From an increasing recognition of all importance of the documents results that almost crazy activity in search of what has been hitherto unknown; that inquisitiveness as to inedited which chararacterizes our time, and not infrequently is the cause of amusement or disdain according to disposition of the onlooker [1, note * at p45].
This 1899 quote by Edmund Bishop [1846–1917] refers to the discovering of the Didache [2; 3 pp 7-20], a document that had been completely lost but was rediscovered in 1873 as an 11th century copy. It was then dated to between AD 50 and 150, based on specific phrases in the text and then it was published in 1883. And as a consequence of this discovery:
Apparently, many theologians and liturgists became so enthusiastic by the discovery of the Didache that they lost sight of reality. This led them to the most remarkable conclusions. In their enthusiasm for this archaeological discovery they lost sight of the fact that the development of Doctrine of Faith and Liturgy can only grow from a deeper understanding of the Doctrine of the Faith through the refuting of heresies in unity with the Fathers. Moreover, this archaeological approach led to a historical search for the "pure source" in order to reconstruct the original form of the Holy Mass [4, p48]. Herewith, they ignore the distinction between Divinely Inspired Canonical and the non-canonical archeologic sources.
After all, if everyone in the social memory is faithful to oral teachings and examples, there will be no trace of their origin. Only when comments, objections or heresies are expressed, these (oral) teachings and examples be defended by refuting the comments, objections or heresies, which usually leads to written traceability. Therefore:
Therefore, this archeological search to reconstruct the ancient origin intrinsically entails great risks. On the one hand these risks are the re-implementations of old heresies or aspects thereof, which have been fought in the past and which have disappeared under the influence of the maturing process by "organic growth" under the preserving and protecting guidance by the Holy Spirit and being reintroduced "in embryo" as implemented archeologic discoveries. By definition this is the case, because these re-implemented "original sources" potentially contain all the heresies for which they were abolished as well as all the heresies after their abolition. Why else were these heresies previously refuted and removed under the preserving and protecting guidance of the Holy Spirit? On the other hand, there are also the many gaps in knowledge that are filled by hypothetical interpretations with all kinds of novelties that carry with them the risk of all kinds of abuses and heresies.
Regarding these phenomenon, among others one should have listened to the following quotes from Cardinal John Henry Newman [1801-1890] and Pope Pius XII [1947] respectively, which are of great importance here:
And:
The phenomena mentioned above are clear symptoms of a crisis in the Church that both Cardinal John Henry Newman and Pope Pius XII had warned about. However, instead of listening to these warnings, "organic growth" has been replaced by:
And after many theologians and liturgists proceeded in a manner contradictory to the Announcement of the Second Vatican Council by Pope John XXIII (see below), they proudly claim to have received the exclusive assistence of the Holy Spirit for acting in this way, and thereby denying historical results of the preserving and protecting guidance by the Holy Spirit concerning the post Constantine period, especially regarding to the Council of Trent.
It should be noted that, unlike the comparison with "the stream that is clearest at its source", the "organic growth" is based on different comparison, namely that of the "growth of a mustard tree from a single tiny seed". Archaeological research to find the seed is pointless once the tree has grown and the seed is no longer present in its original form. Therefore, it is also pointless to look for remnants of the seed for implementing in the current situation of the mustard tree. So this is comparable with the "seed of faith" that Christ planted. And that requires trust and confidence in the preserving and protective guidance of the Holy Spirit regarding the process of organic growth?
It is clear that herewith the crisis in the Church is based on pride, lost of confidence and a heresy with the basic concept that:
A similar conclusion has also been drawn by Cardinal Siri with regard to three of the most important theologians of the Second Vatican Council, Fr Karl Rahner, Fr Henry De Lubac and Fr Jacques Maritain [5].
Notice here that a heresy having lost the proper distinction between the natural order and the supernatural order operates as a two-edged sword:
This is present now in the actual Church in all possible degrees, even including the complete disregard of the supernatural order, which has disastrous consequences for the Church in all her facets.
In order to resolve this crisis, it is of course impossible to respond in isolation to all the abuses and other symptoms that arise from the fundamental underlying heresy. In order to combat these abuses and other symptoms effectively, we must delve into their roots in order to identify the fundamental underlying heresy . Only then we can address them by refuting the heresy through deepening the doctrine of the faith in unity with the Fathers and resolving the crisis in the way that Pope John XXIII had proclaimed in his announcement of the Council. This certainly brings about processes of purification of the Church and of maturation of the doctrine of the faith, just as in the example of St. Paul, when he wrote to the Corinthians:
In general, this expression is very true, because it is a clear consequence of the fact that God created mankind with a free will, and as good in his own image and likeness. Therefore, mankind, inherent in this free will, will be tested, with some falling into a temptation for this heresy, while others may fall for another heresy.
Apparently, here St. Paul indicates that what happened in Corinth was indeed a concrete case of heresy that had to be refuted as part of a process of purification within the community as he said and of maturing the doctrine of the faith as he did by his teaching. He did this by, on the one hand, condemning the heresy and, on the other hand, by refuting it in unity with his previous oral teachings on the doctrine of the faith:
And from a deepening of the doctrine of faith, to proclaim the following maturation of the doctrine:
Apparently, the heresy was a matter of ignoring or not respecting the "Breaking of Bread". St. Paul made a clear distinction between the "Breaking of Bread", including the partaking of Christ's Body and Blood as a sacrificial meal, as Christ had commanded and the beginning and end of which depend only on the celebrating priest. In contrast to this "Breaking of Bread" it is the real meal after the Eucharist, which one can begin too early by not waiting for others. Therefore he says to those who ignore the sacrificial nature of the Eucharistic "Breaking of Bread" by starting the real meal too early and not waiting for others to stay at home.
In fact, this is an example of an organic maturation process with regard to the Doctrine of the Faith. St. Paul's answer should be sufficient to resolve the current crisis. However, the archaeological approach mikstakenly reads this answer through the lens of apocryphal and non-canonical writings.
This analysis then, as a starting option among other possibilities, attempts to contribute to the resolution of the crisis in the Church by deepening the essence and meaning of the Holy Mass, the Living Creed, which lies in the fulfillment of the Law by Christ. After all, Christ did not come to abolish but to fulfill the Law He replaced the Temple Worship of the Old Covenant by the Holy Mass as the Temple Worship of the New Covenant. And, since the Law regulated the entire Temple Worship of the Old Covenant, this is a point of great importance. This also includes the question, how can the New Covenant replace the Old Covenant through the Fulfillment of the Law of the Old Covenant without abolishing the Law given under the Old Covenant?
The hermeneutical key used here is based on the supernatural continuity by considering that it cannot be a coincidence that Joseph and Mary had to travel to Bethlehem and that there was no room in the inn, so that the only place for them was the Stable of Bethlehem. This hermeneutical key is therefore strongly focused on the supernatural manner in which Christ Himself arranged His birth:
Herewith "Christ, the Lamb of God" refers also to the Gospel of St. John:
May this analysis be a source of inspiration for further deepening of the Doctrine of the Faith, through which heresies may be refuted and the Church purified as a gift of the Holy Spirit.
Christ fulfilled the Law and the Prophets. He began the fulfillment of the Law according to the prophecy of Isaiah, by taking the flesh of the Immaculate Virgin Mary:
Given the supernatural character of this pregnancy, it cannot be a coincidence that Joseph and Mary had to go to Bethlehem and that there was no other place for them than the Stable of Bethlehem, by which He is born in that particular Stable, the Stable of David: "Christ, the 'Lamb of God' was born in the 'Stable of David'". This was also the Stable, from where the lambs were brought to the Temple to be sacrificed during "Passover". Apparently this symbolizes how Christ would fulfill the Law, which encompasses the entire Temple Worship in the Old Testament: the "Lamb of God". Therefore, He finally went to Jerusalem just before the "Passover", because only in this city could the "Passover" be properly celebrated with the sacrifice of the "Lamb" in the Temple, thus fulfilling the Law [Deut. 16:5-7].
Certainly, the fulfillment of the Law refers to the Law that regulated Temple Worship in the Old Covenant. So, a proper understanding of this fulfillment requires a proper understanding of how God's Law regulated Temple Worship in the Old Covenant. With this purpose in mind, the books of the Law must be read from a hermeneutical key such as that stated above. Without claiming to be exhaustive, a rough outline of this fulfillment is given here in its major aspects as it relates to the final week of Passion and even to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost:
Thus, according to the Law the "Children of Israel" had to choose an unblemished lamb for the Passover Sacrifice on the 10th day of the 1st month [Nissan] [Ex 12:3], so 4 days before the actual slaughter would take place. Indeed, that day the "Children of Israel" shouted:
Hosanna means: "Please save us!". In doing so, the messianic prophecy was fulfilled as given by one of the Hallel Psalms recited during Passover meal
So, by mass acclaim, Jesus is designated the Messiah. Unconsciously, the "Children of Israel" choose their Passover Lamb on the day the lambs were to be chosen.
Thus the Law instructs the Jews to clean their houses from any crumb of leavened bread.
While symbolically the unleavened bread stands for Unblemished [I Cor. 5:7, I John 3:5, Hebr. 7:26], the leavened bread stands on the contrary for sin [Amos 4:5, Hosea 7:4, Lk 12:1, Matt. 16:6-12, Gal. 5:9, I Cor. 5:6-8]. The houses had to be cleaned from the leavend bread. And whereas, in accordance to His words to His mother, when they found Him after three days in the Temple:
Apparently, the Temple is His Father's House and therefore Christ had to clean the Temple from leaven, which mean from sin [Mt 21:12-15; Mk 11:15-18; Lk 19:45- 48; Jn 2:13-16].
The Law also instructs that the Lamb must be checked for blemishes. Only a perfect, spotless and unblemished Lamb would suffice for the Passover [Ex 12:5].
So, according to the law, the error of Passover was to be corrected like at the associated Temple Feast of "Yom Kippur", the Day of Atonement. For this, the High Priest cast lots over two goats. While the blood of one goat was to be sprinkled on the altar, the other goat was to bear the sins of the "Children of Israel" and was taken as a "Scapegoat" outside the city of Jerusalem to be sacrificed in the wilderness for the Atonement of sins.
And so, after the High Priest had rejected Christ [Mt 26:63-66; Mk 14:61-64; Lk 22:70-71], the spotless and unblemished "Lamb of God", Christ was sent to Pilate [Mt 27:1-2; Mk 15:1; Lk 23:1] to have the High Priest's judgement on Christ carried out [Jn 18:28-32]. Then Pilate was convinced of Christ's innocence and wanted to release Him [Mt 27:18; Mk 15:10; Lk 23:13-16; Jn19:38]. But forced by the High Priest, he casts lots over Barrabas and Christ, whereupon the "Children of Israel" chose Barrabas [Mt 27:13-23; Mk 15:6-14; Lk 23:17-25; Jn 18:39-40]. Then He washed His hands in innocence and delivered Christ to the High Priest [Mt. 27:24-26; Mk 15:15; Jn 19:4-7], after which Christ, High Priest in the order of Melchizedek, sacrificed Himself as "Scapegoat" on the Cross for our sins.
Apparently the error of the High Priest had to be corrected by a sin offering similar to the sacrifice of the scapegoat on the associated Temple Feast of "Yom Kippur" by casting lots between Barrabas and Jesus. And so the "Children of Israel", who had already proclaimed Christ as the innocent Passover Lamb without sin, now came forward with Christ to bear our sins as "Scapegoat" for our Atonement with God. [Lev. 16:8-10; Mt. 27:17-26; Mk. 15:6-15; Lk. 23:13-25; John 19:14-16].
As "Scapegoat" He was then taken outside the City of Jerusalem, where He as "Eternal High Priest, in the order of Melchizedek" sacrificed Himself as the sin offering of atonement. The innocent Passover Lamb as Scapegoat sacrificed for our sins on the Cross at Calvary, died at the appointed time for the Passover Lamb to be slaughtered, i.e. the 9th hour of the 14th day of the 1st month [Num. 29:11; Ex 12; Is 53; Mt 27:32-50; Mk 15:21-37; Lk23:26-46; Jn 19:16-30]. Herewith Christ perfectly fulfilled the Old Testament Law both the associated Temple Feasts of "Passover" and "Yom Kippur".
Thus in accordance to the Law, the day after the Feast of Passover was the Feast of the "First Fruits". This was also the third day after the crucifixion of Christ and thus that of Christ's Resurrection. This Feast refers on the one hand to the "Sanctification of the first born" [Ex 22:29], on the other hand it also refers to the land that the Lord had given to the the "Children of Israel" [Ex 13:1-2].
With the resurrection of Christ this Feast underwent a paradigm shift by which Jesus Christ as the "First Born" [Exodus 13:1-2] is really the "First Fruit" [Hebr. 1:6; I Cor 15:23] who first enters the promised land, the heavenly Paradise that is without sin.
It is the Feast of Weeks, Pentecost. On this day Christ poured out the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles and wrote His Law spiritually in our hearts and consciences [II Cor. 1:12; II Cor. 3:7]. Now the Holy Spirit spoke through (non-consuming) tongues of fire and every man heard them speak in his own language.
Clearly these non-consuming flame of fire are similar to the other times when God spoke to mankind, such as when God spoke to Moses through the non-consuming flame of fire from the midst of a bush and Moses was given the task of leading the "Children of Israel" out of the land of slavery into the promised land [Ex. 3:2:11] and to all the assembled "Children of Israel" on the mountain out of the midst of the non-consuming fire [Ex. 19:18; Deut. 1:4; Deut. 4:12; Deut 5:22] where God commanded to carry out the Ten Commandments, which He wrote on two tablets of stone: the Law of the Old Covenant [Deut 4:13; Deut 5:22].
With the description "In the third month" [Ex 19:1] the exact day on which God spoke to the "Children of Israel" and gave them the Law cannot be deduced further from the Sacred Scriptures. On the other hand, it is certain that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost took place in this same month. Therefore it should not be a coincidence that both events of receiving te Law from God would specifically have occurred on the same day. On the one hand, this would then confirm that the remembrance of the gift of the Law of God, written on stone in the Old Covenant [Lev. 23:15-16], which has now been transformed in the New Covenant with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the gift of God's Law in our hearts and consciences [II Cor. 1:12; II Cor. 3:7] as living stones such as Peter wrote:
Therefore these words of Peter in his first letter refers to the Words said by God to the Israelites when He gave them the Law written on stone:
Obviously, the fulfillment of the Law did not start with Christ hanging on the cross, Christ standing before the Sanhedrin, or Christ instituting the Eucharist at the Last Supper or something like that. Apparently, Christ's fulfilment of the Law refers to His entire earthly life, from His conception and birth to His death on the cross, His resurrection and ascension. It began after Christ took His Body from the Immaculate Flesh of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who had consecrated her virginity to God, and after she had responded affirmatively to the announcement of the Archangel Gabriel [Mt 1:18-21; Lk 1:26-38]. Christ was then born in the stable of Bethlehem. This was the stable, once in use by the David, when he still was a shepherd, and from which the lambs were brought to Jerusalem to be sacrificed in the Temple. So, the unblemished "Lamb of God", was born in the "Stable of David" to be sacrificed in the Temple during Passover. However, the unblemished "Lamb of God" was rejected by the Sanhedrin, after which He was then appointed by the "Children of Israel" as the "Scapegoat" to bear our sins, like at the associated Temple Feast of "Yom Kippur". He was then led out of the city of Jerusalem as the "Scapegoat", where He offered Himself on the cross for the atonemenr of our sins and then rose from the dead because He Himself was without sin. Thus, with these two associated Temple Feasts of "Passover" and "Yom Kippur", Christ ultimately fulfilled the entire Law with the sacrifice of His Body for our sins on Golgotha [Lk 24:44-49].
This means that the Holy Mass is the ultimate crowning of the fulfillment of the entire Law of the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant through the "Children of Israel" was terminated by their refusal to accept Christ as the unblemished "Lamb of God" and their choice of Barrabas. Then Christ Himself instituted the New Covenant in His Blood: the Eucharist, the Sacrifice of the Body of Christ, the Sacrifice of the New Covenant. All this is in accordance with the fulfillment of the Law of the Old Covenant. Therefore, every Holy Mass is one and the same Sacrifice of the New Covenant in remembrance of Christ.
So a "Holy Priesthood" who "offers spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" [I Peter 2:5], is partaking as "Mystical Body of Christ" in the unique "Sacrifice of Christ". It is Christ who, in a supernatural and sacramental manner as Head of His "Mystical Body", continues His unique Sacrifice on the Cross of Golgotha. It is Christ, the Priest in the order of Melchisedech, who through the ordained priests "in Personna Christi" sacramentally offers on the altar the "Body and Blood of Christ, the Passover Lamb" and eat and drink this Eucharistic Sacrificial Meal. Here after the faithful are invited as the "People of God, the Holy Priesthood" to participate in the Sacrifice by partaking in the "Body and Blood of Christ", the "Lamb of God". This is the one, true and eternal Sacrifice of Christ, the Eternal unblemished Passover Lamb, who has been appointed "Scapegoat". In this way, Christ used the context of the Jewish Passover as a reminder of the "Exodus from Egypt, the land of slavery" for a paradigm shift to the Remembrance of Christ, the gateway to Heaven through whom the "Exodus from the land of slavery to sin" take place.
It is, in this fundamental context, worth noting that any addition to the essence of the Mass which detracts from the "Remembrance of Christ" will ultimately lead to a form of abuse. This includes the idea that the Holy Mass, in addition to the "Remembrance of Christ", should also be a meal in "commemoration of the Last Supper" in which the "Sacrifice of Christ" would be only the proper core. In such interpretation, the fullness of the "Remembrance of Christ" is split in two, which by definition is at the expense of the "Remembrance of Christ". The same applies to the hypothetical theory of Fr. Jungmann [6, p179, p182-183] according to which the Holy Mass is on the one hand the "Sacrifice of Christ", but on the other hand, by referring to a hypotheticallly supposed meal option as proof for it that it would be a "Sacrifice of the Church" too. A theory from a clear misunderstanding how the Church as "Mystical Body of Christ" is partaking in the "Sacrifice of Christ". Any such distraction from the fullness of "Remembrance of Christ" will end up in abuse.
Council of Trent, 22nd Session, 1st canon:
Council of Trent, 22nd Session, 6thcanon:
It is clear that the institution of the Eucharist by Christ was on Thursday evening. While in the Old Testament the day is from sunset to sunset, Thursday evening was the first meal of the 14th day of the first month when the 7-day Feast of Unleavened Bread began [Mt 26:17; Mk 14:12; Lk 22:7]. Unleavened Bread stands for immaculateness [I Cor 5:7, I John 3:5, Heb 7:26] in contrast to leaven which stands as the common symbol for Sin [Amos 4:5, Hosea 7:4, Lk 12:1, Matt 16:6-12, Gal 5:9, I Cor 5:6-8]. The Last Supper was thus the first Passover meal, with the symbolic Unleavened Bread eaten on the evening before the Sacrificial Passover meal the next day, after the lambs had been slaughtered. It was at this meal that Christ used the symbolic Unleavened Bread as a paradigm shift to His innocent and unblemished Body to sacramentally continue His Sacrifice as Head of His Mystical Body in our temporal age. Therefore, on this day, He was using the eating of unleavened bread at this Passover meal to institute the Eucharist.
While the Gospels of Matthew and Mark are explicitly reporting that the institution of the consecration of the Bread took place during the Last Supper Meal: "as they did eat, Jesus took bread and blessed it..." [Mt 26:26; Mk 14:22], in case of the institution of the consecration of the Wine, any such detail is lacking: "he took the cup, and gave thanks..." [Mt 27:27; Mk 14:23; Lk 22:17]. Moreover, for centuries and without any objection the Sacred Liturgy of the Roman Canon said about the consecration of the Wine: "Simili modo postquam coenàtum est ..." [Roman Canon], which means "... when supper was ended, he took the cup". Clearly, this addition does not contradict the formulations in the Gospels.
It is clear that the institution of the consecration of the Bread must have taken place in connection with the eating of the unleavened bread at the Last Supper. However, it appears that despite the thankgiving of the food/bread at the beginning of eating the bread, Christ here additionally blessed the bread used for the institution of the consecration of Bread, which separates this act from the meal itself.While, according to the traditional Roman canon, the institution of the consecration of wine must have taken place after the meal, this confirms that the entire institution of the Eucharist is separate from the Last Supper itself. This can only mean that the institution of the Eucharist as "Sacrifice of the New Covenant" did not refer to the Last Supper, but merely used it.
Thus, with "Do this ..." Christ did not instruct the Apostles to repeat the Last Supper, but to repeat His Acts in unity with and in remembrance of His Sacrifice on the cross as the ultimate culmination of the fulfillment of the Law. So "He took the Bread and blessed it", "He took the Cup and blessed it" is the Offertory: taking Bread and Wine from profane use to prepare them by offering it to our Lord for His blessing for its sacred use. Then "He consecrated both, Bread and Wine" is the Consecration at which the Bread and Wine becomes the Body and Blood of our Lord followed by the Anamnesis, the "Remembrance of Christ" and His work of Savation and then "He broke the consecrated bread" or Fraction and finally "he gave to eat the consecrated bread and wine, his flesh and blood", the Communion as Sacrificial Meal. All this means that "... in Remembrance of Me" can only be the remembrance of Christ and His work for our Salvation, how He fulfilled the law in all its facets. How He redeemed us by His Sacrifice on the Cross. How He gave us His Mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary, as our Mother and how He worked through her, but also how He worked through the saints. In this way the devotions to His holy Mother Mary and the saints are factually a current "Remembrance of Christ and His Work of Salvation" and thus also an expression of the "Remembrance of Christ".
Pope John Paul II, Encyclical "Ecclesia de Eucharistia", 17 April 2003
paragraph 9
paragraph 10
...
The institution of the Eucharist, does not refer to the Last Supper or the Synagogue Service, but to the fulfilment of the Old Testament Temple Worship, The H. Mass is in its entirity the New Testament Temple Worship centred on the Sacrifice of our Lord as the innocent Lamb of God as Scapegoat bearing our sins: the New Covenant in His Blood. As such, the Eucharist is the same true and eternal Sacrifice for our sins in which Christ ultimately fulfilled the entire Old Testament Temple Worship. Mystically, the Eucharist at the Last Supper, preceding the Crucifixion, as well as all those taking place since then at each H. Mass by Christ in His "Mystical Body" is one and the same as His physical Sacrifice at Golgotha. It is Christ, who as Eternal High Priest, offered and sacrificed Himself on the cross for our sins, a Sacrifice that in the H. Mass still continues in our temporary conditions by Christ through His Mystical Body of which He is the Head and we its members! <&nbr> bsp;