Posted on 04/29/2017 8:02:13 AM PDT by NYer
As we pray for the success of Pope Francis’ trip to Egypt this weekend, a perfect prayer to use is the oldest known Marian prayer, which in fact, traces back to the pope’s host country.
The oldest known Marian prayer is found on an ancient Egyptian papyrus dating from around the year 250. Today known in the Church as the Sub tuum praesidium, the prayer is believed to have been part of the Coptic Vespers liturgy during the Christmas season.
The original prayer was written in Greek and according to Roseanne Sullivan, “The prayer is addressed to Our Lady using the Greek word Θεοτόκος, which is an adjectival form of Θεοφόρος (Theotokos, or God-bearer) and is more properly translated as ‘she whose offspring is God.'” This helps to prove that the early Christians were already familiar with the word “Theotokos” well before the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus ratified its usage.
Below can be found the original Greek text from the papyrus, along with an English translation as listed on the New Liturgical Movement website:
| On the papyrus, we can read: .ΠΟ ΕΥCΠΑ ΚΑΤΑΦΕ ΘΕΟΤΟΚΕΤ ΙΚΕCΙΑCΜΗΠΑ ΕΙΔΗCΕΜΠΕΡΙCTAC AΛΛΕΚΚΙΝΔΥΝΟΥ …ΡΥCΑΙΗΜΑC MONH …HEΥΛΟΓ |
And an English translation could be: Under your mercy we take refuge, Mother of God! Our prayers, do not despise in necessities, but from the danger deliver us, only pure, only blessed. |
More commonly the prayer is translated:
Beneath your compassion,
We take refuge, O Mother of God:
do not despise our petitions in time of trouble:
but rescue us from dangers,
only pure, only blessed one.
Several centuries later a Latin prayer was developed and is more widely known in the Roman Catholic Church:
| Latin Text Sub tuum praesidium confugimus, Sancta Dei Genetrix. Nostras deprecationes ne despicias in necessitatibus nostris, sed a periculis cunctis libera nos semper, Virgo gloriosa et benedicta |
English Text We fly to Thy protection, O Holy Mother of God; Do not despise our petitions in our necessities, but deliver us always from all dangers, O Glorious and Blessed Virgin. Amen. |
The prayer is currently part of the Byzantine, Roman and Ambrosian rites in the Catholic Church and is used specifically as a Marian antiphon after the conclusion of Compline outside of Lent (in the older form of the Roman breviary). It is also a common prayer that has stood the test of time and is a favorite of many Christians, and is the root of the popular devotional prayer, the Memorare.
Catalogue listing at http://www.trismegistos.org/magic/detail.php?tm=64320 for "Manchester, John Rylands Library Gr. 470" (which is our baby-- the initial subject matter of this thread) puts range of dates as AD 450 - 799
There appears to be only one [primary] researcher who asserts yet earlier dating, doing so on rather dubious grounds, for that individual apparently thought he saw;
The preceding [above] truncated & adjusted quote I'd copied from http://pyat.org/2015/01/09/dating-the-sub-tuum-praesidium-is-marian-veneration-apostolic/.
If the polemical note inherent within the opening sentence of that link be set somewhat aside, further down (and where I had lifted the quote) there is copy of what is alleged to be commentary of;
470. CHRISTIAN PRAYER.
Aquired in 1917. 18 x 9.4 cm. ? Fourth century.
PLATE I.
This prayer, written in brown ink on a small sheet of papyrus (the verso is blank), is probably a private copy ; there are no indications that it was intended for liturgical use. The hand, tall, upright, and pointed, with small blobs at the top and bottom of vertical strokes, is of a peculiar type to which I know no exact parallel. The α is of a kind more common in inscriptions than in papyri, and Dr. Bell suggests that the peculiarity of the script might be explained on the ground that it was a model for an engraver.
Mr. Lobel has pointed out to me that the hand resembles somewhat that of the letter of Subatianus Aquila (Schubart, Papyri Graecae Berolinenses, 35; cf. id. Paeleographie, p. 73) with its large and narrow characters; the ο, ι, and to a less extent the ε, are similar in both texts, but the peculiar [hand drawing of character] found in 470 is missing in the other, which on the whole is less decorative. Lobel would be unwilling to place 470 later than the third century. But such individual hands are hard to date, and it is almost incredible that a prayer addressed directly to the Virgin in these terms could be written in the third century. The Virgin was spoken of as Θεοτόκος by Athanasius ; but there is no evidence even for private prayer addressed to her (cf. Greg. Naz. Orat. xxiv. II) before the latter part of the fourth century, and I find it difficult to think that our text was written earlier than that (cf. art. ‘Mary’ in Hastings, Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics). "
If papyrus 470 truly be from mid-third century, as Mr. Lobel was apparently persuaded be in realm of possibility, it's doubtful, barring something more in full explicitly asserting certainty rather than possibility, that the earliest proposed date (AD 250) be among Mr. Lobel's contemplated/accepted latest possible date?
At a time when Islamic fascists are attacking Christians, we still see the same old Catholic/Protestant Christian infighting. Sad.
Have you forgotten that Catholics ARE CHRISTIANS.
Uh....no. You've posted at best a fabrication of the truth.
You will not find anything I've said that would say it's ok to pray to dead saints, including Mary, and that it is based on Scripture.
If anything, I've said quite the opposite and maintain that it isn't acceptable to pray to dead saints and or Mary based on Scripture.
You may want to revisit this thread where you and I had a rather lengthy discussion on this topic.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3530637/posts?page=153#153
Why are you repeating what was just refuted? Do you think this is Catholic answers where th faithful drink up propaganda like water? Once again, "Angels and elders offering up prayers before the judgments of the last days in memorial (Rev. 5:8 and 8:3,4; f. Lv. 2:2,15,16; 24:7; Num. 5:15) is not a continuous postal service, and does not constitute praying to them, or the ability to hear all prayer from Heaven, which is unique to God."
"Praise the Lord, you his angels, you mighty ones who do his bidding, who obey his word." (Psalm 103:20-21)
This is rich, using poetic language goes a long away, for now we can pray to fire and snow, etc.:
"Bless the Lord, all his works in all places of his dominion: bless the Lord, O my soul. (Psalms 103:22) "
Praise the Lord from the earth, ye dragons, and all deeps: Fire, and hail; snow, and vapour; stormy wind fulfilling his word: Mountains, and all hills; fruitful trees, and all cedars: Beasts, and all cattle; creeping things, and flying fowl: (Psalms 148:7-10)
Don't you Catholics realize that the more you desperately try to contrive examples for what the Holy Spirit incongruously did not do with a most common basic practice then you are an argument against being Catholic to us?
You are begging the question, since you have not demonstrated that requesting prayers from created beings is inconsistent with Scriptural principles (in contrast to cannibalism).
Wrong. First, the mere absence of a clear prohibition does not justify teaching something as a doctrine, esp. when it is such a basic practice yet for which there is zero actual examples amid approx 200 prayers, and only God is shown addressed in prayer and in instruction on it, and alone is shown able to hear and respond to all prayer from Heaven. And in the light of what Scripture thus teaches on prayer then it is inconsistent in principle, in which only God is shown addressed in prayer to Heaven, possessing a position and power that belongs to Him in the holy of holies in Heaven. To whom (not ascended saints) the Spirit says believers have access with boldness into by the sinless shed blood of Jesus, (Heb. 10:1) who is the only heavenly intercessor btwn God and man. (1Tim. 2:5)
Nor are we to think of men above that which is written, (1Co. 4:6) who are nowhere shown addressed in prayer to Heaven and able to hear and respond to all such. Thus to make prayers to created beings in Heaven is both foreign to Scripture and contrary to it in principle to what is teaches of God's Divine prerogative, position and power.
Your entire argument pivots around an equation of worship and prayer which is the opposite of what Catholicism explicitly teaches--you are attacking a straw man.
Wrong. First, what Catholicism explicitly teaches is that one can engage in such adulation that is never seen given to any created being, but is only given to God, but which they imagine is not worship based upon semantics , that since they do not call it "Latreia" then it is not worship.
Secondly, regardless of whether one accepts it as part of worship or not, only God is addressed in prayer to Heaven, to whom alone the the Spirit of God directs people to pray to in Heaven, and prays to Himself within believers, while Christ is the only heavenly intercessor named btwn God and man. (1Tim. 2:5)
So your faith is dependent on archaeologists, who are created beings.
Which would prove what? Again, we are all dependent on others, from the webmaster on FR to the Hebrew scribes who copied the sacred texts which the NT church invoked in establishing its truth claims. But being used as an instrument of God simply does not mean that whatever such otherwise said is Truth, which is what distinguishes wholly inspirit Scripture from the instruments such as who copied it, etc. Thus your argument fails here also.
Do you really believe that SS means only Scripture is to be used and is wholly formally sufficient, which thus excludes even reasoning?
That is its implication, and there are prominent Protestant theologians who have taken it in that direction--never entirely consistently, because you can't avoid using reason--which is why the Catholic Church teaches that faith is in harmony with reason.
It is a reasonable faith, and which reason Scripture appeals to, which can make even what would normally seem unreasonable to be reasonable, but the idea that SS means only Scripture is to be used and is wholly formally sufficient, which thus excludes even reasoning is absurd, and basically is a strawman, and which utterly fails to counter what I myself said about the position of Scripture.
Which is mere an argument by assertion for something you cannot show, and the Old Roman Creed does not do it, but Caths have no problem making doctrines out of what is not seen.
I did show you. You can easily compare what's in the Old Roman Creed with what's in the NT and see Paul quoting versions of it. You can also compare Justin Martyr's description of Christian worship with the Catholic and Eastern churches' Mass service, and what the Didache teaches with the Catechism's moral teachings.
Nonsense. You simply cannot show/prove that the oral (versus in word) traditions Paul preached was this, or concerning such a thing as the nature of a women's head covering. Nor can I show/prove that these oral (versus in word) traditions were subsequently written, but i can show that this was the norm for any revelation called the "word of God/the Lord."
But i do understand why this is so important to Catholics, for faced the utter absence of Catholic distinctives in the inspired record of the NT church all they need to do is say these were part of amorphous "oral tradition," out of which they can channel binding beliefs that are not in Scripture and are even lacking in early testimony of history .
Typical abuse of Scripture, for 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 does NOT teach purgatory, for it not only refers to the judgment seat of Christ, which does not take place until the Lord's return, (1Cor. 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:31-46; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4) versus purgatory, which has souls suffering commencing upon death. This alone disqualifies I Corinthians 3 from referring Purgatory, while the suffering is that of the loss of rewards (with the Lord's displeasure), which one is saved despite of, not because of.
It's typical because that's how every early church commentator interpreted the passage--Jerome, Augustine, Origen, Cyprian, Ambrose, Gregory, Theodoret, Rupert.
And what is typical for Catholics is that they simply cannot or will not see what Scripture says if it refute them, and so they look to so-called "church father" who also got it it.
I repeat, 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 does NOT teach purgatory, for it not only refers to the judgment seat of Christ, which does not take place until the Lord's return, (1Cor. 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:31-46; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4) versus purgatory, which has souls suffering commencing upon death. This alone disqualifies I Corinthians 3 from referring Purgatory, while the suffering is that of the loss of rewards (with the Lord's displeasure), which one is saved despite of, not because of.
Your own NAB commentators had enough sense to realize this when they state, "The text of 1 Cor 3:15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this." - http://usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/3#54003015-1
And you meet a personal judgement of your deeds before the Final Judgement, as illustrated in the story of Lazarus and in Revelation where we see a distinction between the first and second deaths. Which as a support for purgatory is a logical fallacy, since mere similarity does not overcome the differences and translate into being the same thing. Moreover, the Final Judgement is only for the lost, and in which believers will be judges. (1Co. 6:3; Jude 1:15; Rv. 20:4)
"Loss of rewards" is part of what's going on there, but fire is also punitive. Certainly it is punitive, for as said, that of "suffer loss" of rewards as combustible workmanship is burned up and on grievously sees displeasure of the Lord whom He dishonored and could have glorified more, but the workmanship is not personal character defects which one is purified from in order to be with the Lord, whom He is actually already with, but instead it is what one built the church with. As shown, the context is people, those who build the church and the manner of material they build it with, upon Christ who is the foundation, and believers are "lively stones". Thus "If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." (1 Corinthians 3:17)
The context also references Jerusalem temple worship and its heavenly archetype--see the reference to the "assembly" in the same passage. As for the verse itself, where do imperfect spirits go, if they're still waiting to enter Heaven?
That was explained, but once again it seems like you are not read thru all my responses. The only type of "purgatory" in Scripture was that of Abraham's bosum, which was not a place of purifying torments," but of comfort, awaiting the time when Christ would led them to Heaven, which is now called paradise. Its there in my response.
I apologize for not answering your reply in more detail, but I was up until 5 a.m. due to trying to keep up with this thread last night, and cannot repeat the same today. I will prayerfully ponder your points and review the links you have supplied. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
I sympathize. I am in my fifth day of the flue at age 64, and today i feel like i finally turned the corner. Thanks be to God.
What kind of perverse analogy is that to kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them?
If you did that to a woman then yes, I would think you were worshiping her, like as devotees of the "dear Leader" in North Korea do.
This is why you must be precise, for what you said was “No Jewish or Christian prayer is ever recorded in Scripture that addresses anyone but God,” but you left out prayer “to Heaven,” thus allowing Caths to invoke communication btwn persons in the same realm as support for praying to them in Heaven, which the Spirit of God only shows being made to God, and Christ as the only heavenly intercessor btwn God and man. (1Tim. 2:5) Thus communication btwn persons in the same realm is not the same thing, but it is all Caths can come up with.
That kind of corruption of the nature of Christ is clearly the work of the enemy and he must be thrilled with the fruit it bore.
I know that’s the image of Christ I was raised with in Catholicism and it’s taken me years to deal with the lop sided view of God and Christ that left me.
True, Jesus was harsh in condemning the phariees in their hypocrisy, but He was incredibly gentle with others, especially children.
Saints are believers. Period.
Whether they are here on earth or in heaven, those redeemed ones are named “saints”. They even were in the OT.
Your point does not support Catholic theology of praying to *Saints* that they have appointed.
I'm amazed anyone who claims the name of Christ would describe the parables of Christ as "concocted."
Which is because Catholics insist that earthly communication or btwn those in the same realm is the same thing as praying to God in Heaven, which is the only prayers we see by believers in all of Scripture, and which is the issue.
The saint carried the request to heaven, the one who prayed remained on earth and called out to the saint, and the prayer was answered from heaven.
And Elijah took his mantle, and wrapped it together, and smote the waters, and they were divided hither and thither, so that they two went over on dry ground. And it came to pass, when they were gone over, that Elijah said unto Elisha, Ask what I shall do for thee, before I be taken away from thee. And Elisha said, I pray thee, let a double portion of thy spirit be upon me. And he said, Thou hast asked a hard thing: nevertheless, if thou see me when I am taken from thee, it shall be so unto thee; but if not, it shall not be so. And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof. And he saw him no more:
Well now that's a new desperate attempt, for it no more shows a believer praying to someone in Heaven then the other attempts to read this into Scripture. For the simple self-evident fact is that the only request that was made, "let a double portion of thy spirit be upon me," was made while both were on earth.
. Nor is the exclamation as by Elisha as he saw Elijah ascend, "My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof" a prayer to him in Heaven.
And there is nothing about taking this request to Heaven, but instead as a prophet Elijah foretold that Elisha would receive the double portion of his spirit "if thou see me when I am taken from thee." The request was to Elijah (who had the power to bind and to loose), as one with the power to convey the Spirit, and there was no need or inference of any prayer being taken to Heaven, but only a prophetic promise. Moreover, nowhere are prayers show being actually taken to Heaven by anyone from earth.
Yet somehow you must read this like "if thou see me when I am taken from thee, i shall make request for you in Heaven and it shall be so," which reading is compelled by the need to compel Scripture to support what is nowhere teaches, despite prayer being such a basic common practice that the Holy Spirit provides approx. 200 prayers to Heaven, and despite only pagans being shown to pray to created beings in Heaven, and despite and manifesting the division btwn Heaven and earth with only God being shown able to hear and respond to all prayer from Heaven.
By desperately trying to read into Scripture what the Holy Spirit could have and would have easily exampled but does not then you insult Him!
Do you agree that The beggar Lazarus, the unnamed rich man, and “Father Abraham” were real men and not a fable concocted for the Pharisees ?
And as a claim, it is ridiculous on its face. Two people in the same realm do not pray to each other. They simply talk.
Claims by catholics that turn conversations in the same realm into "prayers" demonstrate there is no evidence to support the idolatry of praying to departed saints.
**It’s good Trinitarian theology if you think about it for a bit.**
It’s not good theology to declare the Son to be God, separate from the Father.
**Mary was bearing the incarnate, second person of the Trinity. Otherwise, Jesus was not God. And we know He was. “The Word was with God, and the Word was God.”**
Even the Son declared that the Father was the divine power that dwelled him, and he in the Father.
Show me where the Father is not present when looking at the Son.
I am still awaiting your proof that they were real and these events happened - as you claim.
I do not need to disprove your truth claim, since real or parable, they do not demonstrate prayer.
I leave you to wallow in redefining words and trying to pass off a conversation as prayer.
It is rare for the Roman Catholic to identify as a Christian.
Yet so much of what we see in Roman Catholicism is not found in the NT as we have discussed at length in this, and many other threads.
Let us also not forget the Inquisition.
The tone expressed by some Catholics toward non-Catholics on these threads suggests they would like to reinstate the Inquisition. Maybe to greater effect.
????
Allow me to address this diversion (since parable or not, there is no prayer being made to Heaven here).
1. While in some discourses the Lord only taught in parables, (All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:" Matthew 13:34), and Lk. 15 and 16 contain such, yet this does not necessarily mean that all the illustrations used were necessarily only didactic fiction, and could not refer to real persons or events. Unlike the sower and the seed (Luke 8:4); the prosperous farmer (Luke 12:16); the barren fig tree (Luke 13:6); and the wedding feast (Luke 14:7) the story of Luke 16:19-31 is not called a parable 9though that lack itself does not mean it is not). 2. However, in no parable are any actual names mentioned, whereas in Lk. 16:19-31 we have two individuals named.
3. Most significantly, parables are true-to-life stories in which a know earthly realities are used which correspond to spiritual realities, but which never use science fiction. But in Luke 16:19-31 we have a story of a man who is conscious after death and in torments in a real place, which is contrary to what annihilationists believe and who deny the literal character of this story (such try to make this account into being a parable in which the beggar represents the contrite Gentile believers and the rich man represents the Pharisaical Jews), and thus a man who is conscious after death and in torments would be science fiction.
4. Even if one believes in eternal torment, making the two parties here to be representative of Gentiles and Jews is strained, and while they do represent the saved versus the lost (whom Luke elsewhere describes as being materially over-indulgent and complacent), yet i think it is too detailed (and in its details) to merely be a parable.
As another commentator states,
a parable must be a true-to-life story in order for it to have any meaning to those who hear it. To try to use a fanciful story containing elements that have no basis to the world in which men and women live would only serve to confuse people rather than providing them with spiritual light. ..
When we come to the account of the rich man and Lazarus, we find a situation different from what is found in any of the parables....
The hearers of this story could follow the contrast between these two men right up to the moment of their deaths. At that point, however, the situation changes drastically. The outcome was something that they could not relate to any life situations that they had ever witnessed. The state and location of the departed soul was beyond their life experiences, or what is commonly known to be true by experience. The circumstances described go beyond the realm of the parable. That does not mean that it isn’t a true-to-life story, however. Physical death is a natural part of the life experience of all mankind, but what takes place afterward is hidden from those who have not yet experienced it. In this account of a beggar and a rich man, the Lord was revealing the reality of what takes place following physical death to drive home an important truth. We should mention at this point that even if it was a parable, the place referred to as Abraham’s bosom and the account of what took place in there would have to be based on reality for it to have any meaning.
Following are some reasons that this should be considered a history of two real men and not a parable.
More : https://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/the-rich-man-and-lazarus-luke-1619-31/
Well how many divisions do the Protestants have? 30,000? Give me a break!
....So talking about the past, I will simply move along and put you on posting ignore.
Well how many divisions do the Protestants have? 30,000? Give me a break!
....So talking about the past, I will simply move along and put you on posting ignore.
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.