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.

The simplest solution is that the Last Supper was not the legal Passover meal of the Jews at which a slain lamb was roasted and eaten. The best harmonization of the four gospels requires that the Last Supper was a New Rite or a New Passover that superseded the Passover instituted by Moses and happened 24 hours before the legal Passover meal of the Jews.

I will prove that Christ kept the Last Supper 24 hours before the legal Passover of the Jews and that Christ died on the day of Nisan 14, the day of preparation for the Passover on which the lambs were slain. The Last Supper did not feature a dead animal lamb. Rather Christ’s presented Himself as teh edible Lamb at the Last Supper. The next day, Christ died at the same time as the passover lambs were slain. I will prove that this is the dominant position of the Church Fathers.

The Problem: Did Jesus die on Passover or the Day After Passover?

1. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke (MML), Jesus claims to “eat this passover” (Luke 22:15) with His Apostles on the night before He died. Was that meal an actual Passover meal?
2. The temple Jews, early on the next morning after the Last Supper, had not eaten the Passover: “Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas to the praetorium. It was early. They themselves did not enter the praetorium, so that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover.” (John 18:28) The temple Jews had not yet eaten Passover on the morning after the Last Supper, and were preparing to eat it later that night (which was after the death of Christ). Clearly, Jesus did not keep Passover at the same time as the temple Jews.
3. Some say that Matthew, Mark, and Luke (MML) contradict John. MML place Christ’s Last Supper meal the night before Christ’s death. John places Jewish Passover on day that Christ died.

Possible Solutions:

1. MML are correct and John was wrong or manipulated the story so that Jesus as “Lamb of God” died while the animal passover lambs were also killed at 3pm on Passover day.
2. MML are wrong and John is correct.
3. There is a way to harmonize the accounts. I will show the harmonization, because Sacred Scripture (and the four Gospels) cannot contradict one another.

How Passover Dates Work

Let’s understand how Moses set up the date structure for Passover:

1. Jewish days begin at sundown (~6pm), not at midnight or at daybreak. All biblical calculations of time must account for this.
2. “Nisan” is the Hebrew name of a month in Spring in which Passover feast occurs.
3. The Jewish months were truly lunar, so the Nisan 1 is a new moon and Nisan 14 is a full moon.
4. The Passover feast has two phases the pertains to two distinct days:
   1. Nisan 14: The passover lambs are slaughtered at the temple on the afternoon of Nisan 14 (3pm-5pm). They are then roasted and prepared to eat around 6pm at sundown.
   2. Nisan 15: After sundown (starting a new Jewish day with the initial hours of Nisan 15, the passover lambs are eaten by families as a liturgical rite. (Exodus 12:6)

The Passover Sequence of Jesus Christ and the Last Supper

1. In the Synoptic MML, Jesus had his Last Supper on the evening before He was crucified. MML have Christ referring to this meal as a “Passover.”
2. If the Last Supper was truly a Passover meal, then the passover lambs would have been killed on Nisan 14. This requires that Christ kept His Last Supper in the beginning hours of Nisan 15 and was crucified the next day on Nisan 15.
3. However, if Jesus is the “Lamb of God,” then He should have died at the same time the other animal lambs were slaughtered on Nisan14, not on Nisan 15.
4. John presents Nisan 14 as the day of His crucifixion and death and that the temple Jews had not yet eaten the Passover lambs.

Christian Controversy in Second Century

In the second century AD, a liturgical conflict emerged. Christians in Ephesus, Smyrna and Sardis celebrated Nisan 14 as the day of Christ’s death (not as “Easter” or “resurrection” as many sources falsely report), regardless of what day of the week Nisan 14 fell. This group was called the Quatrodecimans (from Latin quarta decima, meaning “fourteenth”).

The Quartodeciman Christians align almost perfectly with the seven churches mentioned in Revelation 2 and 3:

Ephesus
Smyrna
Pergamum
Thyatira
Sardis
Philadelphia
Laodicea

These seven churches were ruled by a bishop (called “an angel” in Revelation). They seem to have fallen under Saint John the Apostle who served as a Metropolitan Archbishop over the region. The regional popularity of Quartodeciman theology also maps onto the churches listed in the Apocalypse.

The Quatrodeciman Christians claimed their tradition came from Saint John the Apostle. This accurately conforms to John’s Gospel showing that Jesus died on Nisan 14 when the lamb’s were being slain.

Quartodeciman Theology and Praxis

Quatrodeciman Christians kept the custom of keeping Nisan 14 as a strict day of fasting from all food and then having a feast that night. Presumably a night Eucharist but in a manner similar to a Jewish Passover meal. Presumably, they observed the resurrection on Nisan 16, which would be the “third day.”

The Didascalia Apostolorum (c. 230 AD, Syria) describes the practice:

“On the fourteenth day of the moon… fast ye then also, and keep the Passover of the Lord, for on this day our Lord suffered… and on the evening of the fourteenth break your fast, and eat unleavened bread with Him who was sacrificed for us.” -Didascalia Apostolorum, Chapter 21

Saint Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, visited Rome around AD 155 to discuss the Paschal date with Pope Anicetus of Rome. Polycarp defended keeping Nisan 14, claiming it came from the Apostle John and other apostles. Though no direct ritual details are given, this establishes the practice’s apostolic origin and Polycarp’s adherence to keeping Nisan 14 as the day of Christ’s death.

“For Anicetus [bishop of Rome] could not persuade Polycarp to forgo the observance [of Nisan 14], inasmuch as these things had been always observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant… Polycarp himself was instructed by the apostles and conversed with many who had seen Christ.” – Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 5.24.16-17 (quoting Irenaeus’ letter to Victor I)

And not just Polycarp. Writing c. AD 190 AD to resist Pope Victor’s push for Sunday Pascha, Polycrates asserts that Asia Minor’s bishops universally kept Nisan 14 as the day of Christ’s death, tying it to apostolic tradition (John, Philip) and martyrs (Polycarp).

“We therefore observe the genuine [fourteenth] day, neither adding thereto nor taking therefrom. For in Asia great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord’s appearing… Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who sleeps in Hierapolis… John, who rested upon the bosom of our Lord… Polycarp of Smyrna, both bishop and martyr… All these observed the fourteenth day of the Passover according to the gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith.” – Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 5.24.2-6 (Polycrates’ letter to Victor I)

In Rome and Alexandria, the churches kept the death and resurrection of the Lord always on a Friday and Sunday, respectively. In Rome and Alexandria, the Sunday after Nisan 14 was liturgically celebrated as the day of Christ’s resurrection and the Friday preceding (Good Friday) as the day of Christ’s death. The Roman and Alexandrian custom became standard way for all Christians to keep Pasch since at least the 4th century. The Roman and Alexandrian tradition sought to preserve the the resurrection as connected to Sunday, and by extension the death of Christ to Good Friday.

The important witness is that the Quadrodeciman Christians in the second century claimed that Saint John had taught them:

1. Jesus died on Nisan 14
2. That they should fast on Nisan 14 as the annual day of his death, regardless of what day of the week it fell upon.

This is a very strong witness that Jesus Christ died on Nisan 14 and not Nisan 15. This means we must show that the “passover” meal of Jesus at the Last Supper was not actually the legal passover of the temple Jews but something different.

Here’s how John conveys his timeline:

1. Timing of the Crucifixion: Preparation Day (John 19:14, 31)

John 19:14:
“Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. He [Pilate] said to the Jews, ‘Behold your King!'”

The “day of Preparation of the Passover” refers to Nisan 14, the day when Jews prepared for the Passover feast by slaughtering the lambs in the afternoon (Exodus 12:6). The “sixth hour” (around noon) is when Pilate sentences Jesus, with the crucifixion beginning shortly after (John 19:16-18). This sets the stage for Jesus’ death later that afternoon, overlapping with the lamb slaughter.

John 19:31:
“Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away.”

The urgency to remove the bodies before the Sabbath (Nisan 15, a “high day” as the first day of Unleavened Bread, Leviticus 23:6-7) confirms it’s still Nisan 14 during the crucifixion. The lambs were killed that afternoon, typically between 3:00 PM and 5:00 PM (per Jewish tradition in the Mishnah, Pesachim 5:1), and Jesus dies within this window.

2. Jesus’ Death at the Ninth Hour (Cross-Reference with Synoptics)

Though John doesn’t specify the exact hour of Jesus’ death, the Synoptic parallel helps:

Mark 15:34-37 (cf. Matthew 27:46-50, Luke 23:44-46):
“And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?’ … And Jesus uttered a loud cry and breathed his last.”

The “ninth hour” is the ninth hour from daybreak and corresponds to our 3:00 PM. John’s timeline—from sentencing at 12pm (John 19:14) to death before sunset (John 19:31)—fits this, placing Jesus’ death in the late afternoon of Nisan 14, precisely when the Passover lambs were being sacrificed in the Temple.

3. John’s Fulfillment of Christ as the Passover Lamb

John 19:36:
“For these things took place that the Scripture might be fulfilled: ‘Not one of his bones will be broken.'”

This quotes Exodus 12:46 (and Numbers 9:12) which commands that the Passover lambs’ bones remain unbroken. John notes that Jesus’ legs weren’t broken (unlike the two thiefs, John 19:32-33), explicitly linking his death to the sacrificial lamb’s requirements. The slaughter of lambs must happen on Nisan 14, reinforcing the timing and allegorical connection.

John 1:29:
“The next day he [John the Baptist] saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!'”

John’s gospel frames Jesus as the ultimate sacrificial Lamb of God, a theme fulfilled when he dies on the day and at the literal hour when the Passover lamb slaughter on Nisan 14.

4. Absence of a Passover Meal

John explicitly states that the Last Supper occurs before the feast of Passover:

John 13:1-2:
“Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father … supper being ended.”

John 18:28:
“Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas to the praetorium. It was early. They themselves did not enter the praetorium, so that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover.”

The Jewish temple leaders hadn’t yet eaten the Passover meal when Jesus was brought to Pilate on the morning of Nisan 14, meaning the lambs hadn’t been slain yet. This positions the crucifixion later that day as the lambs were being prepared and killed, not after the meal as in the Synoptics MML.

Timeline in John

1. The Passover lambs were slain on Nisan 14 around 3pm in the temple. Jesus dies at this time and connects Him to the lambs being killed by the Jewish priests.
2. The sacrificed animal lambs were then roasted for the meal eaten after sunset at about 6pm. (beginning Nisan 15). John places.
3. Jesus’s body is removed from cross before sundown so that it would not defile the the eating of the Passover lambs by the Jews.
4. Jesus’s body is placed in tomb.
5. Jews go home to eat their legal Passover meals with lambs killed earlier in the day of Nisan 14.

John synchronizes Jesus’ death with the lamb slaughter to portray him as the true Passover Lamb, sacrificed at the same time the temple ritual occurred. The unbroken bones and Preparation Day timing seal this parallel.

Harmonizing MML Synoptics with John

In the Synoptics MML, Christ must have meant something new when he said :

“With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you, before I suffer.” (Luke 22:15)

What is the nature of “this Passover”? Was Christ desiring to simply eat a normal Passover, or is something more indicated by “this Passover”?

Several possibilities emerge:

1. Jesus and His Apostles kept a different calendar or calculated Passover differently so that their Passover fell one day early. Perhaps, they calculated the full moon of Nisan 14 as having happened a day prior.
2. Jesus simply anticipated the meal by one day since He knew He would be killed the following day.
3. Jesus was instituting a new kind of Passover or “This Passover.” This is perfectly reasonable since the temple Jews had been trying trap and kill Jesus for over one year. Jesus, who was a hunted man, would not likely have lined up at the temple to receive slaughtered lamb with the rest of the Jews in Jerusalem. The Apostles had also known that Christ was called “Lamb of God” by John the Baptist at His baptism. Christ is doing something new and He institutes “the New Covenant in my Blood” at this Last Supper. The New Covenant supersedes the Old Covenant.

Jesus Kept a New Eucharistic Passover WITHOUT an Animal Lamb

The third option is the best solution. Jesus Christ wanted to change the meaning of the Passover by doing it a day early and by not including an animal lamb from the temple sacrifice. “This Passover” is something unique and new.

There is no mention of a slaughtered lamb at the “passover” Last Supper of Christ in all four gospels. Since there was no slaughtered lamb at this dinner, it is obvious that Jesus Christ is the Lamb and His Body should be eaten for “this Passover.” The Last Supper inaugurates “the New Covenant in my blood” and thus there should be no roasted animal lamb present on the table/altar.

Church Fathers on No Lamb at Last Supper and Death on Nisan 14

Saint John states that Christ died on Nisan 14:

Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, “Behold, your King!” (John 19:14)

Tertullian states that Christ died on Nisan 14:

On the first day of unleavened bread, on which they slew the lamb at even, just as had been enjoined by Moses. Accordingly, all the synagogue of Israel did slay Him … Which prediction was thus also fulfilled, that “on the first day of unleavened bread” you slew Christ; … (that the prophecies might be fulfilled) the day hasted to make an “eventide,”— that is, to cause darkness, which was made at mid-day.” (Tertullian, An Answer to the Jews, Chapter 8-10)

Origen of Alexandria (c. 184–253 AD) teaches that the Lord did not eat the lamb according to legal rite and the Passover of the Jews was not yet:

“The Passover of the Jews was not yet, as John shows, and the Lord did not eat the lamb with His disciples according to the legal rite, but rather instituted a new Passover, giving His own body as the food of salvation.” (Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Series 81)

Saint Peter of Alexandria, writing AD 300 to 311, states that Christ did not eat “the legal Passover” and that Christ died on Nisan 14:

At the time, therefore, in which our Lord and God Jesus Christ suffered for us, according to the flesh, He did not eat of the legal Passover; but, as I have said, He Himself, as the true Lamb, was sacrificed for us in the feast of the typical Passover, on the day of the preparation, the fourteenth of the first lunar month. The typical Passover, therefore, then ceased, the true Passover being present: For Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us, as has been before said, and as that chosen vessel, the apostle Paul, teaches. (Peter of Alexandria, first chapter of his fifth fragmentary writing)

Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260–340 AD) sates that Christ did not eat the lamb and the Supper was before the Passover sacrifice:

“The Lord did not partake of the lamb slain according to the custom of the Jews, for He was Himself the Lamb, and the Supper was before the time of their Passover sacrifice.” (Eusebius, Questions and Answers on the Gospels, preserved in fragments)

Saint John Chrysostom (c. 347–407 AD) also stated that Jesus Christ did not eat the “legal Passover” and that He was crucified on Nisan 14:

“For it was not at the feast that He ate the Passover, but on the day before the feast He celebrated it with His disciples, giving them the mystery of His body and blood. For the Jews were still to eat the Passover on the next day, as it is written, ‘They themselves did not enter the Praetorium, so that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover.’” (Homily 82 on John 18:28)

Jerome (c. 347–420 AD) supported the Johannine view that Jesus was crucified on Nisan 14, the preparation day, aligning with the slaughter of Passover lambs. This suggests the Last Supper lacked the lamb.

“The Lord did not eat the Passover according to the Law with His disciples on the day of unleavened bread, but on the day before, as John clearly shows, when the Jews had not yet eaten it.” (Jerome, Commentary on Matthew)

Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD) attempted to harmonize the Gospels but leaned toward the idea that Jesus died on Nisan 14, aligning with John’s timeline.

“For it was not on the feast day itself that He suffered, but on the day before the feast… The Jews were still to eat the Passover, while He had already given His own body as the true Passover to His disciples.” (Augustine, From Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 55)

Saint Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376–444 AD) states that Christ did not eat the Passover lamb and that the Last Supper occurred before the Jews celebrated Passover:

“For the Passover of the Jews had not yet been celebrated when the Savior suffered, but it was near… He did not eat the lamb of the Law with His disciples, but rather gave them the bread of life, Himself being the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world.” (Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, Book 11 (John 18:28)

Theodoret of Cyrus (c. 393–457 AD) taught that Jesus died on Nisan 14 and that the Last Supper was not a legal Passover meal with a lamb.

“The Savior did not partake of the Passover lamb with His disciples, for He was Himself the Lamb, slain on the fourteenth day of Nisan, as the Evangelist John declares, when the Jews were still preparing to eat their Passover.” (Theodoret of Cyrus, From Commentary on the Gospel of John)

Severus of Antioch (c. 465–538 AD), a key figure in the Monophysite movement, holds that Jesus died on Nisan 14 and that the Last Supper was a distinct event, not the Jewish Passover with a lamb.

“The Lord instituted the mystery of His body and blood before the Passover of the Jews, not eating the lamb of the old Law, but becoming the Lamb sacrificed for us on the fourteenth of Nisan.” (Severus, From a homily preserved in fragments)

Bede the Venerable (c. 673–735 AD), an Anglo-Saxon monk and historian, adopted the Johannine timeline in his biblical exegesis, suggesting Jesus died on Nisan 14 and that the Last Supper preceded the Passover sacrifice.

“The Lord did not celebrate the Passover of the Jews with a lamb, for He was crucified on the Preparation Day, the fourteenth of Nisan, as John testifies, when the lambs were being slain.” (Bede, Homilies 13 on John)

Conclusion: A New Passover with Christ as “This Passover”

There was no animal lamb at the Last Supper. Christ is the Lamb. Christ was crucified on Nisan 14.

In conclusion, Last Supper images that depict a roasted lamb on the table, like this one, are heretical:

Whereas images hat depict no animal Lamb (an empty dish), but Christ holding the Eucharist are orthodox:

Since the Last Supper was on the anticipated evening of Nisan 14, His death happened on the same day of Nisan 14 and this unites the Eucharistic Last Supper as on the same day as the death of Christ–uniting the two events.

The Passover, then, is anytime the Eucharist is celebrated. Christ has transformed the Passover into the Eucharist. Passover is whenever the Eucharist is celebrated and is not relegated to Nisan 14/15.

– Dr. Taylor Marshall

PS: St Thomas Aquinas somehow gets all this wrong and cites Jerome, but is not aware that elsewhere Jerome affirmed that Christ died on Nisan 14. Thomas affirms that Christ died on Nisan 15:

“From which, as Jerome, says, “since the fourteenth day of the first month is called the day of the Azymes, when the lamb was slain, and when it was full moon,” it is quite clear that Christ kept the supper on the fourteenth and died on the fifteenth.” Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 46, Article 9

The post Did Jesus die on Passover? Was Last Supper a Passover? Harmonizing Synoptics with John 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.

Watch this crucial podcast episode by clicking here:

Or listen to the audio mp3 here:

If you’d like to order a copy of Taylor’s new book Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within, you can order it in Hardback, Kindle, or Audiobook or I’ll send you a signed copy through Patreon: Click here to become a Patron.

Taylor Marshall was interviewed twice last week on Fox News by Lauren Green about how the Cardinals, Bishops, Clergy, and Catholic Church have been infiltrated demonically and compromised by human agents over the last 150 years based on historical facts, examples, and papal testimonies reaching back to the 1850s through the 1970s. Here are the two interviews:

First Interview: FoxNews Radio Show: Dr. Taylor Marshall Researches the Spiritual Roots of the Clergy Sex Abuse Crisis and More

Second Interview: FoxNews Digital Video Segment: Taylor Marshall: Is the devil behind the Catholic Church sex abuse crisis?

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: 2,669,090 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 281: Why Do Only 2/3 of Catholics Believe in the Eucharist? Recent Pew Poll Report on Catholics [Podcast] appeared first on Taylor Marshall.