was God incarnate who lived a real life 2000 years ago, died for our sake, and rose from the dead. He seemed to treat the Gospels as pious stories that may be inspiring but are not really true. Here is how his lecture began:

Every year, during Holy Week, many different television stations present films based on the life of Christ, and when they do this, what they basically do is they take the details from each of the four gospels and try to work as many of them together as they can and then they give us their understanding of the Life of Christ.

When we see films like that and then go back to the Gospels, that is how we read the Gospels. And I have been trying to share with you since I have been here how important it is (I feel) not to read the Gospels that way.

How each Gospel, rather than being a collection of facts about Jesus that can be collated one with another, is the sharing of a very unique experience of Jesus, and when we take the facts from one Gospel and we put them in another, what we are likely to do is end up with one overall picture of what Jesus was like that isn't guaranteed by God and almost certainly we lose the uniqueness of the four sharings that God has guaranteed, sharings that you and I very much need.

When you read any section of the Gospel, when you read a Gospel as whole, please try as much as you can to block out any details of any other Gospels.

I am going to share with you this morning, as maybe a way of illustrating this, the resurrection stories, what happens on Easter Sunday, and I want to right at the start, show you some of the differences.

Who announces the resurrection?
Mark - Young Man
Matthew - Angel
Luke - 2 young men
John - No one

"He has been raised up. He is not here." What that means in the Gospel of Mark is: Don't look for Jesus here on Earth anymore; he is never going to make a resurrection appearance. ...
I do see value in reading a Gospel straight through, and focusing, for a time, solely on that Gospel, but why shouldn't we read each Gospel in light of the others and the rest of Divine revelation? The previous post in this blog showed how easy it is to get details wrong if you look at just one Gospel in isolation. We follow Christ Jesus, and all four accounts are meant to instruct us about the same one person, so why shouldn't we attempt to collate the facts we have, to arrive at a deeper understanding of Him whom we worship?

Our library has more tapes of this type, by speakers such as Michael Himes and Richard McBrien, but little that is substantial and good, to lead parishioners to our Savior.


The inclination to separate each Gospel from the rest of the Bible reminds me of the desire of some to ignore the New Testament when translating the Old. I saw these comments earlier this week:
The RSV Old Testament was not well received outside of liberal circles, chiefly because the translators often deliberately rendered Old Testament passages in such a way that they were contrary to the interpretations given in the New Testament. This was done on the principle that the Old Testament ought to be interpreted only in reference to its own historical (Jewish) context. Christian interpretations, including those of the New Testament writers, are therefore deliberately excluded as "anachronistic." But this, as conservative critics perceived, practically amounted to a denial of the truth of the New Testament.

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD; and you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. And these words which I command you this day shall be upon your heart; and you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. And you shall bind them as a sign upon your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

Deuteronomy 6:4-9

Labels: ,

Thursday, April 13, 2006

Was the Last Supper a Passover meal?

(Image from the Closed Cafeteria)

From the Internet Question Box, in the Nazareth Resource Library, on the Catholic Information Network:

Q: Was the Last Supper -- the first Mass -- a Passover meal? John's Gospel says Jesus was crucified on "the day of Preparation of the Passover" (19:14) and that the Jewish leaders "did not enter the praetorium, so that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover" (18:28) and that the Last Supper took place "just before the Passover Feast" (13:1).

A: The Last Supper was a Passover meal. This is very clear from the synoptics. Jesus tells his disciples, "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer" (Luke 22:15), and the gospels tell us that "they prepared the Passover" (Luke 22:13) at the house where Jesus had sent them, instructing them "tell the householder, 'The Teacher says to you, Where is the guest room, where I am to eat the Passover with my disciples?'" (Luke 22:11), following their own question, "Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?" (Mark 14:12), after Jesus had directed them, "Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat it." (Luke 22:8), for it was "the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed" (Luke 22:7). This sequence of events with the repeated emphasis on the fact it was a Passover meal is repeated in all three synoptic gospels.

Also, when one looks at the structure of the meal -- when they ate, when they drank, when they prayed, when they sang a hymn -it is very clear that they were following a Passover seder.

Because of the three statements from John mentioned above, however, some have speculated that Jesus was using a different calendar, such as the one used by the Qumran community, so he was celebrating Passover a day differently than other Jews. This, however, is an unnecessary speculation.

Equally unnecessary would be the speculation that he simply held Passover a day early because he knew he was going to die. This would contradict Luke 22:7, where it emphasizes that "the day of Unleavened Bread" had come -- that is, 14 Nisan, when the Jews took the yeast out of their homes in preparation for the following seven day Feast of Unleavened Bread (the first century Jewish historian Josephus said they did around noon). This day was also the day of Passover proper "on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed."

The real problem in understanding the time references in John's Gospel comes from not knowing enough about they way events were referred to in the first century. Concening John 19:14, "the day of Preparation" does not mean the day of preparing for the Passover. In the first century "the day of Preparation" meant "the day to prepare for the Sabbath" -- in other words, Friday.

"The Passover" could refer to at least four things: (1) it could refer to the two chagigah lambs which were slaughtered and eaten, one on the evening of 15 Nisan, during the Passover seder, and one on the following day of 15 Nisan (Jews at the time reckoned the day as beginning at sundown, so the evening of the day preceded the morning of the day), (2) it could refer to the Passover meal itself, (3) it could refer to the day on which the Passover meal was eaten, and (4) it could refer to the eight day festal cycle including both Passover day and the following seven day feast of Unleavened Bread. We see this latter usage in the gospels themselves. Luke 22:1 tells us: "Now the feast of Unleavened Bread drew near, which is called the Passover."

It is this usage which is relevant in John 19:14. Thus "the day of Preparation of the Passover" means "the Friday of Passover week." Thus the New International Version renders John 19:14, "It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week ..."

Regarding John 18:28, if the term "Passover" is again taken as a reference to the whole festal cycle, then the Jewish leaders' fear that they would not be able to "eat the Passover" could be a reference to being unable to participate in the continuing festivities of that day. However, there is a more probable alternative. As we noted, there were two lambs, known as chagigah, which were killed and eaten. The first lamb was killed on the afternoon of 14 Nisan and eaten that night (15 Nisan) as the lamb of the Passover seder. However, the second lamb was eaten during the day of 15 Nisan and, like the first one, was also called a Passover. Thus the leaders were afraid they would not be able to eat the second Passover -- the lamb eaten during the day of the 15th.

We can be certain, however, that the Jewish leaders were not afraid that they would be unable to eat the Passover seder proper because the defilement caused by entering a Gentile's dwelling required a ritual bath and then ceased at sundown. Since the Passover seder was held after sundown, the leaders would have been able to eat it with no problem if this were occurring on the 14th of Nisan. However, if it were occurring during the daytime on the 15th of Nisan, they would not have been able to eat the second Passover, the second chagigah because they would be unclean until the evening of that day, and it was eaten during the daytime.

Finally, John 13:1 does not say that the Last Supper took place "just before the Passover Feast." The time clause states that something was just before the Passover, but it does not state what. This could be a concluding reference to the preceding discourse in chapter 12, telling us when Jesus gave the discourse. It could also be a setup for the next thing mentioned -- the footwashing service -- which took place just before the Passover seder. Thus "just before the Passover feast" may mean "just before the Passover meal." The phrase could also be a time cue to tell us when Jesus was thinking about things. Thus the Revised Standard Version (like the New King James Version) of this verse reads: "Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end."

It is also unclear exactly how the time clause is to be grouped syntactically. The Revised Standard Version has the whole verse as a single sentence, but the New International Version breaks it up: "It was just before the Passover Feast. Jesus knew that the time had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the full extent of his love."

In any event, it is clear from what John writes that he too understood the Last Supper to be a Passover meal. In John 13:27-30, we read:

"As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him. 'What you are about to do, do quickly,' Jesus told him, but no one at the meal understood why Jesus said this to him. Since Judas had charge of the money, some thought Jesus was telling him to buy what was needed for the Feast, or to give something to the poor. As soon as Judas had taken the bread, he went out. And it was night." (NIV)

This would make no sense if it were not a Passover meal. One normally would not go out into the streets to give money to the poor on an ordinary night. However, on Passover night the doors of the Temple were opened at midnight (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 18:29f) and a crowd of poor people gathered to receive alms. Thus it was a custom to give alms to the poor at night on Passover, but night time alms were in no way customary at other times, meaning Jesus's direction to Judas would not have been so understood by the apostles if it were given at any time other than Passover evening. The fact that the apostles had this in mind is reinforced by the fact that the other explanation they thought of -- that Judas was being sent out to buy something for the Feast -- is also focused on special customs connected with the Passover (/Unleavened Bread) feast.

Thus John also understands the meal to be a Passover seder. Confusion suggesting otherwise is simply due to lack of understanding of the Jewish customs and terms of the time.


From the Catholic Encyclopedia:


The Evangelists and critics generally agree that the Last Supper was on a Thursday, that Christ suffered and died on Friday, and that He arose from the dead on Sunday. As to the day of the month there seems a difference between the record of the synoptic Gospels and that of St. John. In consequence some critics have rejected the authenticity of either account or of both. Since Christians, accepting the inspiration of the Scriptures, cannot admit contradictions in the sacred writers, various attempts have been made to reconcile the statements. Matthew 26:17 says, "And on the first day of the Azymes"; Mark 14:12, "Now on the first day of the unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the pasch"; Luke 22:7, "And the day of the unleavened bread came, on which it was necessary that the pasch should be killed". From these passages it seems to follow that Jesus and his disciples conformed to the ordinary custom, that the Last Supper took place on the 14th of Nisan, and that the Crucifixion was on the l5th, the great festival of the Jews. This opinion, held by Tolet, Cornelius a Lapide, Patrizi, Corluy, Hengstenberg, Ohlshausen, and Tholuck, is confirmed by the custom of the early Eastern Church which, looking to the day of the month, celebrated the commemoration of the Lord's Last Supper on the 14th of Nisan, without paying any attention to the day of the week. This was done in conformity with the teaching of St. John the Evangelist. But in his Gospel, St. John seems to indicate that Friday was the 14th of Nisan, for (18:28) on the morning of this day the Jews "went not into the hall, that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the pasch". Various things were done on this Friday which could not be done on a feast, viz., Christ is arrested, tried, crucified; His body is taken down" (because it was the parasceve) that the bodies might not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day (for that was a great sabbath day)"; the shroud and ointments are bought, and so on.

The defenders of this opinion claim that there is only an apparent contradiction and that the differing statements may be reconciled. For the Jews calculated their festivals and Sabbaths from sunset to sunset: thus the Sabbath began after sunset on Friday and ended at sunset on Saturday. This style is employed by the synoptic Gospels, while St. John, writing about twenty-six years after the destruction of Jerusalem, when Jewish law and customs no longer prevailed, may well have used the Roman method of computing time from midnight to midnight. The word pasch does not exclusively apply to the paschal lamb on the eve of the feast, but is used in the Scriptures and in the Talmud in a wider sense for the entire festivity, including the chagigah; any legal defilement could have been removed by the evening ablutions; trials, and even executions and many servile works, though forbidden on the Sabbath, were not forbidden on feasts (Numbers 28:16; Deuteronomy 16:23). The word parasceve may denote the preparation for any Sabbath and may be the common designation for any Friday, and its connexion with pasch need not mean preparation for the Passover but Friday of the Passover season and hence this Sabbath was a great Sabbath. Moreover it seems quite certain that if St. John intended to give a different date from that given by the Synoptics and sanctioned by the custom of his own Church at Ephesus, he would have said so expressly. Others accept the apparent statement of St. John that the Last Supper was on the 13th of Nisan and try to reconcile the account of the Synoptics. To this class belong Paul of Burgos, Maldonatus, Petau, Hardouin, Tillemont, and others. Peter of Alexandria (P.G., XCII, 78) says: "In previous years Jesus had kept the Passover and eaten the paschal lamb, but on the day before He suffered as the true Paschal Lamb He taught His disciples the mystery of the type." Others say: Since the Pasch, falling that year on a Friday, was reckoned as a Sabbath, the Jews, to avoid the inconvenience of two successive Sabbaths, had postponed the Passover for a day, and Jesus adhered to the day fixed by law; others think that Jesus anticipated the celebration, knowing that the proper time He would be in the grave.


The owner of the house in which was the upper room of the Last Supper is not mentioned in Scripture; but he must have been one of the disciples, since Christ bids Peter and John say, "The Master says". Some say it was Nicodemus, or Joseph of Arimathea, or the mother of John Mark. The hall was large and furnished as a dining-room. In it Christ showed Himself after His Resurrection; here took place the election of Matthias to the Apostolate and the sending of the Holy Ghost; here the first Christians assembled for the breaking of bread; hither Peter and John came when they had given testimony after the cure of the man born lame, and Peter after his liberation from prison; here perhaps was the council of the Apostles held. It was for awhile the only church in Jerusalem, the mother of all churches, known as the Church of the Apostles or of Sion. It was visited in 404 by St. Paula of Rome. In the eleventh century it was destroyed by the Saracens, later rebuilt and given to the care of the Augustinians. Restored after a second destruction, it was placed in charge of the Franciscans, who were driven out in 1561. At present it is a Moslem mosque.


Some critics give the following harmonized order: washing of the feet of the Apostles, prediction of the betrayal and departure of Judas, institution of the Holy Eucharist. Others, believing that Judas made a sacrilegious communion, place the institution of the sacrament before the departure of Judas.


From a protestant source:

Just when was Jesus crucified? To answer this question we need to inquire: (1) What day of the week, (2) What day of the month of Nisan, and (3) What year? These subjects are controversial, but I'll try to simply lay out the issues, and explain what I believe is the most probably. Fortunately, the exact day or date of the crucifixion is not an article of faith. :-)

1. Day of the Week

Several times the Gospels mention that Jesus was crucified on the day before the Sabbath, the Jewish Day of Preparation (Matthew 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:14, 31, 42), that is, on Friday.

Some object on the basis of Matthew 12:40: "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." They argue that this requires three 24-hour days. Some argue that since he was raised on a Sunday, he must have been crucified on a Thursday.

However, the NT repeatedly refers to Jesus' resurrection as occurring on the third day, not the fourth day (Matthew 16:21; 17:23; Luke 9:22; 18:33; Acts 10:40; 1 Corinthians 15:4). And the Jews reckoned a part of day as a whole day. So there is no problem with the death of Jesus on Friday, being in the tomb on Saturday, and being raised on Sunday constituting three days in Jewish reckoning.[1]

Here is a brief chronology of Holy Week:


Arrived at Bethany

John 12:1


Crowd came to see Jesus

John 12:9-11


Triumphal Entry

Matthew 21:1-9; Mark 11:1-10; Luke 19:28-44


Cursed Fig Tree

Matthew 21:18-19; Mark 11:12-14

Cleansed Temple

Matthew 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45-46


Fig Tree Withered

Matthew 21:20-22; Mark 11:20-26

Temple Controversy

Matthew 21:23-23:39; Mark 11:27-12:44; Luke 20:1-21:4

Olivet Discourse

Matthew 24:1-25:46; Mark 13:1-37; Luke 21:5-36


Last Supper

Matthew 26:20-30; Mark 14:17-26; Luke 22:14-30

Betrayed and Arrested

Matthew 26:47-56; Mark 14:43-52; Luke 22:47-53; John 18:2-12

Tried by Annas and Caiaphas

Matthew 26:57-75; Mark 14:53-72; Luke 22:54-65: John 18:13-27


Tried by Sanhedrin

Matthew 27:1; Mark 15:1; Luke 22:66

Tried by Pilate, Herod

Matthew 27:2-30; Mark 15:2-19; Luke 23:1-25; John 18:28-19:16

Crucified and Buried

Matthew 27:31-60; Mark 15:20-46; Luke 23:26-54; John 19:16-42


Dead in Tomb



Matthew 28:1-15; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-35

According to Harold W. Hoehner, "Chronology," Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (InterVarsity Press, 1992, pp. 120.

2. Day of the Month of Nisan

The next question is: Did Jesus die on the Day of Passover (Nisan 14) or the day after Passover (i.e. on Nisan 15). It's pretty clear from the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) that Jesus ate the actual Passover meal (Matthew 26:2, 17-19; Mark 14:1, 12, 14, 16; Luke 22:1, 7-8, 13, 15) with his disciples on Thursday night. But John's Gospel seems to indicate that Jesus was crucified right before the Jews would partake of Passover (John 13:28; 19:14).

There have been several attempts to harmonize the accounts. One theory is that two calendars are being used at the same time during the period. The Synoptic Gospels use the method of the Galileans and the Pharisees to reckon the day from sunrise to sunrise, while John's gospels uses the Judean method of reckoning the day from sunset to sunset.[2] However, I'm inclined to adopt the Synoptic chronology. We won't know for sure in this life.

3. Year of Jesus' Crucifixion

Finally, some have attempted to determine the likely year in which Jesus was crucified. We can date the reign of three officials involved in Jesus' trial: Caiaphas, the High Priest (AD 18 to 37), Pilate, prefect of Judea (AD 26 to 36), and Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and Perea (4 BC to AD 39). Thus Jesus trial must have occurred between AD 26 and AD 36.[3]

If Jesus was crucified on Friday, Nisan 14 or 15, sometime between AD 26 and AD 36, astronomic evidence limits the possibilities to AD 27,30, 33, and 36. AD 27 is the least likely. The most likely dates are (1) Friday, Nisan 14 (April 3), AD 33 or Friday, Nisan 14 (April 7), AD 30.[4] John's chronology "removes many of the historical difficulties associated with the trial and crucifixion of Jesus," says I. Howard Marshall.[5] In addition, a date of AD 33 seems to fit a ministry of three years, using the fifteenth year of Tiberius (AD 29) as a starting point for John the Baptist's ministry (Luke 3:1-3).


  1. Harold W. Hoehner, "Chronology," DJG, pp. 120-121.
  2. Ibid.
  3. Ibid.
  4. Hoehner, DJG, pp. 120-121; G. Ogg, "Chronology of the New Testament," New Bible Dictionary (Second Edition; Tyndale House, 1962), p. 202. W.P. Armstrong and J. Finegan, "Chronology of the NT," ISBE 1:688-689. FF Bruce, NT History, p. 201, note 20, sees AD 30 as the most likely date. I Howard Marshall, Last Supper and Lord's Supper (Eerdmans, 1980), discusses the chonology in some detail, pp.67-75 and Table 4, and concludes "Jesus held a Passover meal earlier than the offical Jewish date, and that he was able to do so as the result of calendar differences among the Jews."
  5. Marshall, p. 790.

Labels: , ,

The Washing of the Feet

From the Old Oligarch

The liturgy is a great deposit of doctrine in symbolic form. Lex orandi, lex credendi. In a robust Catholic environment, it can be the source from which all things flow and to which they return. As Pickstock attempts to remind post-modernists, ora et labora meant that every labor was sanctified by a closing act of prayer, even in the schola, thus the subtitle of her book, "the liturgical consummation of philosophy." The spirit of the beginning and the end had a fundamental impact on the tenor of what was done in the middle, whether it was scholastic philosophy or politics "in the world," but that is another story.

In an age like ours, when Catholic culture is receding, we often fail to notice the meaning of liturgical symbols which once animated the piety of our forefathers. This is one reason why it is incredibly important not to change the liturgy simply because we would like to see it streamlined, or because something doesn't make sense to us, or indeed, to many modern Catholics. Such streamlining, done in the name of short-term gains of "intelligibility," often means, in fullest perspective, that the last vestige of a liturgically-expressed belief has been made a palimpsest.

Such is the case with the washing of the feet on Maundy Thursday. I know it is too late now for liturgists to change their game plans (not like they would care to), but I felt the need to blog about this in advance of Triduum, when this beautiful ritual is often glossed over with some bland remark about serving others.

I can still remember the time when parishes would re-enact the Washing of the Feet using 12 priests, and failing that, supplementing the priests with religious. The trend now-a-days, however, has been to use laity. (Too much sacerdotalism, and all that.) The primary symbolism presented by this act is driven by an interpretation of the Washing of the Feet as an object lesson in charity. Facile liturgy is thus designed according to facile exegesis. There's a better interpretation of Jn 13:1-20, and a deeper meaning to this unique Lenten ritual.

(The starting point to this investigation, in case you're wondering, is the Lord's enigmatic question in Jn 13:12 and Eugenio Zolli's few pages on it in The Nazarene. Zolli has an eye for overlooked passages. I am also aware that there are many variations in the 14-centuries-old ritual of the Washing, and that using laity is licit.)

I think a full understanding of the passage rests on three points:

1) For a Jew, commanding someone to wash your feet was a gesture of great self-abasement. Talmudic legislation forbade Jews from commanding this action of anyone but a Gentile slave, the lowest of the low. By washing the apostles' feet, Jesus takes on the form of a slave, in anticipation of the total humiliation of Good Friday, in accordance with St. Paul's words in Philippians 2:7-8: "Christ emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross."

2) Many Patristic authors [for example, Eusebius and Ambrose] see a preparation for the proclamation of the Gospel in the washing of the feet, in accordance with Isaiah 52:7: "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings the Good News." This is the passage in Isaiah from which we get the very word Gospel, and which goes on to predict what this Good News will look like: the death of the Suffering Servant (Is 52:13-53:12) and the restoration of the covenant through the sending of the Logos (Is 54-55), which immediately follow it in the book of the prophet and the evangelist.

Christ washes the apostles' feet to make them beautiful in preparation for announcing the consummation of the divine plan. The Washing is thus an act whereby Christ invests the apostles with evangelical authority, as part of their episcopal office, as He explains in Jn 13:20: "Amen, Amen, I say to you, he who receives any one whom I send receives me; and he who receives me receives him who sent me." Think of Matthew 18:18, not only Matthew 22:39.

3) We already have a basis in (2) for thinking about a connection between the Washing and ordination. This is, of course, reinforced by ancient Christian custom which celebrates the institution of the Christian priesthood during the Holy Thursday Mass of the Lord's Supper, since, just after the Washing, Christ commands his disciples: "Do this in memory of me," giving them the mandate to celebrate the Eucharist which is the reason for their priesthood.

The last piece of the puzzle comes into view if we read Scripture with Jewish eyes, awaiting the Old being fulfilled in the New. While sometimes it was customary to offer guests the means to wash their own feet before dining, we know that the Passover must be eaten shod (Exodus 12:11), so this would be the one meal where such a custom wouldn't have been necessary. Why does Jesus do it?

Exodus 30:18-21 tells us that Aaron and his sons, the High Priests of Israel, must wash their feet before entering the Holy Place to minister before the Lord, just as God Himself instructed Moses directly "Put off your shoes from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground" (Exodus 3:5).

Holy things are for the holy, not the uninitiated. When Moses had finished creating all the implements necessary for divine worship and the tabernacle, he then turned to ordain Aaron and his sons as the first High Priests of the old covenant. Remember from (1) the great indignity of a Jew washing another's feet. To my knowledge, there is no other passage in the OT where one Jew washes another's feet except Leviticus 8:6: Since Aaron and his sons cannot wash themselves to purify themselves for their ordination (because they are not yet priests), Moses does it for them as part of their ordination ritual.

This gives us the full meaning of the Washing of the Feet:

Christ is preparing His apostles to be His first priests. Christ chooses a symbol of great self-abasement to underscore the nature of this priesthood in imitatio Christi. Sharing in Christ's priesthood means sharing in his kenosis, His self-emptying, His self-sacrifice. Just as Aaron and his sons were the first priests of the Old Covenant, Christ washes the feet of the Apostles to be the first priests of the New Covenant. They have "already been washed clean" (Jn 13:10) of sin in Baptism. Now, they receive a special washing, proper to their ordination, so that they can worthily enter the New Tabernacle -- the first Tabernacle to contain the Eucharist, the Upper Room.

Such, IMHO, is the meaning of the Washing of the Feet: priestly, sacrificial, mysterious. The new covenant fulfilling the old in its figures. So if you get another lazy, banal homily on "serving others" or some such permutation of the importance of being nice, you've been shirked. Pray for more from your priest. Christ did. More than any other day of the year, this day should spur priests to recall the meaning of their vocation, so encourage them to break open the word and to feed you. Wash off the dirty exegesis of vague communitarian motives, so that the Gospel, not niceties, can be spread across the mountain tops.


The CDA, Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments in "Paschales Solemnitatis" (Preparation and Celebration of the Easter Feasts) in #51 states: "The washing of the feet of chosen men (viri) which, according to tradition, is performed on this day, represents the sevice and charity of Christ, who came "not to be served, but to serve" (Mt. 20:20). This tradition should be maintained, and it proper significance explained."


Two stories about bishops restricting footwashing ceremony to men here and here. Fr. Z writes about the rite of washing of feet at Holy Thursday Mass here.


Foot washing was part of an early baptismal rite:

Although the authenticity of De sacramentis has been doubted, today all scholars agree that it was really written by St. Ambrose, bishop in Milan 373-397. De sacramentis is a shorthand transcription of the sermons while De mysteriis is an edited version rewritten for a larger audience. What Ambrose says in De sacramentis was intended only for the newly baptized, not for readers in other places. That is why Ambrose so proudly can underline the fact that the church of Milan has preserved a part of the baptismal rite which had been left out in Rome.

Ambrose explains that the feet were washed while John 13 was read aloud. The reason for the rite is, according to him, not only the new life style which Jesus taught his disciples, but also that original sin came to man through Adam's foot through the serpent's bite.

Text and introduction in: Ambroise de Milan, Des sacrements. Des mystères, ed. B. Botte (Sources Chrétiennes 25bis), Paris 1961, 92-96.

On the Mysteries, Chapter 6
On the Sacraments, Book III, Chapter 1

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

IOP Political Personality Test

Take the Political Personality test.

You are a Traditional Conservative. Traditional conservatives like you tend to be:

  • Supportive of pre-emptive strikes.
  • Of the belief that gay relationships are morally wrong.
  • In support of religion playing a more important role in government.
  • Opposed to affirmative action.
  • Of the belief that tax cuts tend to stimulate the economy.

If you are interested in seeing the full results of the IOP Spring 2005 survey and past surveys, click here. To see descriptions of the other political personality clusters, click here.


Not 100% accurate, but probably closer than the alternatives.

Labels: ,

Anglican Use [Catholic Answers]


The Anglican Use is beautiful. I wonder though, why someone thought it necessary to change the words of the consecration to match the New Mass, when both the Sarum Missal and the Book of Common Prayer, like the traditional Missal, already had words that better match what Jesus is recorded as having actually said.

Originally Posted by Brendan
There is an approved "Use' of the pre-Tridentine Sarum Rite in English.

It's called the "Anglican Use" and it's primarily designed for "High Church" Anglican\Episopalians who convert, as a congregation, to the Catholic Church

Our Lady of Atonement is one such parish

I would recommmend that you pick up a copy of their Mass on DVD.

It sounds similar to a Tridentine Mass said in formal English

Here is the Order of Mass

Labels: ,

Eliphaz the Temanite

I finished reading the Book of Job yesterday. Job's complaints were the same as my friend's: life is unfair.

At times the rough counsel Job's friends gave him reminded me of the reproofs directed at anyone who dares murmur aginst the new Mass:

Job 15:4-9
4 But you are doing away with the fear of God, and hindering meditation before God.
5 For your iniquity teaches your mouth, and you choose the tongue of the crafty.
6 Your own mouth condemns you, and not I; your own lips testify against you.
7 Are you the first man that was born? Or were you brought forth before the hills?
8 Have you listened in the council of God? And do you limit wisdom to yourself?
9 What do you know that we do not know? What do you understand that is not clear to us?

Job's friends insisted, although they should have known better, that G-d was punishing Job for the great sins he must have committed. This was both callous and false, and although they were attempting to speak for the good of Job and the honor of G-d, the Lord was not pleased with Job's friends:

Job 42:7-9
7 the LORD said to Eli'phaz the Te'manite: "My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends; for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.
8 Now therefore take seven bulls and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you, for I will accept his prayer not to deal with you according to your folly; for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has."
9 So Eli'phaz the Te'manite and Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Na'amathite went and did what the LORD had told them; and the LORD accepted Job's prayer.

Job sometimes spoke unwisely, but always with an earnest desire for truth and justice. In the end, G-d did not condemn him, as He condemned Job's three friends.

There is a warning in this book, to those of us who dare offer advice, to be sure we are speaking with understanding and compassion.

More to the point for this blog, we have to be sure we are speaking the truth. (I am thinking of those who insist that "many" means "all", and who close their eyes to strong evidence to the contrary). Even if we speak with the intent of honoring G-d, if we disregard the truth, we dishonor Him.

Piety is not enough, if divorced from truth.


Good brief commentary on where Job's friends went wrong here.
The Catholic Encyclopedia article is here.

Labels: , ,

Sunday, April 09, 2006

Palm Sunday Gospel

(Image from

The Gospel today was Mark 14:1-15:47:

[Jesus Christ] said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many."
It was followed a little later by our Lord's words as rendered by ICEL for the consecration:
"It will be shed for you and for all".

Lord, please grant us a Mass more faithful to you in word and in spirit.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, April 06, 2006

Latin Dictionaries

Latin to English Dictionary
multi = many, numerous/the common herd

English to Latin Dictionary
all = quislibet, omnis, cunctus
many = multi

(Similar results here).

Lewis & Short
Entry for multus
Entry for omnĭs

I have this one:
Latin-English dictionary program:

I haven't tried this one:

Paper dictionary recommendations here.

List of websites for learning Latin here.


A Calvinist argues for Limited Atonement

From For Whom Did Christ Die?, by John Piper.
(For Calvinist support of unlimited atonement, see Ron Rhodes).

There are many Scriptures which say that the death of Christ was designed for the salvation of God's people, not for every individual. For example:

John 10:15, "I lay down my life for the sheep." The sheep of Christ are those whom the Father draws to the Son. "You do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep." Notice: being a sheep enables you to become a believer, not vice versa. So the sheep for whom Christ dies are the ones chosen by the Father to give to the Son.

In John 17:6,9,19 Jesus prays, "I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me out of the world; thine they were, and thou gavest them to me...I am praying for them; I am not praying for the world but for those whom thou hast given me, for they are thine...And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth." The consecration in view here is the death of Jesus which he is about to undergo. His death and his intercession us uniquely for his disciples, not for the world in general.

John 11:51-52, "[Caiaphas] being high priest that year prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad." There are children of God scattered throughout the world. These are the sheep. These are the ones the Father will draw to the Son. Jesus died to gather these people into one. The point is the same as John 10:15-16, "I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice." Christ died for his sheep, that is, for the children of God.

Revelation 5:9, "Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for thou wast slain and by thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation." In accordance with John 10:16 John does not say that the death of Christ ransomed all men but that it ransomed men from all the tribes of the world.

This is the way we understand texts like 1 John 2:2 which says, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." This does not mean that Christ died with the intention to appease the wrath of God for every person in the world, but that the "sheep," "the children of God" scattered throughout the whole world, "from every tongue and tribe and people and nation" are intended by the propitiation of Christ. In fact the grammatical parallel between John 11:51-52 and 1 John 2:2 is so close it is difficult to escape the conviction that the same thing is intended by John in both verses.

John 11:51-52, "He prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad."

1 John 2:2, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."

The "whole world" refers to the children of God scattered throughout the whole world.

If "the whole world" referred to every individual in the world, we would be forced to say that John is teaching that all people will be saved, which he does not believe (Revelation 14:9-11). The reason we would be forced to say this is that the term propitiation refers to a real removal of wrath from sinners. When God's wrath against a sinner is propitiated, it is removed from that sinner. And the result is that all God's power now flows in the service of his mercy, with the result that nothing can stop him from saving that sinner.

Propitiated sins cannot be punished. Otherwise propitiation loses its meaning. Therefore if Christ is the propitiation for all the sins of every individual in the world, they cannot be punished, and must be saved. But John does not believe in such universalism (John 5:29). Therefore it is very unlikely that 1 John 2:2 teaches that Jesus is the propitiation of every person in the world.

Mark 10:45, in accord with Revelation 5:9, does not say that Jesus came to ransom all men. It says, "For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Similarly in Matthew 26:28 Jesus says, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Hebrews 9:28, "So Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him." (See also 13:20; Isaiah 53:11-12.)

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. (Eph 5:25-27)

One of the clearest passages on the intention of the death of Christ is Ephesians 5:25-27. Here Paul not only says that the intended beneficiary of the death of Christ is the Church, but also that the intended effect of the death of Christ is the sanctification and glorification of the church. This is the truth we want very much to preserve: that the cross was not intended to give all men the opportunity to save themselves, but was intended to actually save the church.

Paul says, "Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor."

Similarly in Titus 2:14 Paul describes the purpose of Christ's death like this: "He gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds." If Paul were an Arminian would he not have said, "He gave himself to redeem all men from iniquity and purify all men for himself"? But Paul says that the design of the atonement is to purify for Christ a people out from the world. This is just what John said in John 10:15; 11:51f; and Revelation 5:9.

One of the most crucial texts on this issue is Romans 8:32. It is one of the most precious promises for God's people in all the Bible. Paul says, "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him?"

The crucial thing to see here is how Paul bases the certainty of our inheritance on the death of Christ. He says, "God will most certainly give you all things because he did not spare his own Son but gave him up for you." What becomes of this precious argument if Christ is given for those who do not in fact receive all things but instead are lost? The argument vanishes.

If God gave his own Son for unbelievers who in the end are lost, then he cannot say that the giving of the Son guarantees "all things" for the those for whom he died. But this is what he does say! If God gave his Son for you, then he most certainly will give you all things. The structure of Paul's thought here is simply destroyed by introducing the idea that Christ died for all men in the same way.

We can conclude this section with the following summary argument. Which of these statements is true?

1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.

2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.

3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.

No one says that the first is true, for then all would be lost because of the sins that Christ did not die for. The only way to be saved from sin is for Christ to cover it with his blood.

The third statement is what the Arminians would say. Christ died for all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer, Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? If they say no (unbelief is not a sin that Christ has died for) then they must say that men can be saved without having all their sins atoned for by Jesus, or they must join us in affirming statement number two: Christ died for all the sins of some men. That is, he died for the unbelief of the elect so that God's punitive wrath is appeased toward them and his grace is free to draw them irresistibly out of darkness into his marvelous light.


A Catholic would say that we must really be cleansed of our sins and made holy. Having our sins "covered over" is not enough, because no unclean thing enters heaven.

Also, God forgiving us doesn't mean we don't have to make restitution. A thief might be forgiven yet still have to return what he has stolen.


Challenge to Universalism

The universalist asks, "Doesn't God's will always get done?" (the verse "His word does not return void to Him" being cited)? Really? Is the record of human history that God's will is always done? If it were, why would Jesus have prayed, "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven"? Why would he have needed to utter this prayer if a priori God's will is always done and in effect? If God's will is 100% in effect, why would Jesus have differentiated his will from the Father's when he said in Gethsemane, "Not my will but Thine"? Two wills, one deferring to the other. James says that the prayer of a righteous man "availeth much". But if God's will is always done, to what "avail" is the prayer of a righteous man?

Labels: , , ,

Random notes - Unused Liturgy Links

(for searching, not for reading)

Links not used in this thread

Traditional Latin Mass

Coptic Liturgy of St. Gregory of Nazianzus:
"Take, drink of it all of you. For this is My Blood of the new covenant, which will be shed for you and for many, to be given for the remission of sins. Do this in remembrance of Me."

Liturgy of the Assyrian Church of the East
Our Lord Jesus, in the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread and blessed and broke it, and said: "Take, eat: This is My Body which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me." Likewise, after they had supped, He took the cup, saying: "This cup is the New Testament in My Blood: This do as often as you drink of it, in remembrance of me."
...and may there come, O My Lord, Your Holy Spirit, and rest upon this offering of Thy servants and bless it and hollow it and that it may be to us, O My Lord, for the pardon of offences and for the forgiveness of sins and for the great hope of resurrection from the dead and for new life in the kingdom of heaven, with all those who have been well-pleasing to Thee. And for all this great and marvellous dispensation towards us, we give Thee thanks and glorify Thee without ceasing in Thy Church redeemed by the precious blood of Thy Christ, with open mouths and unveiled faces.

And likewise also over the cup, He gave thanks, and blessed + + +
He makes thrice the sign of the cross on it
gave it to them and said, This is My Blood of the new covenant which is shed for many
for the remission of sins.

He blessed + + +
He makes thrice the sign of the cross on it
gave thanks, drank and gave to His disciples, saying: Take and drink of it all of
you. This is My Blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the
forgiveness of sins.

(Mar Theodore)
In the same way also he gave thanks over the cup and gave to them and said, This is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins.

The Nestorian Liturgy
In the same way also he gave thanks over the cup and gave to them and said, This is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Need to find:
The Divine Liturgy of The Syro Malankara Catholic Church

from a Sarum missal
[is this the same as the traditional Mass consecration?]
Hic est enim calix Sanguinis mei novi et æterni testamenti, mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.

From the newsgroup soc.religion.christian:
no "for many" for the wine, but for the bread:

(about 400 AD) (1962 AD)(English translation)
Qui pridie quam pateretur, in sanctis manibus suis accepit panem, respexit in caelum ad te, sancte Pater omnipotens, aeterne Deus, Gratias agens, benedixit, fregit, fractum quae apostolis suis et discipulis suis tradidit dicens: accipite et edite ex hoc omnes: hoc est enim corpus meum, quod pro multis confringetur. Qui pridie quam pateretur, accepit panem in sanctas ac venerabiles manus suas: et elevatis oculis in ccelum, ad Te Deum Patrem suum omnipotentem, tibi gratias agens, benedixit, fregit, deditque discipulis suis dicens: accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes: hoc est enim corpus meum.Who, the day before He suffered, took bread into His holy and venerable hands, and having raised His eyes to Heaven, unto Thee, O God, His Almighty Father, giving thanks to Thee, He blessed it, broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying: Take ye all and eat of this: For this is my Body.
De Sacramentis:
"For this is my Body, which will be broken for many"
or "Take ye all and eat of this: for this is My body, which is broken for many."

In an historical study of the Canon of the Latin Mass, V. L. Kennedy presents what he identifies as the Roman Canon in use at the end of the fourth century, as it is recorded in the De Sacramentis: "In all probability, it is the work of St. Ambrose of Milan (died 397), and, as the author tells us he follows Rome in all things, we have the Roman Canon of that period."40 Again he says: "We have in the De sacramentis a text that was certainly in use at Rome at the end of the fourth century."41 According to Joseph Jungmann, "this work of Ambrose is a stenographic report of his preaching, which was not restricted by the laws of the arcana, in marked contrast to the De Mysteriis, and could thus give us such precious accounts."42 In the text of the De Sacramentis, the form for the consecration of the bread is this: "Hoc est enim corpus meum, quod pro multis confringetur" ("For this is my Body, which will be broken for many"). And the form for the consecration of the wine is as follows: "Hic est enim sanguis meus" ("For this is my Blood).43 If the text of the De sacramentis presents the standard forms in use in Rome at that time, the now traditional forms for the consecration of the Sacred Species, as presented in the Missale Romanum of Pope St. Pius V, probably date back no further than the fifth century, before which time their wording was notably different. According to the De Sacramentis, the expression which will be broken for many was included in the form for the consecration of the bread, and the words chalice of and those expressing the fruits of the Passion were not in the form for the consecration of the wine.

Many people do not believe Ambrose wrote de Sacramentis

De Sacramentis, St. Ambrose
De Sacramentis: 9
Hic est enim sanguis meus.
For this is My Blood.

The "De Sacramentis" may possibly be the version by a shorthand-writer of the course which the saint himself edited under the title "De Mysteriis". In any case the "De Sacramentis" (whether by Ambrose or not) has a freshness and naiveté which is wanting in the certainly authentic "De Mysteriis".

Like DE MYSTERIIS, Ambrose's De sacramentis explains the sacrament of baptism and the eucharist to neophytes, but adds a commentary on the seven petitions of the Lord's Prayer and a discussion of the virtues of prayer. On the relationship between De sacramentis and De mysteriis, see T. Thompson 1950 (pp 3-9). Its authenticity has been questioned, but is defended by Faller (CSEL 73.13*-16*). The work is also edited in SChr 25.

From the Ecole Initiative:
The dogmatic texts are his core works on the Nicene faith and on the Holy Spirit, plus additional pieces on related themes; there are also homilies on the sacraments (De sacramentis), a redacted version of the same series (De mysteriis), and a work on penitence (De paenitentia).

Among works more or less doubtful are De Sacramentis, admitted by the Benedictines, but rejected, and apparently on sufficient grounds, by Ihm.

Character, Authorship, and Date of the Treatise “On The Sacraments” (de Sacramentis)

The treatise On the Sacraments consists of six sermons delivered to the newly-baptized in Easter week. They deal with Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, the Lord’s Prayer, and Prayer. The work is nearly related to de Mysteriis, which it closely follows, embodying and expanding most of its contents.

In his eucharistic teaching he follows Ambrose in his assertion of the operative power of the word of Christ in changing the elements into the body and blood of Christ.

What Ambrose says in De sacramentis was intended only for the newly baptized, not for readers in other places. That is why Ambrose so proudly can underline the fact that the church of Milan has preserved a part of the baptismal rite which had been left out in Rome.

Ambrose explains that the feet were washed while Joh 13 was read aloud. The reason for the rite is, according to him, not only the new life style which Jesus taught his disciples, but also that original sin came to man through Adam's foot through the serpent's bite.

Syrian Anaphoras:
© Syrian Orthodox Dioceses of North America and Canada. Reproduced with permission. No part of the material may be reproduced in any form or by any means, without written permission from the publisher.

Anaphora of St. James
Likewise, He took the Cup and when He had given thanks, He blessed + + and sanctified + and gave it to His holy disciples, and said: Take, drink of it, all of you. This is My Blood which for you and for many is shed and given for the remission of sins and for eternal life.

Anaphora of St. Mark
Likewise, also the cup blended with wine and water; He gave thanks, blessed + + and sanctified + and gave to His holy disciples, and said: This is My Blood of the New Covenant; take, drink of it all of you for your propitiation and that of all the true faithful and for everlasting life.

Anaphora of St. Peter
Likewise, the cup blended with wine and water, He blessed + + and sanctified + and gave to His holy apostles, and said: Take, drink of it all of you for the remission of offenses and for life eternal.

Anaphora of the Twelve Apostles (According to the Evangelist St. Luke)
Likewise, after they had eaten supper, He took the cup blended with wine and water. He blessed + + and sanctified + and, when He had tasted it, gave it to His disciples, saying: Take drink of it, all of you. This is My Blood of the new Covenant which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins and for life everlasting.

Anaphora of St. John the Evangelist
After His mystical supper, He took the cup blended with wine and water and gave thanks unto it. He blessed + +, consecrated + and gave the company of His disciples,and said to them: This is My Blood. Take drink of it all of you. This is shed for the life of the world, and for the remission of offenses and the forgiveness of sins for all those who believe in Me, forever and ever.

Anaphora of St. Xystus
Likewise, also in the cup which by Him was signed, sanctified + + + and and given to His holy apostles, He gave us His propitiatory Blood for life eternal.
O Lord, have compassion on me, have compassion on me and all Your inheritance and be pleased as to sanctify these offerings by the descent of Your Holy Spirit Who eternally proceeds from You and substantially receives from Your Son.
And may He complete this cup to become the Blood + + + of Christ our God

Anaphora of St. Julius - The Bishop of Rome (+AD 365)
Likewise, the wine blended in the cup, after they had eaten supper, He blessed it + + and sanctified it + and gave it to the company of His disciples and said: Take and drink of It all of you; this is My Blood of the New Covenant which for your sake and for the sake of many is shed for the remission of debts, the forgiveness of sins and for life eternal.

Anaphora of St. John Chrysostom (+AD 440)
Likewise, He took the cup, He blessed + +, He sanctified + and gave His disciples, saying: Take, drink of it all of you for the remission of debts, the forgiveness of sins and for everlasting life.

Anaphora of St. Cyril - Patriarch of Alexandria (+AD 444)
He then blended wine and water in the cup of life. He blessed + +, sanctified + and gave it to the company of His disciples, and said: This is My Blood which seals and confirms the New Covenant of My death and invites you and many faithful for the forgiveness of sins and for life eternal.

Anaphora of St. Jacob of Sarugh - The Bishop of Batnan (+AD 521)
Likewise, after they had supper, He also blended the cup of life of wine and water and gave thanks and blessed + +, sanctified + and gave the assembly of His disciples and said to them: Take, drink of it all of you, this is the cup of the New Covenant in My Blood which for you and for many is shed and given for the forgiveness of sins and for life eternal.

Anaphora of St. Philoxenus of Mabbug (+AD 523)
Likewise, He blended the cup from wine and water, gave thanks, blessed + + and sanctified + and gave it to the very company of His holy disciples, saying: Take, drink of it all of you, this is My Blood which for your sake and for the sake of many is shed and given for the remission of sins and for life eternal.

Anaphora of St. Severius of Antioch - The Patriarch of Antioch (+AD 538)
Likewise also, he took the cup, after they had eaten supper, and when He mixed wine and water and gave thanks, He blessed + +, sanctified + and gave to His disciples, the apostles, saying: Take, drink of it all of you. This is My Blood of the New Covenant which is shed for you and for many and is given for the remission of sins and for life eternal.

Anaphora of Mar Dionysius Jacob Bar Salibi - The Bishop of Amid (+AD 1171)
And also the cup blended of wine and water, He blessed + + and sanctified + and completed as His Precious Blood of eternal life for those who receive it.
Have mercy upon me, O Lord, and send upon me and upon this Eucharist which has been offered Your Holy Spirit Who makes perfect all the Mysteries of the Church by His descent.
And may He change the mixture in this cup to the Blood + + + of Christ our God.

Current Coptic rites:

Divine Liturgy of St. Basil [St. Bassillious the Great]:
here and here
Take, drink of it all of you. For this is my Blood for the new covenant which shall be shed for you and many, to be given for the remission of sins. Do this in remembrance of Me.

Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory:
Take, drink of it all of you. For this is My Blood of the new covenant, which will be shed for you and for many, to be given for the remission of sins. Do this in remembrance of Me.

Divine Liturgy of St. Cyril: [derived from Liturgy of St Mark]
Take, drink of it all of you, for this is My Blood of the new covenant which shall be shed for you and for many, to be given for the remission of sins. Do this in remembrance of Me.

The Divine Liturgy of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist Mark
After the same manner also, when He had supped, He took the cup of wine mingled with water, and lifting His eyes to Thee, His Father, our God, and the God of all, gave thanks; and when He had blessed and filled it with the Holy Spirit, gave it to His holy and blessed disciples and apostles, saying:-(Aloud.)Drink ye all of it.
For this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for you and for many, and distributed among you for the remission of sins.


Anaphora of Bishop Serapion of Thmuis

11.”Heaven is full, the earth is also full of thy sublime glory, O Lord of hosts. Extend thy power upon this sacrifice, and grant thy aid to its fulfillment; for it is to thee that we have offered this living victim, the unbloody sacrifice.
12. To thee have we offered this bread, the likeness of the body of thine only Son. This bread is the image of His holy body; for ‘the Lord Jesus on the night in which He was betrayed, took bread, broke it, and gave it to His disciples and said: Take and eat, this is my body, which shall be broken for you,’ for the remission of sins.
13. Therefore have we, by repeating the figure of His death, offered the bread and pray: By this sacrifice reconcile thyself with us all and have mercy upon us, O God of truth. And as this bread was scattered upon the hills and brought together into one, so do thou unite thy holy Church from every people and every land and every city and every village and house, and build up one living Catholic Church.
14. We have also offered the chalice, the symbol of the blood; for the Lord Jesus, ‘after He had supped, took the cup and said to His disciples: Take, drink, this is the new covenant, which is my blood, which shall be shed for the remission of sins.’ Therefore have we also offered the chalice, because we have consummated the symbol of the blood.
15. “Let thy holy Word (Logos), O God of truth, come down upon this bread, so that the bread may become the body of the Word, and on this chalice, so that the chalice may become the blood of Truth. And grant that all who partake of them, may receive the medicine of life, as a cure for all sickness and as an increase and progress in virtue, not, however, as judgment, O God of truth, nor as punishment and disgrace.


The more eccentric consecrations have tended to fall by the wayside. Could this be the work of the Holy Spirit, guiding His church "to all truth"?

But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.

The versions of the Liturgy that omitted "for many" or used alternate wording occurred early and soon fell out of use (if they ever were in use).
NO, some still remain in use w/o 'for many', but these rites have other anaphoras with the words - Assyrian, Syrian, Ethipian


We have, then, certain evidence that our St. James's Liturgy is the original local rite of Jerusalem. A further question as to its origin leads to that of its relation to the famous liturgy in the eighth book of the Apostolic Constitutions. That the two are related is obvious. (The question is discussed in ANTIOCHENE LITURGY.) It seems also obvious that the Apostolic Constitution rite is the older; St. James must be considered a later, enlarged, and expanded form of it. But the liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions is not Palestinan, but Antiochene. The compiler was an Antiochene Syrian; he describes the rite he knew in the north, at Antioch. (This, too, is shown in the same article.) The St. James's Rite, then, is an a adaptation of the other (not necessarily of the very one we have in the Apostolic Constitutions, but of the old Syrian rite, of which the Apostolic Constitutions give us one version) made for local use at Jerusalem. Then it spread throughout the patriarcate. It must always be remembered that, till the Council of Ephesus (431)



Liturgy of St. Germain [Germanus] of Paris (6th century Gallican Rite)
here and here

The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom
here, here and here

Divine Liturgy of St. Basil (Coptic)

Syriac Antiochean Maronite Liturgy (Anaphora of the Twelve Apostles)
here and here
[for the second, choose 12 apostles anaphora]
[same for Sy. John Maron anaphora]

Chaldean Mass
here and here

Liturgy of St. Dionysius, Bishop of the Athenians
here and here

Syro-Malabar Church, founded by St. Thomas in 52 AD in India
Oostveen's Malabar Liturgy links
Qurbana - The Order of Raza
web page of J.P. Oostveen a Civil Engineering consultant in the Netherlands

The Liturgy of St. Mark
Variations in the Eucharistic Prayer
Anaphora of St. Mark
here and here

The Badarak (Divine Liturgy of the Armenian Church)
here and here

Anaphora of St. Hippolytus of Rome
here and here

Fr. Fessio says Canon of Hyppolytus was probably never used as a liturgical text because in the early days of the Church there was no final, written formalization of the liturgy, so this was an outline to be used by the celebrant.

Anaphora of St. James
here and here


Look for these:

- Benedictine Rite
- Carmelite Rite (Carmelite Usage)
- Cistercian Rite
- Dominican Rite (Dominican Usage)
- Franciscan Rite
- Friars Minor Capuchin Rite
- Premonstratensian Rite

Bragan Usage
Carthusian Usage

The Byzantine Rite, used by the Orthodox and Byzantine Uniats in various languages.
* Albanian
* Bulgarian
* Byelorrussian [Belarussian]
* Greek
* Hungarian
* Italo-Albanian
* Krizevci [Byzantine Croatian Catholics - Language Old Slavonic]
* Melkite or Greek-Melkite (patriarchal)
* Rumanian [Romanian]
* Russian catholic [Language Old Slavonic]
* Ruthenian
* Slovak
* Ukrainian
* Yugoslavian

2. The Ambrosian Rite at Milan.

# The Lyonese Rite of the diocese of Lyons, France, now defunct, was once again a local variant of the Roman Rite, much as was the Sarum Use.
# The Nidaros Use, long defunct, based mainly on imported English liturgical books, used in pre-Reformation Norway.
# The Aquileia Rite, a defunct rite based in the former town in northern Italy.
# The Benevento Rite, a defunct rite originated in this city in Italy.