Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
In Christ Alone lyrics
Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;
In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm
What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand
In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save
?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live
There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again
And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ
Head count is meaningless. (Head count elected Obama!)
"Universal Church"
Let me add, meaning no offense to anyone in particular and certainly no one on this thread, that it is unfortunate that on FR over the years, a Roman Catholic poster, or two, has intentionally created the impression that the "catholic" church which +Ignatius referred to is the Roman Catholic Church exclusively. That is either the product of insufficient catechesis coupled with an excess of enthusiasm or an out right lie. I tend to believe the former.
"(You write very well in English and I marvel at your apparent ability to switch seamlessly between the inferior (English) and superior (Greek)."
And all the more marvelous when one remembers that I am merely the simple grandson of simple Greek peasants! :)
"I repeat; "You do know there is a vast difference in the meaning of "catholic" and "Catholic" don't you?
Pretend for the moment that you live in a country where English is the dominant language."
OK. In a religious context, there is still no difference. Sorry.
I don't agree but that's neither here or there. I'll not argue further on this subject.
I'd be interested in your take.
I'd be interested in your take."
Such rich theology! What would you like to know? We call it the Σύμβολον τῆς Πίστεως, the Symbolon tees Pisteos which sort of means the password or watchword of belief
It's not what I'd like to know (I'll not become a Greek Scholar this time around.) :-)
I am much more in agreement with the English language translation of the "Greek" Nicene Creed than I am with the Roman Catholic/Protestant version.
Too bad. The Greek of the Creed is spectacular and every word was very carefully chosen. Did you know, for instance, that the expression "one iota's difference" comes from the First Ecumenical Council when it was noted that the difference between orthodox Christianity and Arianism was "one iota"? "I am much more in agreement with the English language translation of the "Greek" Nicene Creed than I am with the Roman Catholic/Protestant version."
You mean the Creed the Council Fathers came up with at Nicea and Constantinople instead of the Spanish one that great Medieval theologian Charlemagne forced Rome to accept? What do you see as the differences and why do you agree with one and not the other?
I can understand that, although if an Eastern perspective is given (hints being the use of the words such as "Eastern Orthodox" or "Orthodox" or just "Eastern") it is not Latin or Roman Catholic. I usually use catholic (lower case "c") to refer to something common to the early Church, and an upper case "C" for the modern Latin or Roman version of it.
I am aware you frequently speak from the perspective of the Orthodox but you also slip into "Catholic speak
If I am familiar with something I will post it as such, indicating whose perspective it is. At least that is my intention.
Perhaps a disclaimer would help poor old fools such as me understand where you are coming from at a particular time.
I believe I stated in my reply that it was from an Orthodox point of view. That in itself is sui generis a disclaimer .
FWIW I believe the Orthodox Churches have remained much more faithful to the practices of the relatively old Christian practices than that of the Latin variety. That said, I also believe they would be unrecognizeable to the "early" Christian Church
Christianity, or perhaps better said Christ following, was a very heterodox community, meaning there were numerous variants in belief as well as worship. The "orthodox" faction won and became the established, official Christianity, the way the Pharisaical faction of Judaism survived and became the only form of Judaism (the Sadducees disappeared in the 2nd century, the Essenes probably earlier, and the Greek-speaking Alexandrian Jews probably became Christianized early on).
That orthodox community called itself the Catholic Church. The early Catholic Church (late 1st and most of the 2nd century) was Greek not Latin. The worship (eucharistia or thanksgiving) was conducted in Greek even in Rome as late as the third cnetury (at least in part), as described by St. Justin Martyr (c. AD 150).
The oldest liturgy is considered the Liturgy of St. James, allegedly a 1st century organized worship, which mentions readings only from the Old Testament, supposedly because the New Testament hadn't been written yet. It's still in use in some Eastern churches (dedicated to St. James), but everyone agrees that it has been "revised" somewhat and is not the original version.
How much would the earliest Christians recognize the worship of the Eastern churches is debatable. The liturgical worship is not alien to Judaism, including incense, kissing of holy objects, bowing, lighting candles, etc. all of which are part of the catholic worship.
Certainly the idea of liturgical worship did not come from the pagan religions, but from the Jewish roots, and is heavily influenced by the Psalms.
In the Epistle to Smyrneans, one of the seven letters of St. Ignatius considered authentic (the pre-5th century collection), he speaks of the real presence, and all other aspects of the worship common to both Orthodox and Latin Churches. So, at least there is some indication that by 110 AD, if not earlier (i.e. the Judaic elements, as well as the Liturgy of St. James, Didache, etc.) the modern Orthodox/Latin worship contains elements present in the worship of early Christians who would probably not find modern worship utterly unrecognizable.
The development of the Christian liturgy did not come out of nowhere. The Church Fathers were aprt of the same cultural and linguistic makeup that wrote the New Testament and it is precisely form them that we have the evolution of liturgical traditions in the early catholic Church, which are still observed by the East.
aprt=part
Very good, Kosta mou. Off to the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great.
Hmmm....
If the priest is there *offering* the *sacrifice* of Christ, doesn’t that mean he identifies more with the Roman centurions who who nailed Jesus to the cross than with....
whoever????
Bangs head on desk......
We do. But we don't, until we do.....
Just what, then, IS the criteria for what is *good* if it's not the Law?
You think that the Catholic church can just go and make up any old thing it wants, declare it a *good work*, adequate for salvation, outside of what God has stipulated is good and evil?
Good grief, not only has the Catholic church decided that it doesn't need the Bible because it has *tradition* but it appears that it's decided that it doesn't even need God, because it can determine the moral value of works without Him.
Kosta-””The liturgical worship is not alien to Judaism, including incense, kissing of holy objects, bowing, lighting candles, etc. all of which are part of the catholic worship.
Certainly the idea of liturgical worship did not come from the pagan religions, but from the Jewish roots, and is heavily influenced by the Psalms.””
Good post dear Kosta,here is one of my favorite website’s that I use for reference material from Marquette University.
Jewish Roots of Eastern Christian Mysticism
http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/
Lot’s of good stuff that lead me away from being protestant years ago.
It's an opinion, nothing more and nothing less because there is NO legitimate, reliable, testable, repeatable, NO ANYTHING way to verify it.
It doesn't even have the support of Scripture by your own admission. There is NO basis for being able to declare it as fact. None. It's just wishful thinking.
Catholics would be better off if they'd just admit that they teach that Mary was always a virgin because they like the doctrine. It would at least be more honest of them.
But to admit that there is no substantial way to verify something and still claim that is a fact is ludicrous.
Two and a half to three hours of standing...amazingly, one doesn't feel it, even elderly folks stand. In the Tokyo Orthodox Cathedral (popularly known as Nikorai Do, Nikola's House), I watched really old people stand (yes, there are Orthodox Japanese!) through the whole liturgy even though there are always chairs for the old and the indigent.
You know, metmom, being obtuse is an option not an obligation. For someone who claims to have been a Catholic your comments sometimes suggest otherwise.
The liturgy, whether you call it the Mass (Catholic) or the Divine Liturgy (Orthodox) is the reenactment of the Mystery (aka the Last) Supper, as per Jesus' own words. Someone has to make the offering., someone other than the congregation, because Jesus was not "one of the guys" but set apart, commissioned.
The Church sets apart (ordains) people who "hear the call" as the ones who make the bloodless offering instead of Jesus personally, in place of Christ, as an icon of Christ.
That priest, however, is still human, sinful and in need of the Savior and Christ's offer applies to him too..."Eat, all of you, this is my Body..." The priest offers and partakes. What's so offensive, difficult to comprehend or funny about it?
Why do Protestants wave their hands in the air like those Khalimar worshipers in "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom"? Are they making sure God "sees" them? Trying to get his attention?
This is just an illustration how easy it is to ridicule something. I hope the Protestants have a better explanation.
Great link, sfa. Thanks a lot.
Annalex is correct it's not in scripture... rather yet another teaching of Rome that was enlarged to include this once Mary was accepted as the new Goddess...replacing the pagan Goddess who didn't make the cut.
oops...should have made that quote as his.
caww: the ENTIRE knowledge of Mary and her life comes from catholic tradition...and not from the Bible
The entire knowledge of anything to do with Jesus Christ comes from the Hoyl Tradition. Parts of it also are in the scripture otehr parts aren't. There is enough in the Holy Scripture to reasonably conclude that she was sinless all her life, but it not said directly, so I do not attempt.
So then 'anyone' can write their own rendition of the story about Mary and her life, (for that matter any Biblical person), and pass their ideas and imaginations of how they see her on thru the ranks of 'any religion' and call it truth
No, no one can, unless he lived at the same time Mary was on this earth and witnessed her life. You are referring to pious literature. The fact that Mary lived her entire life virgin is not a pious literary product, it is a historical fact.
Even New Agers do this
The difference is historicity of the miracles of Incarnation and Resurrection, and associated events, claimed by Christianity. There are many false religions that have traditions and many false religions that have scriptures. Christianity is alone that claims that her tradition is a historical fact, and therefore the scripture is a historical document, and does so credibly.
Oh WOW....this is just way over the line of Christianity!can you not see what your own words are saying? In stating this you are seriously implying the catholic church ordains saviors other than Christ...."Instead of Jesus". ..or at the very least become their own savior.
Netmom: [posts Galationas 1:1-23 without any comment]
Which part on Galatians 1:1-23 I did not cover in myy post regarding Galatians 1:3-14? Or otherwise is there any reason for your posting it? The entire letter to Galatians, as well as every other book of the New Testament is Catholic teaching.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.