Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Great Schism of 1054
Holy Trinity Website ^ | Unknown | Bishop Kallistos Ware

Posted on 07/06/2003 6:31:26 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181 next last
To: Hermann the Cherusker
Maybe you miss point, when there was One Church, there was no POPE, there was patriarch of Rome. And they were from GREEK rite...again, little points you seem to miss.
141 posted on 07/08/2003 9:09:45 AM PDT by RussianConservative (Hristos: the Light of the World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: RussianConservative
when there was One Church, there was no POPE
"...O arch-shepherd of the church... save us now... For if they, usurping an authority which does not belong to them, have dared to convene a heretical council, whereas those who follow ancient custom do not even have the right of convening an orthodox one without your knowledge, it seems absolutely necessary, we dare to say to you, that your divine primacy should call together a lawful council, so that the Catholic dogma may drive out heresy and that your primacy may neither be anathematized by these new voices lacking authority... It is in order to obey your divine authority as chief pastor that we have set forth these things as it befitted our nothingness..." - St. Theodore the Studite to Pope Leo III [PG 99: 1017-21]

"... O apostolic head, divinely established shepherd of Christ?s sheep, doorkeeper of the heavenly kingdom, rock of the faith on which the Catholic Church has been built. For you are Peter-- you are the successor of Peter, whose throne you grace and direct... To you did Christ our God say, "When you have been converted, strengthen your brethren." Now is the time and the place: help us, you who have been established by God for that purpose..." St. Theodore the Studite to Pope Paschal [PG 99: 1152-3]


142 posted on 07/08/2003 9:12:50 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: RussianConservative

143 posted on 07/08/2003 9:14:51 AM PDT by RussianConservative (Hristos: the Light of the World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
Call him what want, he was not head of unified church, was subservant to Ecomunical Councils...after 1054 they become "overlords" of Church, minus other half of Christiandom.
144 posted on 07/08/2003 9:16:06 AM PDT by RussianConservative (Hristos: the Light of the World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
St. Methodius worked in Moravia and Pannonia (Hungary), not Bohemia.

Christianity was introduced by saints Cyril and Methodius while Bohemia was part of the great Moravian empire, from which it withdrew at the end of the century to become an independent principality. St. Wenceslaus , the first great Bohemian ruler (920-29), successfully defended his land from Germanic invasion; but his brother, Boleslav I (929-67), was forced to acknowledge (950) the rule of Otto I, and Bohemia became a part of the Holy Roman Empire. The Bohemian principality retained autonomy in internal affairs, however. Later Pemyslide rulers acquired Moravia and most of Silesia .

Note well that he worked as commanded by the Pope.

After working among the Khazars , they were sent (863) from Constantinople by Patriarch Photius to Moravia (remember, while Bohemia was part of Moravia). This was at the invitation of Prince Rostislav, who sought missionaries able to preach in the Slavonic vernacular and thereby check German influence in Moravia.

145 posted on 07/08/2003 9:16:43 AM PDT by katnip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: RussianConservative
St Theodore the Studite was born in 759 and died in 826. Now, where does that put him on your map?

146 posted on 07/08/2003 9:19:23 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
Naturally, you are forced to resort to the writings of mere men to support Rome's preposterous claims.

Let's illuminate the canons of Rome against the true light and steady guide of scripture, our sure and unfailing guide.



            IMMACULATE CONCEPTION --  Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin from the first instant of her conception. (Catechism 490-492).

            In Luke 1:46-47, Mary said: “My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour”.   Mary knew that she needed a savior.

            The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was first introduced by a heretic (a man whose teachings were officially declared to be contrary to Church doctrine).  For centuries this doctrine was unanimously rejected by popes, Fathers and theologians of the Catholic Church.

            ALL-HOLY -- Mary, “the All-Holy,” lived a perfectly sinless life.  (Catechism 411, 493)

            Romans 3:23 says “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God”.   Revelation 15:4 says, “Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name?  For thou only art holy”.  Romans 3:10 says, “There is none righteous, no, not one”.

            Jesus is the only person who is referred to in Scripture as sinless.  Hebrews 4:15 says, “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feelings of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”  2  Corinthians 5:21 says, “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”  1  Peter 2:22 says, Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth”.

            In contrast, Mary said that God is her Savior. (Luke 1:47)  If God was her Savior, then Mary was not sinless.  Sinless people do not need a Savior.

            In the Book of Revelation, when they were searching for someone who was worthy to break the seals and open the scroll, the only person who was found to be worthy was Jesus.  Nobody else in Heaven or on earth (including Mary) was worthy to open the scroll or even look inside it. (Revelation 5:1-5)

            PERPETUAL VIRGINITY -- Mary was a virgin before, during and after the birth of Christ. (Catechism 496-511)

            Matthew 1:24-25 says, “Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.”  “Till” (until) means that after that point, Joseph did “know” (have sexual relations with) Mary.  (See Genesis 4:1 where Adam “knew” Eve and she conceived and had a son.)

            Jesus had brothers and sisters.  The Bible even tells us their names.  Matthew 13:54-56 says,

“And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hatch this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?  Is not this the carpenter’s son?  Is not his mother called Mary?  And his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?  And his sisters, are they not all with us?”

Other Scripture verses which specifically refer to Jesus’ brothers are:  Matthew 12:46; John 2:12; John 7:3; Acts 1:14; and Galatians 1:19.

            I was always taught that “brothers” and “sisters” were general terms that really could refer to any kind of kinsman, including cousins.  This is true in the Hebrew language.  However, the New Testament is written in Greek, which is an extremely precise language.  It makes a clear distinction between the words used to describe family relationships.  There is a Greek word which refers to people who are relatives but not of the immediate family, such as aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces and cousins.  There are other Greek words which refer specifically to a person’s brother or sister within a family.

            MOTHER OF GOD -- Because she is the mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God, therefore Mary is the Mother of God. (Catechism 963, 971, 2677).

            The Incarnation means that Jesus was both fully God and fully man.  Mary was only the mother of Jesus as man, and not the mother of Jesus as God.  According to the Bible, the world was created through Jesus.  This was long before Mary was born.  Hebrews 1:1-2 says,

“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds”.

Colossians 1:16-17 says,

“For by him [Jesus] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things [including Mary] were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things [including Mary] , and by him all things consist”.

            John 8:58 says, “Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am.” Jesus existed before Abraham was born.  That means that He also existed before Mary was born.  In John 17:5, Jesus says, “And now O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.”  So Jesus existed even before the world began.  Jesus came first -- not Mary.

           

            MOTHER OF THE CHURCH -- Mary is the Mother of the Church. (Catechism 963, 975).

            Acts 1:13-14 gives a picture of a group of people praying together.  Mary is mentioned as one of them, but nothing indicates any special prominence.

“And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Phillip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.  These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.”

<![if !supportEmptyParas]>

            Mary was probably in the Upper Room when the tongues of fire fell upon the 120 disciples.  However, she is never mentioned again in the Book of Acts, which is our only historical record of how the Church was born.   She is also not specifically identified in the epistles.  Paul did send greetings to “Mary”, but that was a common name.  (In the Gospels and in the Book of Acts, she is referred to as “Mary the mother of Jesus” to distinguish her from other women named Mary.)

            It is notable that John, who took Mary into his home after Jesus was crucified, does not mention her in his epistles, and he only mentions her on two occasions in his Gospel (the wedding at Cana and the crucifixion of Jesus).  John mentions Mary Magdalene more than he mentions Jesus' mother.

            ASSUMPTION -- At the end of her life, Mary was taken up (“assumed”)  body and soul into Heaven. (Catechism 966, 974)

            There is no biblical reference to the assumption of Mary.  The Gospel of John was written around 90 A.D., which is more than 100 years after Mary was born.  (Surely Mary was more than ten years old when Jesus was conceived.)  If Mary had been supernaturally assumed into Heaven, wouldn’t John (the disciple that Mary lived with) have mentioned it?  When Enoch and Elijah were taken up to Heaven, the Bible recorded it.  With Elijah it was recorded in some detail.  (See Genesis 6:24 and 2 Kings 2:1-18.)

            The Assumption of Mary was officially declared to be a dogma of the Roman Catholic faith in 1950.  This means that every Roman Catholic is required to believe this doctrine without questioning it.  However, as we will see, the teaching of the Assumption originated with heretical writings which were officially condemned by the early Church.

            In 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius issued a decree which rejected this teaching as heresy and its proponents as heretics.  In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics those authors who taught the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary.  The early Church clearly considered the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary to be a heresy worthy of condemnation.  Here we have “infallible” popes declaring something to be a heresy.  Then in 1950, Pope Pius XII, another “infallible” pope, declared it to be official Roman Catholic doctrine.

            CO-MEDIATOR -- Mary is the Co-Mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions. (Catechism 968-970, 2677) 

            There is only one mediator and that is Jesus.  1 Timothy 2:5-6 says, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus: Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.”   Hebrews 7:25 says,Wherefore he [Jesus] is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.”  Ephesians 3:12 says, “In whom [Jesus} we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.”

            If Jesus is constantly interceding for us and He is able to save us “to the uttermost,” (utterly, completely)  then He doesn’t need Mary’s help.  If we can approach God with “boldness” and “confidence”  because of our faith in Jesus, then we don't need Mary’s help either.

            QUEEN OF HEAVEN -- God has exalted Mary in heavenly glory as Queen of Heaven and earth. (Catechism 966)  She is to be praised with special devotion.  (Catechism 971, 2675)

            Psalm 148:13 says, “Let them praise the name of the Lord: for his name alone is excellent; his glory is above the earth and heaven.”  This makes it quite clear that only God’s name (not Mary’s) is to be exalted.  (In Catholic Bibles the numbering of the chapters and verses of some of the Psalms is slightly different.)

            When people tried to give Mary special honor and pre-eminence because she was His mother, Jesus corrected them.

“And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.  But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.”  (Luke 11:27-28)

            In chapters four and five of the Book of Revelation, we are given a quite detailed picture of Heaven.  God is seated on the throne, surrounded by 24 elders and four living creatures.  The Lamb (Jesus) is standing in the center of the throne.  Thousands upon thousands of angels circle the throne, singing God's praises.  And Mary is not in the picture at all.




Mary, pope and priests: this is your faith in modern times. It is the choice of your hierarchy. No Orthodox or Protestant forced this upon you.
147 posted on 07/08/2003 9:45:06 AM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
There is a very simple proof of the reality of the Assumption. The body and relics of Holy Mary are not to be found in any ancient Church, be it Roman Catholic, Eastern, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or the Church of the East.

Simple-minded is a more apt description. Should we then assume that any prophet or holy person in the Bible was similarly miraculously transported to heaven merely because we do not have (or claim to have) their remains?

Only in the Holy Rosary. In the Holy Mass and the Breviary, the ratio is quite reversed.

But the rosary is offered as a get-out-of-jail-free card since Mary will come free you from purgatory on the Saturday night following your death if you faithfully practiced the rosary. No such promise has been claimed for devotion to Mass.
148 posted on 07/08/2003 9:56:02 AM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
YOU are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT...it is a "Holy Mystery".

We Orthodox don't feel like we have to be legalistic and define every single iota of our faith like you Latins seem compelled to do on every ocasion.

We simply accept things on faith.
149 posted on 07/08/2003 10:44:26 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861 ("believing in the 7 Ecumenical Councils!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
Without going into details, I will simply state I disagree with a portion of your statements....
150 posted on 07/08/2003 10:50:20 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861 ("believing in the 7 Ecumenical Councils!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
Excuse me, George:

Don't bring Orthodox into your statement...we venerate the Mother of God at every Liturgy, and with the exception of certain dogmatic differences, we AGREE with the Romans on most things about the Virgin Mary.

We are NOT Protestants, and don't agree with their beliefs
151 posted on 07/08/2003 10:55:15 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861 ("believing in the 7 Ecumenical Councils!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
I do not suggest that the Orthodox are Protestants. But I have never seen the sort of doctrinal extremism among the Orthodox that I see in the Roman church. I consider the Orthodox to have avoided the most serious erros of the Roman church. They have a far greater reverence for scripture, for instance.
152 posted on 07/08/2003 11:04:46 AM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
You are correct there...

We do have a great reverence for the Holy Scriptures, and myself personally, as I was raised a Southern Baptist...

But, as I have stated earlier, there was much which wasn't included in the Canon of Scripture, which is valuable for teaching, and also the Protestants choose to ignore the Apochrypha, which WAS in the Canon....the English Puritans just decided on their own not to include them.
153 posted on 07/08/2003 11:16:59 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861 ("believing in the 7 Ecumenical Councils!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
Heck, Luthern talked from dropping Mathews and Revolations.
154 posted on 07/08/2003 11:22:36 AM PDT by RussianConservative (Hristos: the Light of the World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861; RussianConservative
RussianConservative: Heck, Luthern talked from dropping Mathews and Revolations.

Yes, Luther had his opinions, perhaps best-known for his calling of James an 'epistle of straw'. I think it raised difficulties for his theology and that caused his intemperate remarks about James. Like Luther, but even more so, Jerome held a disparaging view of Revelation and its place in the canon. Calvin said nothing about Revelations but, perhaps a bit tellingly, did not produce a scriptural commentary on its contents.

So we can regard many as holding various opinions on the canon. Let's look at some ancient Fathers:
Athanasius
(b. 296)

Origen
(b. 185)

Irenaeus
(b. 130)

Marcion*
(b. 85)

Matthew Matthew Matthew
Mark Mark Mark
Luke Luke Luke Luke
John John John
Acts Acts Acts
Romans Romans Romans Romans
1 Corinthians 1 Corinthians 1 Corinthians 1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians 2 Corinthians 2 Corinthians 2 Corinthians
Galatians Galatians Galatians Galatians
Ephesians Ephesians Ephesians Ephesians
Philippians Philippians Philippians Philippians
Colossians Colossians Colossians Colossians
1 Thessalonians 1 Thessalonians 1 Thessalonians 1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy 1 Timothy 1 Timothy
2 Timothy 2 Timothy 2 Timothy
Titus Titus Titus
Philemon Philemon Philemon Philemon
Hebrews Hebrews Hebrews
James James James
1 Peter 1 Peter 1 Peter
2 Peter 2 Peter 2 Peter
1 John 1 John 1 John
2 John 2 John 2 John
3 John 3 John 3 John
Jude Jude Jude
Revelation** Revelation Revelation

*Marcion's views were peculiar to his sect. He was aware of the fact that many of the other books were read as scripture in most churches.

**The Revelation of John was first received and then rejected by many churches in Asia Minor.
If you wish, I could assemble a more comprehensive list of ancient Fathers and their opinions, both positive and negative on both the canon and particularly their views on the worthiness of the Apocrypha.

TexConfederate1861: But, as I have stated earlier, there was much which wasn't included in the Canon of Scripture, which is valuable for teaching, and also the Protestants choose to ignore the Apochrypha, which WAS in the Canon....the English Puritans just decided on their own not to include them.

To begin with, the Apocrypha were never recognized as scripture by any western church until the Council of Trent in 1546. What status the East accorded them is beyond my knowledge; googling shows that there were several canons of the Old Testament. However, there certainly was never a time prior to 1546 when the Apocrypha were granted any scriptural standing in the West. Therefore, one can make no claim that they were included in the sacred canon from ancient times, namely, that period when Rome and the East still enjoyed a substantial unity. I suspect that the Orthodox still maintain the original wall against the Apocrypha being considered scripture just as they did at the time of the Council of Hippo. They seem to regard the Apocrypha as holy books worthy of study but not divinely inspired scripture if my impression is correct.

Perhaps it would be useful to look at the sources of the traditional NT canon. Athanasius, the man most responsible for assembling a full canon, endorses all of the above books as belonging to the canon. Notice the ommissions by other great authorities. So we might forgive Luther's little frustrations with a few books that ruined his relentlessly systematic and characteristically German theology.

In his 39th Festal Letter as bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius for the first time publishes a list of the canon of NT scripture. He sharply divides the true canon from the apocryphal. He concludes his list of the canon with the following observation:
Continuing, I must without hesitation mention the scriptures of the New Testament; they are the following: the four Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, after them the Acts of the Apostles and the seven so-called catholic epistles of the apostles -- namely, one of James, two of Peter, then three of John and after these one of Jude. In addition there are fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul written in the following order: the first to the Romans, then two to the Corinthians and then after these the one to the Galatians, following it the one to the Ephesians, thereafter the one to the Philippians and the one to the Colossians and two to the Thessalonians and the epistle to the Hebrews and then immediately two to Timothy , one to Titus and lastly the one to Philemon. Yet further the Revelation of John These are the springs of salvation, in order that he who is thirsty may fully refresh himself with the words contained in them. In them alone is the doctrine of piety proclaimed. Let no one add anything to them or take anything away from them... But for the sake of greater accuracy I add, being constrained to write, that there are also other books besides these, which have not indeed been put in the canon, but have been appointed by the Fathers as reading-matter for those who have just come forward and which to be instructed in the doctrine of piety: the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobias, the so-called Teaching [Didache] of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. And although, beloved, the former are in the canon and the latter serve as reading matter, yet mention is nowhere made of the apocrypha; rather they are a fabrication of the heretics, who write them down when it pleases them and generously assign to them an early date of composition in order that they may be able to draw upon them as supposedly ancient writings and have in them occasion to deceive the guileless.
With regard to the Orthodox church, Athanasius also has a few interesting and little-known tidbits of history. During the preliminaries of the establishment of the canon, Athanasius made some comments that the Eastern church insisted that the book of Hebrews be included. Given the devastating applicability of the teachings in, for instance, Hebrews 10 to the claims of the Roman church, we have good reason to be glad for the prudence of the Eastern church to correctly insist on its inclusion.

But Athanasius is probably most justly famous for quelling the major Arian heresy of the fourth century. And he won the battle against Arianism without inventing a filioque!!!
155 posted on 07/08/2003 12:44:02 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush; MarMema
Should we then assume that any prophet or holy person in the Bible was similarly miraculously transported to heaven merely because we do not have (or claim to have) their remains?

Yes. And I say this not just about Enoch and Elijah who were translated to heaven, and Moses, whom St. Michael the Archangel took possession of (Jude 9), but many, if not all of the Old Testament Saints. Cf. Matthew 27.52 and Ephesians 4.6-8.

Christ at his Ascension took the Saints of the Old Testament times to heaven, having awaken them from their graves at his Crucifixion and Resurrection. Or do you believe that some men die TWICE? (Cf. Hebrews 9.27)

But the rosary is offered as a get-out-of-jail-free card since Mary will come free you from purgatory on the Saturday night following your death if you faithfully practiced the rosary. No such promise has been claimed for devotion to Mass.

You're confusing the wearing of the Scapular with the recitation of the Rosary. Our Lady promised those who devoutly wore the Brown Scapular that they would spend no more than a week in Purgatory. As for Holy Mass, devout participation in it with frequent worthy reception of Our Lord in Holy Communion is a sure way to heaven with no stops in Purgatory, because reception of Holy Communion remits venial sins and temporal punishments. I can tell you all about our pious beliefs regarding this if you need it, but quite simply, its all based on John 6 - "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall have no life within you."

156 posted on 07/08/2003 1:19:45 PM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
When you have some time, I'd be curious to know what you do disagree with. Maybe you could write me privately about it.
157 posted on 07/08/2003 1:24:15 PM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
Our Lady promised those who devoutly wore the Brown Scapular that they would spend no more than a week in Purgatory. As for Holy Mass, devout participation in it with frequent worthy reception of Our Lord in Holy Communion is a sure way to heaven with no stops in Purgatory, because reception of Holy Communion remits venial sins and temporal punishments.

You know, some would say that this comprises a salvation by works.
158 posted on 07/08/2003 1:28:03 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
George:

Be careful when quoting Marcion and Origen....Both were heretics.....

You are correct about the Council of Trent, but the Orthodox use the same Canon of Scripture as the RC's....though, yes in the same context you mention.

The "Didache" is the basis for most of the Early Church Canon Law, both for Latins and Orthodox.
159 posted on 07/08/2003 1:31:48 PM PDT by TexConfederate1861 ("believing in the 7 Ecumenical Councils!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
Doesn't devoutly wearing the brown scapular have also as one of the conditions the recitation of the rosary, or is there another promise concerning the scapular?

"You at least try to console me. Announce in my name that I promise to help at the hour of death, with the graces needed for salvation, whoever on the First Saturday of five consecutive months shall:

1. Confess and receive Holy Communion;

2. Recite five decades of the Rosary;

3. Keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary, with the intention of making reparation to me."

160 posted on 07/08/2003 1:32:56 PM PDT by Aliska
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson