Is this Liturgy Roman?

The source for this Anaphora is The Apostolic Tradition (or Egyptian Church Order), which was rediscovered in the 19th century and given the name of “Egyptian Church Order”. In the first half of the 20th century, this text was commonly identified with the lost Apostolic Tradition presumed to have been written by Hippolytus of Rome. Due to this assumption, and the apparent early date of the text, Apostolic Tradition played a crucial role in the liturgical reform of the Liturgical Movement and the Second Vatican Council, where it was commonly believed to be the ancient Roman liturgy and authored by Hippolytus of Rome.

In 1906, Eduard von der Goltz was the first to propose that the anonymous manuscript found in the 19th century was the Apostolic Tradition, which has been historically linked to Hippolytus of Rome. If the Apostolic Tradition is the work of Hippolytus of Rome, it would be dated before AD 235 (the year of Hippolytus’s martyrdom), and would have a Roman origin, which is Rome (Brent and Stewart). Opposing this view, Paul Bradshaw argued that the liturgical text was a patchwork from different sources, some Roman and some not, dating from the mid-second to the fourth century and redacted around 375-400 in Egypt or Syria. Lawrence Johnson suggests that the text of the Apostolic Tradition describes a liturgy that was never actually celebrated.

Liturgical scholar Dom Gregory Dix focused on the Anaphora of “Hippolytus” in his research for his 1945 book The Shape of the Liturgy. This book led to the common belief that this Eucharistic prayer represented the ancient Roman Eucharistic Prayer before the development of the Roman Canon in the fourth century. Even if it was the Eucharistic Prayer of Hippolytus, it may represent a schismatic Eucharistic prayer, since Hippolytus was an antipope at odds with several valid popes. It is quite a stretch to say that the Anaphora of “Hippolytus” is actually that of the historical Hippolytus. And even if it were, it may not represent the primordial Roman liturgy of the Catholic Church.

Eucharistic Prayer II and the Napkin Story

Eucharistic Prayer II, although supposedly based on Hippolytus’s text, includes additions like the “dewfall” imagery from later Latin traditions and modifications to conform to modernized liturgical standards. Archives from the Consilium show Eucharistic Prayer II was drafted and revised over several months, with input from experts such as Cipriano Vagaggini and Louis Bouyer.

The “napkin story” about Eucharistic Prayer II being written on a napkin in a Roman tavern comes from an anecdote in the memoirs of Fr. Louis Bouyer, a French theologian and liturgist involved in the post-Vatican II liturgical reforms. The specific source is Bouyer’s Mémoires,[1] published after his death in 2014 by Éditions du Cerf.

[1] Bouyer, Louis. Mémoires. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2014, pp. 96–97.

In it, Bouyer recalls that he and Dom Bernard Botte, a Benedictine liturgist, finalized revisions to Eucharistic Prayer II during a late-night meeting at a trattoria in Trastevere, Rome, under pressure to deliver a corrected draft by the next morning. The story is often exaggerated to suggest the entire prayer was written on a napkin, but Bouyer’s account indicates they were refining an existing draft, not creating it from scratch.

Pope Paul VI and Eucharistic Prayer II

Pope Paul VI approved Eucharistic Prayer II in May 1968. Afterwards, Pope Paul VI told Bouyer that he was not fully satisfied with the texts, saying, “Why did you all get mired in this reform?” Bouyer replied, “Because Bugnini kept assuring us that you absolutely wanted it.” Pope Paul VI responded, “But how is this possible? He told me that you were all unanimous in approving it.”[2]

[2] Bouyer, Louis. Mémoires. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2014, p. 97. An English translation of this passage is referenced in secondary sources, such as a 2014 article by Sandro Magister on his blog Chiesa (republished by Rorate Caeli on October 23, 2014). See “Original Sins: Eucharistic Prayer II – composed in a few hours in a Roman Trattoria.” Rorate Caeli, September 16, 2014. https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/09/original-sins-eucharistic-prayer-ii.html.

This side-by-side comparison reveals that while Eucharistic Prayer II draws language from the Anaphora of Hippolytus, it is not identical to that prayer. The table below indicates that Eucharistic Prayer II accounts for less than 20% of the Anaphora of Hippolytus. The claim that Eucharistic Prayer II is the Anaphora of Hippolytus is highly misleading.

Side-by-Side Comparison

The red text denotes verbiage shared by neither prayer. The bold text denotes verbiage that is shared by both prayers.

Note from Taylor. It almost impossible to format the table showing the side-by-side in html here on the site, so I have included a link to the PDF, which was easier to format: Side-by-side comparison showing that Eucharistic Prayer II is NOT the Anaphora of Hippolytus (click to download).

You do not need to be a scholar to see that the two prayers barely align. There is only about a 20% match in words and concepts. Eucharistic Prayer II is an entirely modern prayer that uses the reputation of the so-called Anaphora of Hippolytus to give the appearance of antiquity and authority. It is a contemporary innovation. While it may not have been written in toto on the back of  a napkin, it does not represent the ancient Roman liturgy.

Ferrari Analogy

Imagine finding the ruins of an old car in a car scrap heap. Two experts say, “This car could very well be the famous 1963 Ferrari 250 GTO!”

Meanwhile, various experts cannot agree whether the discovered car is definitely a 1963 Ferrari 250 GTO. Dom Gregory Dix then writes an extremely popular book, Old Classic Ferraris, in which he claims that the discovered car is definitely the ultra-rare 1963 Ferrari 250 GTO, and this leads all automotive experts to study the scrap heap car. Then everyone bases all their knowledge of Ferraris on this now famous car found in the scrap heap.

They then announce the unveiling of the 1963 Ferrari 250 GTO to the public! To create this car, they take a mere 20% of the parts and styling from the junk heap car (of questionable origin) and the remaining 80% of the needed parts from modern race cars. Voila! They then enshrine the new creation and place a plaque saying, “Behold, this is the original 1963 Ferrari 250 GTO.”

This is Eucharistic Prayer 2. A manuscript of unknown origin was discovered. It was attributed to St Hippolytus (an antipope) as the ancient Roman Eucharistic Prayer. Then 20% of that prayer was used to create an entirely new prayer and published in 1970 with the reputation of being “The Eucharistic Prayer of Hippolytus.”

The folly is manifest.

ad Jesum per Mariam,
Taylor R. Marshall

PS: Use the Roman Canon!

The post Eucharistic Prayer 2 is NOT the Prayer of Hippolytus appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

The Latin Text of Gelasius

The passage is from Pope Saint Gelasius’ work De duabus naturis in Christo Adv. Eutychen et Nestorium (On the two natures of Christ against Eutyches and Nestorius) at section 14. I have included the original Latin text:

*There is an alternative reading provided by Schwartz for verse 5:

Standard reading         ut sicut in hanc, scilicet in divinam transeant
Schwartz reading:       ut sicut haec licet in divinam transeant

The difference doesn’t substantially change the meaning of the text. The primary difference being:

Haec is nominative
Hanc is accusuative

Does Gelasius Contradict the Council of Trent?

The important text is verse 2, where Saint Gelasius explicitly states, “yet the substance or nature of bread and wine (substantia vel natura panis et vini) does not cease.” Strictly speaking, this would place Saint Gelasius at odds with the dogmatic definition of the Council of Trent on transubstantiation, which reads as follows:

“If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Session 13, Canon 2).”

Trent rejects the affirmation that the substances of bread and wine remain after the consecration. Gelasius says “the substance or nature of bread and wine (substantia vel natura panis et vini) does not cease.”

Two Possible Responses

The Catholic is faced with two possible responses to the formulation of Pope Gelasius:

1. Gelasius was wrong and held an incorrect belief about the Eucharist. But it doesn’t matter because Popes can be personally mistaken on matters of doctrine before their dogmatization.
2. Gelasius used “substance or nature” analogically to refer to what later Catholics called the “accidents of bread and wine,” and verses 5 and 7 reveal his clarification on that matter as in conformity with later Catholic teaching.

The proper response is that the second option, that Gelasius clarified his meaning in verses 2, 5, and 7. Let us look at the passages:

In verse 2, Gelasius states:

“the sacrament which we receive, the body and blood of Christ, is a divine thing (divina res).”

The Latin “res” refers to what is real. Our English word “real” comes from res. It is a divina res, or divine reality. Only after stating this does Gelasius say that “the substance or nature of bread and wine do not cease.” This is problematic because res usually refers to substance. However, we find clarification in verses 5 and 7.

In verse 5, Gelasius states:

5) That just as they pass into this, namely into the divine substance, the Holy Spirit perfecting, nevertheless remaining in the propriety of its nature.

Gelasius states in verse 5 that the bread and wine transeant (pass into or transition into) the divine substance. I have never heard a Protestant affirm that the bread and wine transition into the divine substance. Gelasius then affirms “nevertheless remaining in the propriety of its nature.” The bread and wine here retain not their “natures,” but he clarifies that they retain what is “propriety of its nature.” Gelasius refers here to what is proper to the nature of bread and wine, but this time does not denote “nature” simply. He is clarifying his statement in verse 2. What is proper to the nature of bread? Texture, smell, taste, etc. These are what would later be separated as the “accidents” or sensible features pertaining to the substance of bread. But the res is divine. This essentially clears up the misunderstanding.

Moving to verse 7:

From which permanent things, the one Christ, properly, remains constant, because the integrity and truth are shown to remain.

Gelasius here indicates that the one Christ is constant or enduring in the Eucharist. The full presence of Christ is in the Eucharist.

Two Possible Positions

From this analysis, Gelasius could be said to hold either of the two positions:

1. Consubstantiation: The substances of bread and wine are united to Christ’s divine and human substances. This is problematic because it creates a second hypostatic union with bread and wine. So that Christ now has a divine substance, a human substance, a bread substance, and a wine substance. Actually, it would create a second hypostatic union (union with bread substance) and then a third hypostatic union (with wine substance), since the consecration of each species is separate from the other.
2. Transubstantiation: The substances bread and wine are transubstantiated into the substances of Christ’s divine substance and human substance—the position of the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Trent.

One could argue that Gelasius affirms consubstantiation, but he is undoubtedly not affirming a symbolic or memorialist Eucharist held by most Protestants. I think the strongest argument is that Gelasius is describing transubstantiation, because he describes the bread and wine “remaining in the propriety of its nature.” He clarifies “nature” as actually being what is “proper to its nature.”

Furthermore, Gelasius was pope from 492 to his death on 21 November 496. He was daily praying the Roman liturgy with the fully developed Roman Canon as the Eucharistic anaphora or prayer. It is difficult to read the Roman Canon with its prayers over the Eucharist and deduce anything less than transubstantiation. Even Martin Luther (who held something closer to consubstantiation) felt the need to reject the Roman Canon (as used by Gelasius in the fifth century) because of its “transubstantiation” theology.

Imprecision is not Heresy

In conclusion, Gelasius affirmed the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and asserts that it enters into the divine substance. He remarks that the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease, but just after that, he clarifies his meaning by his reference to what is proper to their nature.

This debate is akin to that of the miaphysite arguments after the Council of Chalcedon. Miaphysite teaching is based on Saint Cyril of Alexandria’s formula μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη, meaning “one physis of the Word of God made flesh.” Chalcedon declared “two natures” in Christ but never doubted Saint Cyril’s orthodoxy or sanctity. Saint Cyril defended the right concept but used a different (misleading) formulation regarding one physis or nature with respect to the incarnation. Nobody doubts that Saint Cyril was correct, but later Catholic teaching rejects the “one nature” formulation of Saint Cyril in favor of “two natures.”

Gelasius is teaching the Catholic (Tridentine) doctrine of the Eucharist, but with the confusion about “substance or nature” not being what later Catholic dogma would articulate. Nevertheless, Gelasius does clarify in verse 5 that he is speaking of that which is proper to the nature of bread and wine.

Conclusion

Pope Gelasius (pope from 492-496) would be in continuity with his papal predecessor Pope Leo the Great (pope from 440 to 461) who wrote:

“Dearly beloved, utter this confession with all your heart and reject the wicked lies of heretics, that any contagion with error may not pollute your fasting and almsgiving: for then is our offering of the sacrifice clean and our gifts of mercy holy, when those who perform them understand that which they do. For when the Lord says, “unless ye have eaten the flesh of the Son of Man, and drunk His blood, ye will not have life in you,’ you ought so to be partakers at the Holy Table, as to have no doubt whatever concerning the reality of Christ’s Body and Blood. For that is taken in the mouth which is believed in faith, and it is vain for them to respond ‘Amen’ who dispute that which is taken.” Pope Saint Leo the Great, Sermon 91:3

The worst-case scenario is that Gelasius was teaching consubstantiation (not Protestant symbolism), but this is unlikely. The context of the passage seems to indicate that the bread and wine “enter into the divine substance,” but the properties of bread and wine remain. The entire context suggests what later theologians would call “transubstantiation,” even if Gelasius’s formulation is awkward. The goal here is to use the Eucharist as an analogy in discussing Christology, not as a dogmatic statement about the metaphysics of the Eucharist. That’s why the passage isn’t a major issue for Catholic theologians.

The post Did Pope Gelasius deny transubstantiation? Nature and Substance Debate appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

Hebrews 8:13: “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete.”

“Finally, He says to them: ‘Your new moons and your Sabbaths I cannot endure.’ You see what He means: it is not the present Sabbaths that are acceptable to Me, but the one which I have made, when, giving rest to all things, I shall make the beginning of an eighth day, that is, the beginning of another world.

Wherefore also we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day on which Jesus rose from the dead, and after He had appeared, ascended into the heavens.”

Epistle of Barnabas 15:8–9 (Ante-Nicene Fathers [ANF], Vol. 1, p. 147).

Why Christians Worship on Sunday Instead of Saturday

From a Christian viewpoint, the shift from worshiping on Saturday (the Jewish Sabbath) to Sunday (Christian Lord’s Day) is a profound theological and historical development rooted in the New Testament, early Church tradition, and the fulfillment of the Old Covenant in Christ.

Today, I’ll explore why Christians do not communal worship on Saturday but instead on Sunday, drawing on Sacred Scripture—particularly the New Testament—and the writings of early Church Fathers like Ignatius of Antioch and the author of the Epistle of Barnabas. We now belong to the New Testament and the New Creation in the New Adam, who is Jesus Christ.

Christ’s Resurrection and the Lord’s Day

The New Testament provides the foundational basis for Sunday worship, emphasizing Christ’s resurrection as the defining event that transforms the rhythm of Christian life. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus rises on “the first day of the week” (Matthew 28:1), which corresponds to Sunday in the Jewish reckoning of days beginning at sundown. Similarly, Mark 16:2 states, “And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb,” and Luke 24:1 echoes, “But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb.” John 20:1 reinforces this: “Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early.” This consistent testimony across the Gospels identifies Sunday as the day of Christ’s triumph over death, a pivotal moment that Catholics see as inaugurating a new creation.

New Testament Witness

This resurrection significance extends to early Christian practice. Acts 20:7 records, “On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them.” The phrase “break bread” is widely understood in Catholic tradition as a reference to the Eucharist, the central act of worship. This gathering on Sunday reveals a shift from the Jewish Sabbath (Saturday) to a new day of Eucharistic worship tied to Christ’s rising. Likewise, 1 Corinthians 16:2 advises, “On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up,” indicating a regular Sunday collection during worship, further evidencing its liturgical prominence.

Revelation 1:10 adds a theological layer: “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day.” Though not explicitly cited as “Sunday,” early Christians interpreted “the Lord’s Day” (kyriakē hēmera) as the first day of the week, commemorating Christ’s resurrection. The Didache (c. AD 70–120) and later Fathers confirm this usage. Thus, the New Testament establishes Sunday as the day when Christians gathered to celebrate the Eucharist and honor Christ’s victory, distinguishing it from the Jewish Sabbath.

Fulfillment of the Sabbath in Christ

The New Testament views the Sabbath—a commandment to rest on the seventh day (Exodus 20:8–11)—as part of the old creation and old covenant, fulfilled and transformed by Christ in the New Covenant.

Colossians 2:16–17 states, “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.” Paul here identifies the Sabbath as a “shadow,” a prefigurement of the spiritual rest found in Christ, not a perpetual obligation for Christians.

Hebrews 4:9–10 deepens this: “So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.” This “Sabbath rest” is eschatological, realized in Christ’s redemptive work, not tied to a specific day.

The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) further supports this shift. When debating whether Gentile converts must follow Mosaic Law, the apostles, led by Peter, ruled that only minimal requirements (e.g., abstaining from idolatry and immorality) were necessary, omitting Sabbath observance (Acts 15:28–29). This decision, authoritative for Christians, signals that the ceremonial laws, including the Saturday Sabbath, do not bind Christians.

Early Church Fathers: Ignatius of Antioch

Ignatius of Antioch (d. c. AD 108), a disciple of the Apostle John, provides early testimony to the abandonment of Saturday worship in favor of Sunday. In his Epistle to the Magnesians 9:1, he writes,

“If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death—whom some deny… how shall we be able to live apart from Him?” (ANF, Vol. 1, p. 62).

Ignatius contrasts the Jewish Sabbath with the Lord’s Day (Sunday), linking the latter to Christ’s resurrection as the source of new life. His phrase “no longer observing the Sabbath” explicitly rejects Saturday worship for Christians, emphasizing a theological shift rooted in Easter.
Ignatius’ context is anti-Judaizing: he warns against Christians reverting to Jewish practices, which he sees as denying Christ’s grace (Magnesians 8:1: “If we still live according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace”). For Christians, Ignatius’ witness, as an Apostolic Father, carries weight, reflecting apostolic tradition that Sunday supplants Saturday as the day of worship.

Early Church Fathers: Epistle of Barnabas

The Epistle of Barnabas (c. AD 70–132), though not canonical, offers a sharp critique of literal Sabbath-keeping, reinforcing the Catholic view. In Barnabas 15:8–9, the author declares,

“Finally, He says to them: ‘Your new moons and your Sabbaths I cannot endure.’ You see what He means: it is not the present Sabbaths that are acceptable to Me, but the one which I have made, when, giving rest to all things, I shall make the beginning of an eighth day, that is, the beginning of another world. Wherefore also we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day on which Jesus rose from the dead” (ANF, Vol. 1, p. 147).

Citing Isaiah 1:13, the author argues that God rejects the Jewish Sabbath, reinterpreting it as an eschatological rest fulfilled in Christ. The “eighth day” (Sunday, following the seventh-day Sabbath) symbolizes this new era, aligning with resurrection theology.

Christians observe this as evidence of an early Christian consensus that Saturday worship is obsolete, replaced by Sunday’s celebration of the “new world” begun in Christ. While Barnabas is polemical and not magisterial, its influence on early theology underscores the shift away from Judaizing practices.

Theological Rationale: Sunday as the Day of the New Creation

Christian doctrine ties Sunday worship to the concept of a “new creation.” Just as God rested on the seventh day after creating the world (Genesis 2:2–3), Christ’s resurrection on the first day marks the renewal of a new creation. Christ fulfills the Sabbath’s purpose—rest and communion with God—in a new context, as Christ’s victory over sin and death (Romans 6:4) surpasses the old order.

The Church Fathers amplify this. Ignatius’ “life has sprung up again” (Magnesians 9) and Barnabas’ “beginning of another world” (15:8) echo 2 Corinthians 5:17: “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.” Sunday thus becomes the day when Catholics celebrate this renewal through the Mass, which re-presents Christ’s sacrifice and resurrection.

Traditional Witness and Authority

Historically, Christian Sunday communal worship emerged early, as seen in Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2, and was codified by Church authority. The Council of Laodicea (c. AD 363–364), Canon 29, later declared, “Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day… preferring in honor the Lord’s Day” (NPNF, Series 2, Vol. 14, p. 148). This reflects a Catholic reliance on apostolic tradition and the Magisterium to interpret Scripture, per 2 Thessalonians 2:15: “Stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us.”

Conclusion for Christians

Christians worship on Sunday, not Saturday, because the New Testament establishes it as the day of Christ’s resurrection (Matthew 28:1, Acts 20:7), fulfilling the Sabbath’s shadow (Colossians 2:16–17) in a New Covenant of grace (Acts 15). Fathers such as Ignatius of Antioch confirm this shift, rejecting Sabbath observance for the Lord’s Day (Magnesians 9:1), while Barnabas redefines rest as an eschatological reality celebrated on the “eighth day” (15:8–9). Theologically, Sunday honors the new creation in Christ, a truth the Catholic Church, guided by apostolic authority, has upheld since the resurrection of Christ. For Christians, this is not a rejection of the Sabbath’s sanctity but its transformation into a higher celebration of redemption, lived out each Sunday in the Eucharist.

Are you interested in going deeper? Please sign up for my online Theology course at: nsti.com.

The post Should Christians Keep the Seventh-Day Sabbath? appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

Do you find benefit from my videos and podcasts? If so, please help me make more by becoming a Patron via Patreon (and I’ll send you some signed books as a Thank You. Click here to become a Patron.

Watch the Youtube video by clicking here.

Or listen to the audio mp3 here:

The Taylor Marshall Show Podcast is now also available on Spotify: Play “Taylor Marshall Show” inside Spotify.

Check out Patreon Patron Benefits!

All these video discussions are free. Do you want to recommend a show, get signed books, and show support? Here’s how: click on Patreon Patron link:

Become a Patron of this Podcast: I am hoping to produce more free weekly podcast Videos. Please help me launch these videos by working with me on Patreon to produce more free content. In gratitude, I’ll send you some signed books or even stream a theology event for you and your friends. Please become one of my patrons and check out the various tier benefits at: https://www.patreon.com/drtaylormarshall

If the audio player does not show up in your email or browser, please click here to listen.

If you find this podcast episode helpful, please share this podcast on Facebook.

• Announcements:
  • The podcast is now on my channel on Youtube.com
  • The complete Sword and Serpent Trilogy is now published, including the third Book: Storm of Fire and Blood.
  • Download the Study Guide at: http://swordandserpent.com
  • New classes at New Saint Thomas Institute. We have just begun our New Testament Studies curriculum. Please visit: newsaintthomas.com for more details.

I’d love to read your feedback: While you listen to today’s podcast, would you please take 30 seconds to write a review? Please click here to Rate this Podcast!

Please Share Your Feedback:

• iTunes: 2,457,319 downloads on iTunes as of today.
• Youtube: Leave a comment on Youtube here.
• SHOUT OUTS: A huge “shout out” to all 1,181 (!) of you who wrote amazing 5-star reviews at iTunes. Please rate this podcast by clicking here. From there you can leave a review. I appreciate you for this! Thank you!

Subscribe to This Weekly Podcast on iTunes, Stitcher, Spotify, or Youtube:

• Apple/Mac Users: Please subscribe via iTunes by clicking here and then clicking on “View in iTunes.”

• Android Users: For listening to The Taylor Marshall Show on Android devices (free) using the Stitcher app.

• Spotify Users: For listening to The Taylor Marshall Show on Spotify, search in Spotify for “Taylor Marshall.”

• Android Users can also listen to the show with:
  • Android Beyond Pod app from the Google Play Store.
  • Android Pocketcasts app.
• Our you can listen/watch to the Taylor Marshall Show via Youtube:

• SURVEY: Please view our Podcast Listener Poll by clicking here.

You can leave a comment by clicking here.

If you like this podcast, please leave a review.

The post 247: Is Easter Pagan? Pagan Astarte or the Lord Jesus Christ? [Podcast] appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

Do you find benefit from my videos and podcasts? If so, please help me make more by becoming a Patron via Patreon (and I’ll send you some signed books as a Thank You. Click here to become a Patron.

Watch the Youtube video by clicking here.

Or listen to the audio mp3 here:

The Taylor Marshall Show Podcast is now also available on Spotify: Play “Taylor Marshall Show” inside Spotify.

Check out Patreon Patron Benefits!

All these video discussions are free. Do you want to recommend a show, get signed books, and show support? Here’s how: click on Patreon Patron link:

Become a Patron of this Podcast: I am hoping to produce more free weekly podcast Videos. Please help me launch these videos by working with me on Patreon to produce more free content. In gratitude, I’ll send you some signed books or even stream a theology event for you and your friends. Please become one of my patrons and check out the various tier benefits at: https://www.patreon.com/drtaylormarshall

If the audio player does not show up in your email or browser, please click here to listen.

If you find this podcast episode helpful, please share this podcast on Facebook.

• Announcements:
  • The podcast is now on my channel on Youtube.com
  • The complete Sword and Serpent Trilogy is now published, including the the third Book: Storm of Fire and Blood.
  • Download the Study Guide at: http://swordandserpent.com
  • New classes at New Saint Thomas Institute. We have just begun our New Testament Studies curriculum. Please visit: newsaintthomas.com for more details.

I’d love to read your feedback: While you listen to today’s podcast, would you please take 30 seconds to write a review? Please click here to Rate this Podcast!

Please Share Your Feedback:

• iTunes:2,120,358 downloads on iTunes as of today.
• Youtube: Leave a comment on Youtube here.
• SHOUT OUTS: A huge “shout out” to all 1,039 (!) of you who wrote amazing 5-star reviews at iTunes. Please rate this podcast by clicking here. From there you can leave a review. I appreciate you for this! Thank you!

Subscribe to This Weekly Podcast on iTunes, Stitcher, Spotify, or Youtube:

• Apple/Mac Users: Please subscribe via iTunes by clicking here and then clicking on “View in iTunes.”

• Android Users: For listening to The Taylor Marshall Show on Android devices (free) using the Stitcher app.

• Spotify Users: For listening to The Taylor Marshall Show on Spotify, search in Spotify for “Taylor Marshall.”

• Android Users can also listen to the show with:
  • Android Beyond Pod app from the Google Play Store.
  • Android Pocketcasts app.
• Our you can listen/watch to the Taylor Marshall Show via Youtube:

• SURVEY: Please view our Podcast Listener Poll by clicking here.

You can leave a comment by clicking here.

If you like this podcast, please leave a review.

The post 203: The Rosary as the Weapon! with Fr Donald Calloway [Podcast] appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

Do you find benefit from my videos and podcasts? If so, please help me make more by becoming a Patron via Patreon (and I’ll send you some signed books as a Thank You. Click here to become a Patron.

Watch the Youtube video by clicking here.

Or listen to the audio mp3 here:

The Taylor Marshall Show Podcast is now also available on Spotify: Play “Taylor Marshall Show” inside Spotify.

Check out Patreon Patron Benefits!

All these video discussions are free. Do you want to recommend a show, get signed books, and show support? Here’s how: click on Patreon Patron link:

Become a Patron of this Podcast: I am hoping to produce more free weekly podcast Videos. Please help me launch these videos by working with me on Patreon to produce more free content. In gratitude, I’ll send you some signed books or even stream a theology event for you and your friends. Please become one of my patrons and check out the various tier benefits at: https://www.patreon.com/drtaylormarshall

If the audio player does not show up in your email or browser, please click here to listen.

If you find this podcast episode helpful, please share this podcast on Facebook.

• Announcements:
  • The podcast is now on my channel on Youtube.com
  • The complete Sword and Serpent Trilogy is now published, including the the third Book: Storm of Fire and Blood.
  • Download the Study Guide at: http://swordandserpent.com
  • New classes at New Saint Thomas Institute. We have just begun our New Testament Studies curriculum. Please visit: newsaintthomas.com for more details.

I’d love to read your feedback: While you listen to today’s podcast, would you please take 30 seconds to write a review? Please click here to Rate this Podcast!

Please Share Your Feedback:

• iTunes: 2,092,596 downloads on iTunes as of today.
• Youtube: Leave a comment on Youtube here.
• SHOUT OUTS: A huge “shout out” to all 1,036 (!) of you who wrote amazing 5-star reviews at iTunes. Please rate this podcast by clicking here. From there you can leave a review. I appreciate you for this! Thank you!

Subscribe to This Weekly Podcast on iTunes, Stitcher, Spotify, or Youtube:

• Apple/Mac Users: Please subscribe via iTunes by clicking here and then clicking on “View in iTunes.”

• Android Users: For listening to The Taylor Marshall Show on Android devices (free) using the Stitcher app.

• Spotify Users: For listening to The Taylor Marshall Show on Spotify, search in Spotify for “Taylor Marshall.”

• Android Users can also listen to the show with:
  • Android Beyond Pod app from the Google Play Store.
  • Android Pocketcasts app.
• Our you can listen/watch to the Taylor Marshall Show via Youtube:

• SURVEY: Please view our Podcast Listener Poll by clicking here.

You can leave a comment by clicking here.

If you like this podcast, please leave a review.

The post 199: Liturgical Abuse in the Novus Ordo Mass [Podcast] appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

Was Jesus Christ born on December 25? Dr Taylor Marshall says “Yes, Christ was born on the historical day of December 25 in the year 1BC. Dr Taylor Marshall explains using the Church Fathers and the Gospel of Saint Luke.

This is a sample class from my online Catholic Curriculum “Early Church Fathers History” offered by the New Saint Thomas Institute. You can join for a limited time today for 47/month (and receive 7 more Courses thrown in) at:

https://NewSaintThomas.com

Watch the Youtube video by clicking here.

Or listen to the audio mp3 here:

This is a sample class from my online Catholic Curriculum “Early Church Fathers History” offered by the New Saint Thomas Institute. You can join for a limited time today for 47/month (and receive 7 more Courses thrown in) at:

https://NewSaintThomas.com

If you are already a student Member of New Saint Thomas Institute, you already have full access to this course. I look forward to seeing you inside the New Saint Thomas Institute!

Happy Advent,
Dr Taylor Marshall

The post Was Christ Born on December 25? Yes! Dr Marshall Explains [Podcast] appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

The Taylor Marshall Show Podcast is now also available on Spotify: Play “Taylor Marshall Show” inside Spotify.

Listen to audio or watch the Youtube video interview by clicking here.

If the audio player does not show up in your email or browser, please click here to listen.

If you find this podcast episode helpful, please share this podcast on Facebook.

• Announcements:
  • The podcast is now on my channel on Youtube.com
  • The complete Sword and Serpent Trilogy is now published, including the the third Book: Storm of Fire and Blood.
  • Download the Study Guide at: http://swordandserpent.com
  • New classes at New Saint Thomas Institute. We have just begun our New Testament Studies curriculum. Please visit: newsaintthomas.com for more details.

I’d love to read your feedback: While you listen to today’s podcast, would you please take 30 seconds to write a review? Please click here to Rate this Podcast!

Please Share Your Feedback:

• iTunes: 1,706,247 downloads on iTunes as of today.
• Youtube:
• SHOUT OUTS: A huge “shout out” to all 741 (!) of you who wrote amazing 5-star reviews at iTunes. Please rate this podcast by clicking here. From there you can leave a review. I appreciate you for this! Thank you!

Subscribe to This Weekly Podcast on iTunes, Stitcher, Spotify, or Youtube:

• Apple/Mac Users: Please subscribe via iTunes by clicking here and then clicking on “View in iTunes.”

• Android Users: For listening to The Taylor Marshall Show on Android devices (free) using the Stitcher app.

• Spotify Users: For listening to The Taylor Marshall Show on Spotify, search in Spotify for “Taylor Marshall.”

• Android Users can also listen to the show with:
  • Android Beyond Pod app from the Google Play Store.
  • Android Pocketcasts app.
• Our you can listen/watch to the Taylor Marshall Show via Youtube:

• SURVEY: Please view our Podcast Listener Poll by clicking here.

[reminder]

If you like this podcast, please leave a review.

The post 158: Ember Days: History and Theology of Fasting for Holy Priests [Podcast] appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

• Some bishops didn’t properly vet seminarians and admit perverts.
• Some bishops ordained mental disturbed, predatory priests.
• Some bishops covered the crimes of Judas priests.
• Some bishops relocated the predatory Judas priests.
• Some bishops made secret payouts to victims to keep them quiet.
• Some bishops have been molesting and having homo-relations with seminarians and priests.

The laity are shocked that so-called Episcopoi (Greek word for “bishop” meaning “supervisor” or “overseer”) could do such horrible things and still show up smiling for photos after the post-confirmation ceremonies. How could this be?

Continue reading the article below or watch the video Youtube version here:

Three Reasons for Sexual Scandals:

1. Denial of Christian Faith. These clerics are secretly atheists, agnostics, or Satanists who see the Church as a social justice network that pays well and provides a lifestyle of insurance, income, retirement and unquestioned access to compromised men and vulnerable children.
2. Homosexuality. The 2004 John Jay Report publicized that 80% of priest abuse victims are male. The orientation of abuse was overwhelming homosexual According to James Martin and Larry Stammer, 15–58% of American Catholic priests are homosexual in orientation. Father Dariusz Oko of Poland has suggested that 50% of the bishops in the United States are homosexual.
3. Evolution of the Mega-Diocese. Since 1900, the concept of the Catholic diocese has morphed into something that would not be recognized by Christians of the medieval period, and certainly not by the Church Fathers.

Today, I want to focus on the third. The problem of the Mega-Diocese: what it is, how it happened, and how it leads to clericalism and sexual abuse.

[callout]I am NOT stating that the Mega-Diocese is the root cause of sexual scandal or that eradicating it will fix everything! We need a a refocus on intrinsic evils, formation of true consciences, biblical literacy, removal of sexual active bishops/clergy, orthodox theological, Thomism, liturgical reverence, and heroic priests. But the Mega-Diocese is certainly infertile soil for these changes. Read on to discover the historic origin of this deformation and why it fosters abuse.[/callout]

Picture above: a bishop gathered with his diocese.

What is a Mega-Diocese?

A Mega-Diocese is a diocese so enormous that a bishop cannot oversee it. Remember “bishop” in Greek is επίσκοπος (episcopos) which means “overseer.” Epi means “over” as in the word epidermis. Skopos means “see” as in the English words scope and telescope.

[bctt tweet=”A Mega-Diocese is a diocese so enormous that a bishop cannot oversee it. ” username=”taylorrmarshall”]

We all desire lower Student/Teacher Ratios:

Parents eagerly search for schools with a low teacher/student ratio. Everyone in education knows that as you raise the teacher/student ratio, scores and academic performance go down. 12 students to 1 teacher proves to produce higher scores and better outcomes. 40 students to 1 teacher proves to produce lower scores and more drop outs.

But we currently have very high Disciple/Bishop Ratios:

What we have created over the last 150 years (since the loss of the Papal States, really) is an insanely high disciple/bishop ratio with regard to bishops. Bishops belong to the magisterium in union with the Pope. Magister is Latin for teacher. The bishop is the primary teacher. So we are discussing a student/teacher ratio here, as well. As the disciple/bishop ratio increases, what do we see? Lay people know their faith less (akin to lower scores), and they drop out at higher numbers (leave the church).

Currently here are the number of baptized in the top 4 USA archdioceses:

1  Los Angeles 4,174,304
2 New York 2,521,087
3 Chicago 2,442,000
4 Boston 2,077,487

How can a bishop manage this? He cannot. Not even Saint Paul could manage this? So how did we get here?

How did we get high Disciple/Bishop Ratios?

In the Patristic and Medieval Church, every wrinky-dink town had it’s own bishop. For evidence look at Italy:

• Italy has 227 dioceses. 116,350 sq mi and population of 60,483,973 people
• USA has 167 dioceses. 3,796,742 sq mi and population of 325,719,178 people

Here are 2 maps that I created for reference:

What we see here is that the Catholic Church from AD 100-1500 was appointing a bishop for almost every “town” in Italy since a bishop should be able to geographically access his flock.

[bctt tweet=”Italy has 227 dioceses.  USA has 167 dioceses. This is wrong for the USA and it’s contrary to subsidiarity.” username=”taylorrmarshall”]

After 1520, but especially after 1870, the Catholic Church slowed down its bishop appointments, and the Papacy began to settle for “mega-dioceses.” By the 1900s, this problem was everywhere in the United States and has become ridiculous since the death of Pope John Paul II.

In 1950, the bishop of Los Angeles served 832,375 lay Catholics. In 2016, the archbishop of Los Angeles was responsible for 4,392,000 lay Catholics.

How the Mega-Diocese Fails Christians:

The Mega-Diocese is based on the presumption that one man can shepherd a million people and oversee hundreds of priests (both are impossible). The Archdiocese of Los Angeles has 1,117 priests and 4,392,000 baptized laity. One bishop can not oversee 1000+ priests. One bishop cannot be shepherd for 4.3 million people. For reference, the entire population of England in AD 1086 was 3.6 million. Imagine if all of England in AD 1086 had only one bishop! Ridiculous.

[bctt tweet=”The Mega-Diocese is based on the presumption that one man can shepherd a million people and oversee hundreds of priests (both are impossible). ” username=”taylorrmarshall”]

Enter the Legal Fiction of Auxiliary Bishops:

In order to “fix” this problem, the Popes began to appoint “Auxiliary Bishops.” According to Apostolic example, Patristic custom, and ancient Catholic Councils, a bishop must be a bishop of a geographic place. So you cannot have 3 bishops of the same geographic region. For Saint Ignatius of Antioch or Polycarp, multiple bishops in one place would be a schismatic and heretical act. There is only one geographic bishop for one geographic place. 

So the Popes (initially Pope Leo X) created a legal fiction called Auxiliary Bishops with titular sees. The Pope appoints the Auxiliary Bishop to a geographical diocese that no longer exists, and then sends that auxiliary bishop to work inside the diocese of another bishop. Incidentally, the Pope that first allowed this legal fiction was the infamous Medici Pope Leo X (the same Pope whom Martin Luther spoke out against in 1517). Previous popes had banned the custom of auxiliary bishops with fictional titular sees.

For example, Bishop Robert Barron (to choose the most well-known auxiliary bishop) is an auxiliary bishop in Los Angeles. However, since every bishop must actually be a canonical bishop of his own geographical area, Bishop Barron is actually the titular bishop of “Macriana in Mauretania” – an ancient Berber town in Algeria.

On paper and in reality, this canonical appointment to Macriana in Mauretania is ridiculous. Bishop Barron has nothing to do with Macriana and we shouldn’t create the legal fiction of bishops over non-existing “sees.”

In the early Catholic Church, Bishop Barron would simply be bishop ordinary of his pastoral region of Santa Barbara. He would simply become Bishop of Santa Barbara – not Pretend Bishop of “Macriana in Mauretania” but really serving the people of Santa Barbara under the auspices of the geographical bishop of Los Angeles. What a mess.

I’m not blaming Bishop Barron or any auxiliary bishop for this situation. They are obeying the directives of canon law and the Pope and are in good faith with regard to their appointments. There are great men serving as auxiliary bishops throughout the world. But when we look at it from a systemic point of view, it reveals an ecclesiological problem that contradicts both the Council of Nicea and biblical and patristic theology about the local ecclesia.

How to fix the Mega-Diocese? Break it up with Subsidiarity

The Mega-Diocese is an offense against the Catholic doctrine of subsidiarity – the doctrine that matters ought to be handled by the smallest and most proximate competent authority – not by a Cardinal Archbishop living 90 miles away who also has the direct canonical care of souls for 1 million people. It’s a mistake to ask a bishop to be responsible for 1 million people and 1,000 priests. It’s a crime against the laity, too. The Mega-Diocese is bad for everyone.

[bctt tweet=”The Mega-Diocese is an offense against the Catholic doctrine of subsidiarity – the principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest and most proximate competent authority – not by an archbishop living 90 miles away who has canonical care of souls for 1 million people.” username=”taylorrmarshall”]

When we see a public school teacher with 50 students in a class, we know its bad for the teacher and bad for the students. Everyone loses. Same the episcopal-diocesan structure.

How do we fix the Mega-Diocese problem? Obviously, a diocese of over one million souls is too big and too spread out. We need to follow the custom of ancient popes and have many, many, many more dioceses and bishops appointed. We need ecclesial subsidiarity. If Italy has 227 dioceses and the USA has 167 dioceses, we have an apparent problem. Creating more Mega-Dioceses and more and more auxiliary bishops will yield more abuse inside a broken system.

How big should a diocese be? 

There were around 150-250,000 Catholics in the Archdiocese of Paris during the medieval era. It may seem extreme, but I don’t see the benefit of having a diocese any bigger than that. If a bishop had 100 priests and 100,000 people, it would be a manageable situation.

Still don’t believe me, ask Moses:

The biblical Mega-Diocese of Moses in Exodus 18 and the advice of Jethro:

Moses was exhausted overseeing the 400,000 Israelites under his pastoral supervision. His father-in-law Jethro observed this and rebuked Moses while providing a solution to break up his “Mega-Diocese”:

13 The next day Moses took his seat to serve as judge for the people, and they stood around him from morning till evening. 14 When his father-in-law (Jethro) saw all that Moses was doing for the people, he said, “What is this you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit as judge, while all these people stand around you from morning till evening?”

15 Moses answered him, “Because the people come to me to seek God’s will. 16 Whenever they have a dispute, it is brought to me, and I decide between the parties and inform them of God’s decrees and instructions.”

17 Moses’ father-in-law replied, “What you are doing is not good. 18 You and these people who come to you will only wear yourselves out. The work is too heavy for you; you cannot handle it alone….21 But select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain—and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. 22 Have them serve as judges for the people at all times, but have them bring every difficult case to you; the simple cases they can decide themselves. That will make your load lighter, because they will share it with you. 23 If you do this and God so commands, you will be able to stand the strain, and all these people will go home satisfied.”

If Moses couldn’t handle it, so also the modern bishop cannot handle it. Moses followed the advice of Jethro. He appointed men to oversee “thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens.” He didn’t place men “over 10,000 or even 100,000.” That’s too much! In other words, Jethro tells Moses: “Lets practice pastoral subsidiarity.”

[bctt tweet=”In other words, Jethro tells Moses: Lets practice pastoral subsidiarity.” username=”taylorrmarshall”]

It’s comical that my own enormous state of Texas has – 15 dioceses! The disciple/bishopratio here is horrible. Moreover, bishops spend entire weekends driving out into the country for confirmations at their parishes hours away.

Just like parents with kids in the school district, we lay people should beg and ask for a better disciple/bishop ratios. Say no to more auxiliary bishops. That’s a cheap bandaid covering the wound. The Archdioceses of LA and NYC should be broken into the 5 dioceses. The reason it won’t happen now is money. But in a pastorally sensitive church, those Mega-Dioceses would be prudently divided into 5 geographic dioceses. Let an auxiliary bishop simply be a bishop of that deanery and call him “bishop ordinary.”

[bctt tweet=”The Archdioceses of LA & NYC should be broken into the 5 dioceses. The reason it won’t happen now is money. But in a pastorally sensitive church, those Mega-Dioceses should be divided into 5 dioceses. Let an auxiliary bishop simply be a bishop ordinary of his deanery. ” username=”taylorrmarshall”]

Until we break up the Mega-Dioceses, do not expect clerical sexual scandal to get better or heal. The Mega-Diocese is unaccountable, noisy, not policed, and unsupervised. The Mega-Diocese allows the predatory priest (and bishop) to wear camouflage. Meanwhile a bishop close to his people and even closer to his priests as “father to fathers” is both more accountable and a better supervisor as episcopos.

I’d love to hear more recommendations, objections, and thoughts, especially from laity and clergy existing within the Mega-Diocese structures. One thing that I didn’t cover is that Mega-Diocese usually have low native seminarian counts and low ordination counts. They statistically cannot produce vocations. If the bishop is the sacramental “father of fathers,” then he is the overworked “absent father figure” within a Mega-Diocese. Vocations are not conceived by absent fathers.

[reminder]

Pray for the Church ad Jesum per Mariam cum Petro,
Dr Taylor Marshall

[bctt tweet=”If the bishop is the sacramental father of fathers, then he is the overworked absent father figure within a Mega-Diocese. Vocations are not conceived by absent fathers.” username=”taylorrmarshall”]

PS: I would also add that bishops should be chosen from among the local presbytery or at least from near regional dioceses, and not “imported” from elsewhere. Moreover, bishops should not be moved all over the nation like bishop pieces on a chess board. A bishop should stay the bishop of one place for life…like marriage. St John Fisher, pray for us.

The post Does the Mega-Diocese foster sexual scandals and bad priests? Yes appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

Before 1964, the Rituale Romanum includes an exorcism of the water and the adding of exorcized salt to the making of holy water. Here is the pre-1964 exorcism of the water:

O water, creature of God, I exorcise you in the name of God the Father almighty, and in the name of Jesus Christ His Son, our Lord, and in the power of the Holy Spirit. I exorcise you so that you may put to flight all the power of the Enemy, and be able to root out and supplant that Enemy with his apostate angels: through the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who will come to judge the living and the dead and the world by fire. Amen.

Almighty and everlasting God, we humbly implore Thee, in Thy immeasurable kindness and love, to bless + and sanctify + this salt which Thou did create and give over to the use of mankind, so that it may become a source of health for the minds and bodies of all who make use of it, and may rid whatever it touches or sprinkles of all uncleanness and protect it from every assault of evil spirits. Through our Lord, Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who lives and reigns with Thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. R. Amen.

After 1964, the new Rituale Romanum excludes both the exorcism and the salt. (Not a fantastic development in my non-magisterial layman’s opinion.)

Providentially, Summorum Pontificum by Pope Benedict XVI allows all priests to use the pre-1964 formula for making holy water – and many priests quietly do this.

So why salt?

The Levitical priesthood under Moses identifies salt with “covenant”:

“Every offering of your grain offering you shall season with salt; you shall not allow the salt of the covenant of your God to be lacking from your grain offering. With all your offerings you shall offer salt.” (Lev 2:13)

We find it again in Numbers:

All the holy offerings which the people of Israel present to the Lord I give to you, and to your sons and daughters with you, as a perpetual due; it is a covenant of salt for ever before the Lord for you and for your offspring with you.” (Num 18:19)

And the Davidic Messianic Covenant is a “covenant of salt” (2 Chronicles 13:5).

Since all Catholic liturgical forms come from Israelite liturgical forms, we can expect salt to play an important role in our sacramental life.

Moreover, the waters over which the Spirit hovered in Genesis 1 were salty (Covenant of Creation). The Flood of Noah was salty (Covenant of Noah). The Red Sea was salty (Covenant of Moses).It also refers to the action of Elishah the Prophet:

19 Now the men of the city said to Elisha, “Behold, the situation of this city is pleasant, as my lord sees; but the water is bad, and the land is unfruitful.” 20 He said, “Bring me a new bowl, and put salt in it.” So they brought it to him. 21 Then he went to the spring of water and threw salt in it, and said, “Thus says the Lord, I have made this water wholesome; henceforth neither death nor miscarriage shall come from it.” 22 So the water has been wholesome to this day, according to the word which Elisha spoke.

Elisha uses something sterile (salt) to make other things unsterile (women’s wombs). This is polarity miracle. We see the same with Elijah before him. Elijah pours water on a sacrifice and it burns anyway. The effect of a thing is opposite its purpose and creates a miraculous outcome.

Salt placed in the mouth of the Baptized:

The fifth canon of the Third Council of Carthage (AD 397) states that Catechumens should repeatedly consumed holy salt as they prepared for baptism. Saint Augustine refers to himself having been made a “catechumen” at birth (Patristic baby dedication) but not having been baptized:

Even as a boy I had heard of eternal life promised to us through the humility of the Lord our God condescending to our pride, and I was signed with the sign of the cross, and was seasoned with His salt even from the womb of my mother, who greatly trusted in You. Confessions 1, 14.

Prior to Vatican II, the priest placed a touch of holy salt into the mouth of all the newly baptized (including infants).

Priest: N., Receive the salt of wisdom; let it be propitiation for you unto eternal life.

Sponsor/Catechumen: Amen.

Priest: Peace be with you.

Sponsor/Catechumen: And with your spirit.

Priest: Let us pray: O God of our fathers, O God the Author of all truth, vouchsafe, we humbly beseech Thee, to look graciously down upon this Thy servant, N., and as he (she) tastes this first nutriment of salt, allow him (her) no longer to hunger for lack of heavenly food, to the end that he (she) may be always fervent in spirit, rejoicing in hope, always serving Thy name. Lead him (her), O Lord, we beseech Thee, to the laver of the new regeneration, that, together with Thy faithful, he may deserve to attain the everlasting rewards of Thy promises. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Here’s a video of one of my children being baptized with the 1962 ritual of baptism. You can see the blessing and administration of holy salt at about 0:50:

This salt is given to whet the catechumens appetite for the Eucharist. It further demonstrates that everyone in the Roman Rite received the Eucharist after baptism – including infants well into the 5th century. Saint Cyprian and Saint Augustine refer matter-of-factly to infants receiving the Eucharist. Christian parents should fight for this Apostolic practice to be returned to the Roman Rite.

[bctt tweet=”Saint Cyprian and Saint Augustine refer matter-of-factly to infants receiving the Eucharist. Christian parents should fight for this Apostolic practice to be returned to the Roman Rite.” username=”@taylorrmarshall”]

If a Catholic altar is disturbed or desecrated (as this one was desecrated in Ireland), it must be reconsecrated but this time with holy salt to purify and cleanse it from the demonic.

Theology of Salt from the words of our Lord Jesus Christ:

Our Lord Jesus Christ also states: “For every one will be salted with fire.” (Mark 9:49) Why is this? We are all to be holocaust sacrifices to the Father through Jesus Christ. In the next verse, he states: “Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace one with another” (Mark 9:50). (Which is why the subtitle of this blog is “Stay salty my friends.”)

Christ says that all will be salted with fire. Every human will experience this salt as we pass through death. It is the judgment of Christ over our lives. Note that this means that Jesus the High Priest will treat everyone person as an animal sacrifice as in the Old Testament. Blood also is salty. Jewish texts also state that the one of the jobs of the Levites was to cast salt everywhere on the ground of the altar area so that the priests would not slip on all the sacrificial blood.

We have two models of salt and final judgment:

• The first is that of the salt of damnation. Salt is sterile. Lot’s wife “turned back” and turned into a pillar (statue) of salt. She is grouped with the valley of Sodom and Gomorrah (sterile sexual immorality), which now lies condemned beneath the Dead Sea (a salty body of water).
  
• The second is that of the salt of salvation. Salt preserves. The fisherman Apostles daily dealt in salt. There was no refrigeration and fish were always transported in salt. Fishermen needed boats, nets, and lots and lots of salt to be successful merchants.
  As Apostles (and their successors) are “fishers of men” it’s not enough to merely catch men. The fish of Jesus must be confirmed in grace and preserved by the “salt of the covenant.” Hence, salt becomes a sign against contagion and corruption. It’s a sign of orthodox preaching, teaching, and sacramental integrity within the Catholic Church.

[bctt tweet=”As Apostles (and their successors) are fishers of men it’s not enough to merely catch men. The fish of Jesus must be confirmed in grace and preserved by the salt of the covenant.Hence, salt becomes a sign against contagion and corruption.” username=”@taylorrmarshall”]

[reminder]If you found this helpful, please share it on Facebook.[/reminder]

PS: If you want to discover more about Old Testament rites and their relationship to Catholic liturgy, check out this book: The Crucified Rabbi.

The post Why does Holy Water have salt in it? Elisha, Jesus, and Salted Fish appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

In this podcast I explain the epic botafumeiro. As promised, in the the podcast I include my video footage of the botafumeiro in action.

Godspeed,
Dr Taylor Marshall

The post 143: Shoveling Incense into the Cathedral’s Botafumeiro (Camino 7) [Podcast] appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

Over the past five years, between two and six men have entered the seminary every fall but that’s not the case this year.

“Entering the fall we don’t have any new seminarians applying for the Diocese of Providence, which is rare,” Fr. Chris Murphy, the Catholic Diocese of Providence’s assistant vocation director, said Tuesday.

“I cannot remember in recent memory when the last time was,” he added.
A look back at the numbers shows a declining trend. Five men entered the seminary in 2012 and six entered in 2013, then the numbers drop to three, two and four in the years that followed.

Over the years, whenever the “priestly shortage” comes up in conversation, someone is quick to reply with some encouragement like this: “Oh yes, but we have so many young orthodox vocations! Things will change in a few years!”

I agree with this encouraging fact: We have some great seminarians! I’ve personally taught Catholic seminarians in America and in Rome and I can confirm that there are some dynamic, orthodox, and impressive seminarians moving into the sacerdotal pipeline.

But I am also aware of a gaping problem that hardly anyone mentions. The seminarian numbers are not there. We are about to fall off a demographic cliff of priestly vocations.

• Yes, an impressive seminarian or deacon-seminarian visits your parish during the summer and does fantastic work.
• Yes, you see lots of faces on the “Meet our Seminarians” color poster in the narthex after Mass.
• Yes, you’re bishop announces yet another round of ordinations this year.

Praise God! I rejoice in all of it…but still…the numbers are lacking. Let’s take a look at priestly demographics:

For priests, we need to pray for quality and quantity:

Here is table of the number of priests in the USA from 1930 to 2015:

The number of priests exploded in 1950 (partly through migration) and peaked out in 1970. After 1975, you see a slow but steady decrease in the number of priests until the decline becomes steep around 1990. 

More troubling is the fact that the tsunami of priests ordained from 1970-1980, will be reaching retirement age between the years 2015-2025 (age 25 + 45 years of service = retirement age 70).

Discovering the 1 Priest to every Catholic Ratio:

We have already begun to feel the scarcity of priests and you’ll understand why when you examine the numbers in light of the ratio of priest per Catholics. Check out these numbers:

• In 1950, there was 1 priest to every 652 Catholics in the United States.
• In 2010, there was 1 priest to every 1,653 Catholics in the United States.
• In 2016, there was 1 priest to every 1,843 Catholics in the United States.

A numeric study shows that the tipping point in the USA happened around the year 1983. This is when our priest/Catholics ratio began to tank:

When it comes to priest/Catholics ratio, our priestly manpower is 33% of what it was 1950. Meanwhile there millions more lay Catholics in the pews.

And depending on the city, the ratio can be much worse. Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles have pretty discouraging ratios, but none are hurting as badly as my neighboring diocese of Dallas:

• Diocese of Dallas: 1 priest to every 6,229 Catholics.
• Diocese of Los Angeles: 1 priest to every 3,931 Catholics.
• Diocese of New York: 1 priest to every 2,055 Catholics.
• Diocese of Chicago: 1 priest to every 1,624 Catholics.

Meanwhile there are model dioceses that have wonderful ratios that beat even the 1950 national ratio:

• Diocese of Lincoln: 1 priest to every 598 Catholics.

And the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP), which offers the Latin Mass from the 1962 Missale Romanum currently has this ratio in its parishes:

• FSSP: 1 priest to every 250 Catholics.

Vocation Decrease among the Jesuits

Compare the growth of the FSSP to that of the global membership of the Society of Jesus:

• In 1977, the Jesuits had 28,038 members.
• In 2016, the Jesuits had 16,378 members.

The Jesuits have declined 41.5% since 1977. The average age of a Jesuit priest in 2018 is 63.4 years old. Considering that mandatory priestly retirement is age 70, this does not look good for the Jesuits. They will decline by more than 50% in the coming decade. If things don’t change, there will be less than 10,000 Jesuits on earth in the next few years.

[For reference, there are 6,058 (male and female) Dominicans on planet earth in 2018. That’s the size of three Texas high schools.]

Sad but True (plus some Hope):

It is true that we have many great young men in formation to be holy Catholic priests. I’ve spent hours talking with them after class and I know that we will have an excellent crop. The sad news is that it is small crop. A priest is only one man and if you spread him over 3 parishes, he will be less effective.

My prediction is that we will see a great Catholic migration over the next three decades. As that surge of vocations from 1970-1980 begins to retire and depart to their reward, we will see massive parish closings and consolidations. Priests will be rare. It is already obvious that bishops and dioceses like Lincoln Nebraska attract vocations to the holy priesthood. These bishops and their dioceses will thrive. Meanwhile, dioceses like Providence will shrink while they try to import priests from other parts of the world.

The solution is to pray for vocations, but also beg the question:

Why does Lincoln, Nebraska have a plethora of vocations (1 priest to every 598 Catholics!) while others are not only short on vocations but losing priests year after year?

1. Is it liturgical?
2. Is it ethnic or based somehow on immigration?
3. Is it doctrinal?
4. What leads young men to inquire about a priestly vocation?
5. How do they organize their altar server programs?
6. Does youth ministry play a role or not?
7. How do pastors play a role?
8. To which seminaries does each diocese send seminarians?
9. How does seminarian retention rate differ from diocese to diocese?
10. How is the bishop involved in the vocation process?

If “coffee is for closers,” Bishop Conley of Lincoln, Nebraska is drinking Roman double espressos. 1 priest to every 598 Catholics. Someone should study the vocations process in place under Bishop Conley of Lincoln.

My personal acquaintance with Bishop Conley (he helped guide me into the Catholic Church in 2006) is that he is orthodox, Thomistic, dignified, fatherly, and favors the template of Ratzinger’s “Spirit of the Liturgy.” And if I’m honest, every single impressive seminarian that I meet…is shaped from the same mold. Like begets like. Like father, like son.

And even if you aren’t on board with the template of “orthodox, Thomistic, dignified, fatherly, Spirit of the Liturgy,” the numbers don’t lie.

Pray for holy bishops, holy priests, and holy seminarians!

[reminder]How is your part of the world doing with priestly vocations? What makes for a good seminarian?[/reminder]

The post Our Sad Decline in Priestly Vocations: Most Priests will Retire in 2015-2025 appeared first on Taylor Marshall.

We also look Eastern Catholic Church Bible translations AND the demonic sexual apparitions of the sucubus (female version) and incubus (male version) attested to by Augustine and Aquinas.

[reminder]

129: Aquinas Why Fish and No Meat in Lent PLUS the Demonic Incubus and Sucubus! [Podcast]

If the audio player does not show up in your email or browser, please click here to listen.

• Announcements:
  • The podcast is now on my channel on Youtube.com
  • The complete Sword and Serpent Trilogy is now published, including the the third Book: Storm of Fire and Blood.
  • Download the Study Guide at: http://swordandserpent.com
  • New classes at New Saint Thomas Institute. We have just begun our New Testament Studies curriculum. Please visit: newsaintthomas.com for more details.

I’d love to read your feedback: While you listen to today’s podcast, would you please take 30 seconds to write a review? Please click here to Rate this Podcast!

Please Share Your Feedback:

• POPULARITY: 1,448,642 downloads on iTunes as of today.
• SHOUT OUTS: A huge “shout out” to all 520 (!) of you who wrote amazing 5-star reviews at iTunes. Please rate this podcast by clicking here. From there you can leave a review. I appreciate you for this! Thank you!

Subscribe to This Weekly Podcast:

• Apple/Mac Users: Please subscribe via iTunes by clicking here and then clicking on “View in iTunes.”

• Android Users: For listening to The Taylor Marshall Show on Android devices (free) using the Stitcher app.

• Android Users can also listen to the show with:
  • Android Beyond Pod app from the Google Play Store.
  • Android Pocketcasts app.
• Our you can listen/watch to the Taylor Marshall Show via Youtube:

• SURVEY: Please view our Podcast Listener Poll by clicking here.

[reminder]

If you like this podcast, please leave a review.

The post 129: Aquinas Why Fish and No Meat in Lent PLUS the Demonic Incubus and Sucubus! [Podcast] appeared first on Taylor Marshall.