[DouglasKC]

I think what you are saying only makes sense in the context of when to celebrate Easter. There was a dispute for many years about that. In the end, the decision was to focus on Friday as the day on the cross and Sunday as the day of resurrection. The text itself leaves the matter open

I think you're correct that those are the decisions that were made. But I think the text speaks for itself when put into the context of the early Christian church observing the biblical holy days.

[Mad Dawg]

. But I think the text speaks for itself when put into the context of the early Christian church observing the biblical holy days.

I always get hooked by stuff like that.

How is that any different from saying, "I think the text says what I think it says?"

Some of us DON'T think the text says, suggests, or implies that the Mass is to be celebrated only once a year. So what in the texts can we turn to, in your opinion?

Or should we look outside the text to determine the practice of the early Church?

And two questions follow:
(1) are there texts which describe the Church's practice before the accommodation with the Gentiles of Acts 15?
(2)Is there any reason the practice of the early Church, especially that before the events of Acts 15, should be a standard to which we should conform? Where shall we find that recommendation or rule?

[RobbyS]

In that context and in the context of two thousand years.