Malarkey from Studio Matters


Yet a surprising number of readers leap-frogged over the point and headed for the word seder. Some questioned the appropriateness of it in terms of days of the week and the Jewish calendar. Others raised linguistic obstacles. All insisted on an all-male meal that was absolutely not a seder. Infallibly not. A few clung to the issue like a terrier worrying a bone. They would not let go.

 Why so squirrely? Somewhere in the high grass of objection to the word seder lurks anxiety over feminist assault on the male priesthood. Electrically charged, the concern seems to carry with it an impulse to de-Judaize that ancient meal. So, please, let us talk about it a bit more.

Any Traditional objection to her claims that the Last Supper/First Mass was a Seder irks her and so she attempts a resolution of the problem by composing a querulous quip: A few clung to the issue like a terrier worrying a bone. They would not let go.

ABS certainly would not let go of the truth that The Last Supper was not a Seder and, in a short while, he will post the objections from Tradition that she knows (Because ABS sent them to her) but courageously refused to address them as though she were a demented badger defending her hole from imaginary dascshunds.


But she is quite certain that somewhere lurking in the minds of those who object to her claims are the anxious fears of chick priests: Why so squirrely? Somewhere in the high grass of objection to the word seder lurks anxiety over feminist assault on the male priesthood.

 Sorry. darlin'. The problem is not in any way associated with chick priests, the problem is with your ahistorical and progressive polemics.

 Having constructed her straw man she then tried to burn it down by throwing at it the personal opinions of the modern molotov cocktail tossers : modern scholars such as the Lutheran, Joachim Jeremias, and the well-we-really-can't-say-that Jesus-resurrected Notre Dame professor John Meier



With friends like these, truth requires no enemies and tomorrow, ABS will be having a bit of fun at the expense of the experts cited by Ms. Mullarkey in defense of her false claim that the Last Supper was a seder and that those who disagree with her are not up to whatever historical standards she accepts as reliable.

In any event, here is what ABS emailed to her in response to her sizable serving of Malarkey;


Seder,  is nowhere to be found in the Gospels. Rather, renowned Jewish Scholars, like, Baruch Bosker ("Origins of the Seder") observe that the Seder (Order) traditions (according to Rabbinical literature) bring us only back as far as 70 A.D. the time after the destruction of Jerusalem and there is no evidence in Rabbinical literature of a Seder prior to that.

Yes, that is why I used the term "primitive seder" for the Passover meal.

Either way, it is a family event.
Wishing you a sweet and holy Easter,
Maureen M
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 8:29 AM,...
Dear M. Mullarkey.  The Last Supper/First Mass had only men in attendance - The Apostles.  What happened in that upper room was not a seder, although it has been popularly described as such. 

Seder,  is nowhere to be found in the Gospels. Rather, renowned Jewish Scholars, like, Baruch Bosker ("Origins of the Seder") observe that the Seder (Order) traditions (according to Rabbinical literature) bring us only back as far as 70 A.D. the time after the destruction of Jerusalem and there is no evidence in Rabbinical literature of a Seder prior to that.

As for Christian Catholics, that claim runs afoul of Sacred Tradition as, to just cite a few sources, the exegesis complied about the Institution of the Eucharist in, Catena Aurea, teaches us; "But how is our Lord said to sit down, whereas the Jews eat the Passover standing?"

But even more conclusive is this; "Council of Trent (Sess. 22, c. 1): “After Christ had celebrated the ancient Passover, which the multitude of the sons of Israel sacrificed in memory of their going out of Egypt, He instituted a new Passover, that He Himself should be immolated by the Church (ab ecclesia), by means of (per) the priests, under (sub) visible signs, in memory of His passage from this world to the Father, when He redeemed us by the shedding of His Blood, and delivered us from the power of darkness, and translated us to His Kingdom.”

Here is the exegesis of Cornelius a Lapide:

And supper being over, when Satan had put it into the heart of Judas, the son of Simon the Iscariot, to betray Him. After the legal supper and the common supper too, before the Sacred Supper—the institution of the Eucharist—Christ washed the feet of His disciples; for by this washing He wished to show with how great purity and humility we ought to approach the Eucharist. Observe that Christ partook of a triple supper with His disciples, the ceremonial, the ordinary supper, and the Supper of the Eucharist. In families of ample means, the lamb being insufficient to satisfy the hunger of so many persons, there usually followed the ordinary supper, at which they ate other kinds of meat. And so Christ washed the feet of the Apostles after the two former suppers and before the third. And hence it is clear this washing of feet was not merely the ordinary usage of the Jews according to which they were accustomed to wash the feet of their guests, but a sacramental ablution, by which Christ was preparing His disciples for the reception of the Eucharist, converting the ordinary usage into a sacred ceremony. So that they are in error who gather from this passage that Christ washed the feet of His disciples after the Eucharistic Supper and before the lengthy discourse which He then made them, and which is subjoined by John. Of this number is S. Cyprian, or whoever is the author of the “Treatise on the Washing of Feet.” “The Lord,” he says, “had now distributed to the Apostles the Sacrament of His Body; Judas had now gone out; when, rising from the table, He girt Himself with a towel, and at the knees of Peter the Lord Himself, on bended knee, about to wash the feet of His servant, discharged towards him an office of consummate humility.” 

Thank you for keeping me on your mailing list. I appreciate all of your work.

Pax tecum
xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Dear Maureen M.

Maundy Thursday was not a family event and there were no women in attendance.

Where does your claim that women were present come from as that idea is a complete and rupture from Scripture, Magisterial Teaching, and Tradition?

Wishing you a Blessed Eastertide,

xxxxx


O, and she took ABS off of her emailing list and so he now he has to make a real effort to search out her blog and click on it- and who wants to do that when it comes to her and her haughty refusal to admit error.

 It is plain and simple that she prefers the errors of a Lutheran, and others, over the orthodox exegesis compiled by The Universal and Angelic Doctor, St Thomas Aquinas, and the teachings of an infallible council to say nothing about the facts derived from Jewish experts.

So, please, let us talk about it a bit more.

 Ha, ha ha..that is like hearing Barack Obama say he wants a conversation about race. What she really means is, shut up and accept what I say.

So anyways, that is that. ABS has no hard feelings and this is not the first time he has tried to correct an error in private only to be ignored.

C'est la vie.

Tomorrow, some fun with her sources ...