There's something about Mary.......

[Standing Up]

We know that the 27 books of the NT are Scripture because the early Church told us it is so.

This keeps being said. The fact is we clearly know that Peter says Paul's letters are scripture. We also know that Paul calls at least Luke scripture.

Even Athanasius in 367 conceded that the 27 books were already given and already divine.

No Council did that. They rubber stamped what was already known and then claimed the authority for it .

The Church got a letter from Paul and passed it around. In that sense, they knew what it was. They got a letter from Peter saying it was scripture. Why do folks fight against Peter so much? The gates of hell will not prevail.

 

[Thekla]

Thanks again.

So far, we've seen that Purgatory and intercession from the deceased apparently arose out of Jewish oral tradition and incorporated into the Church.

Are there other similar examples of that? Some easy ones are the clergy/laity split, levitical-type priests, not to open those worm cans, but what others come to mind?

We haven't the teaching of purgatory in the east, nor have I ever heard (or been taught) that the priest is anything but a member of the laity with a particular 'job' (as per Paul's description of the various roles and gifts).

As for the "Levitical type priests", by this do you mean presbyteros or iereus, or something else ?

Finally, I am unsure what you mean by "arose from and incorporated into" ...

I did want to mention (instead of making a separate response) that I did respond to your post on the "Sub Tuum", though it occurs on an earlier page and may have been missed.

 

[Thekla]

I may be missing something, but why is the 'filioque' and matters of taxis being discussed in a thread about the Theotokos

 

[Standing Up]

I may be missing something, but why is the 'filioque' and matters of taxis being discussed in a thread about the Theotokos

Kinda like canonization. It's used as an argument, but hasn't to do with the point.

Back to subject.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

They are no longer walking among us . They are now in the very Presence of the One who called them.

The better to intercede for us.

Paul does talk about a cloud of witnesses while he is talking about faith. Can you tell me though what they are witnesses to?

They are witnesses to the faith -- martyrs (μαρτύρων -- martyron)

Τοιγαροῦν καὶ ἡμεῖς, τοσοῦτον ἔχοντες περικείμενον ἡμῖν νέφος μαρτύρων, ὄγκον ἀποθέμενοι πάντα καὶ τὴν εὐπερίστατον ἁμαρτίαν, δι' ὑπομονῆς τρέχωμεν τὸν προκείμενον ἡμῖν ἀγῶνα,

Ideoque et nos tantam habentes impositam nubem testium, deponentes omne pondus, et circumstans nos peccatum, per patientiam curramus ad propositum nobis certamen:

And therefore we also having so great a cloud of witnesses over our head, laying aside every weight and sin which surrounds us, let us run by patience to the fight proposed to us:

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

There is only one who forever lives to intercede for us. That is Christ Jesus my King. We do not read anywhere in the canon that those who pass from this life to the next live to intercede for us. But we do read that Jesus does.

Read that line in context:

For he testifieth: Thou art a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech. There is indeed a setting aside of the former commandment, because of the weakness and unprofitableness thereof: (For the law brought nothing to perfection,) but a bringing in of a better hope, by which we draw nigh to God. And inasmuch as it is not without an oath, (for the others indeed were made priests without an oath; but this with an oath, by him that said unto him: The Lord hath sworn, and he will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever.) By so much is Jesus made a surety of a better testament. And the others indeed were made many priests, because by reason of death they were not suffered to continue: But this, for that he continueth for ever, hath an everlasting priesthood, whereby he is able also to save for ever them that come to God by him; always living to make intercession for us.

For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; who needeth not daily (as the other priests) to offer sacrifices first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, in offering himself. For the law maketh men priests, who have infirmity: but the word of the oath, which was since the law, the Son who is perfected for evermore.

Does this passage say that Christ is the only one who prays? Certainly not! That would be quite contrary to a multitude of other passages. Does this passage say that Christ is the only one who prays for other people? Certainly not! That would also be quite contrary to a multitude of other passages.

This passage concerns Christ as our High Priest. Christ is Priest in the most full sense of the word. Those we call "priests"/"presbyters" (whose priesthood is limited) and "bishops" (who are high priests) are His ministers in the priesthood -- God acts through people.

He shows that he is the true priest, because the others were prevented by death from continuing, because all must die. Hence, when Aaron died, Eleazar succeeded, as is clear from Numbers (20:28) and so on. For as we notice in natural things, which are signs of spiritual things, incorruptible things are not multiplied under the same species; hence, there is but one sun: so in the spiritual things in the Old Testament, which was imperfect, the priests were multiplied. This was a sign that the priesthood was corruptible, because incorruptible things are not multiplied in the same species. But the priest who is Christ is immortal, for He remains forever as the eternal Word of the Father, from Whose eternity redounds an eternity to His body, because 'Christ rising from the dead, dies now no more' (Rom. 6:9). Therefore, because he continues forever, he holds his priesthood permanently. Therefore, Christ alone is the true priest, but others are His ministers: 'Let a man so account of us as the ministers of Christ' (1 Cor. 4:1).

Christ's priesthood did not end with the Passion, He continues "a priest for ever". What is the intercession that Christ makes for us? His Passion only happened once in time but His Wounds did not disappear when He was raised, as we read:

Now Thomas, one of the twelve, who is called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said to him: We have seen the Lord. But he said to them: Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.

And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Jesus cometh, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said: Peace be to you. Then he saith to Thomas: Put in thy finger hither, and see my hands; and bring hither thy hand, and put it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing. Thomas answered, and said to him: My Lord, and my God. Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.

What do we see in the Heavenly Liturgy?

And I saw: and behold in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the ancients, a Lamb standing as it were slain, having seven horns and seven eyes: which are the seven Spirits of God, sent forth into all the earth.

So Christ is living, yet also "standing as [He] were slain". Christ sacrificed Himself once on Calvary, but it does not end there. He applies His Passion throughout the ages, "whereby he is able also to save for ever them that come to God by him", by presenting His Holy Wounds to the Father.

The Council of Trent clearly defined the Mass as such:

Et quoniam in divino hoc sacrificio, quod in missa peragitur, idem ille Christus continetur et incruente immolatur, qui in ara crucis semel se ipsum cruente obtulit ... Una enim eademque est hostia, idem nunc offerens sacerdotum ministerio, qui se ipsum tunc in cruce obtulit, sola offerendi ratione diversa.

And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner who once offered himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross ... For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different.

The prophet Malachi speaks of the Christian Mass:

For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.

A "clean oblation" is in contrast to a "bloody oblation". In the Jewish Temple, there were three forms of sacrifice -- the sacrifice of praise, the sacrifice of bread and wine, and the sacrifice of blood. In the Mass, the three forms are brought together in unity.

We have the sacrifice of praise:

Orate, fratres: ut meum ac vestrum sacrificium acceptabile fiat apud Deum Patrem omnipotenem.

R: Suscipiat Dominus sacrificium de manibus tuis ad laudem et gloriam nominis sui, ad utilitatem quoque nostram, totiusque Ecclesiae suae sanctae.

Brethren, pray that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the Father Almighty.

R: May the Lord receive the sacrifice from thy hands for the praise and glory of His name, for our welfare and that of all His holy Church.

The priest is the one who has the sacrificial authority to say the Mass and to speak in persona Christi -- "This is my Body", "This is my Blood". But we are a holy priesthood. The priesthood of all believers is not contrary to the sacerdotal priesthood or the singular Priesthood of Christ. We as lay people are also priests, after a manner, because we offer up the sacrifice of praise on our home altars.

(This is not my altar, just one from the internet. I haven't set one up since I moved back in with my parents at the beginning of November so I just have religious items around my room. It's much, much better to have an altar and a steady prayer life through the Rosary and the Divine Office - I feel so uncentered without an altar)

If so be you have tasted that the Lord is sweet. Unto whom coming, as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen and made honourable by God: Be you also as living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. ... But you are a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people: that you may declare his virtues, who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Who in time past were not a people: but are now the people of God. Who had not obtained mercy; but now have obtained mercy.

We ourselves are a sacrificial offering to God through our prayers and our lives and, God willing, our deaths.

Offer to God the sacrifice of praise: and pay thy vows to the most High. ... The sacrifice of praise shall glorify me: and there is the way by which I will shew him the salvation of God.

By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise always to God, that is to say, the fruit of lips confessing to his name. And do not forget to do good, and to impart; for by such sacrifices God's favour is obtained

----

The sacrifice of bread and wine is quite obvious. Christ takes the Jewish sacrifice of bread and wine and fulfills it in the Eucharist with His Body and Blood.

Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat. Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world. They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread. And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.

The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread. Behold Israel according to the flesh: are not they, that eat of the sacrifices, partakers of the altar?

We become the Body of Christ and partake of the altar through participation in Holy Communion -- the Body and Blood of Christ.

---

The third part is the bloody sacrifice. This is what happened on Calvary.

(This was from the Epistle reading today...)

And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath delivered himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odour of sweetness.

For Christ our pasch is sacrificed. Therefore let us feast.

The three sacrifices of the Jewish Temple -- praise, bread/wine, and blood -- are united in the Mass. Christ sacrificed Himself on Calvary, He presents His Wounds before the Father to apply His Passion in all ages and we participate in this re-presentation through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and receive Him under the veil of the Eucharistic elements in order to become the Body of Christ and present ourselves as a living sacrifice to God (cf. Rom 12:1).

So when you say that Christ lives forever to intercede for us, that is quite true, but it is the manner of intercession -- the re-presentation of His Wounds to the Father -- that is of critical importance to understanding what St. Paul is saying in the Epistle to the Hebrews. There is one Sacrifice of Christ and we all must join our sacrifice, our crosses, to His in the Mass and throughout our lives in order for them to be acceptable to God.

False sacrifices to God, which are apart from the only truly acceptable Sacrifice, are "strange fire" before the Lord:

And Aaron shall burn sweet smelling incense upon it in the morning. When he shall dress the lamps, he shall burn it: And when he shall place them in the evening, he shall burn an everlasting incense before the Lord throughout your generations. You shall not offer upon it incense of another composition nor oblation, and victim, neither shall you offer libations.

And behold a fire, coming forth from the Lord, devoured the holocaust, and the fat that was upon the altar: which when the multitude saw, they praised the Lord, falling on their faces. And Nadab and Abiu, the sons of Aaron, taking their censers, put fire therein, and incense on it, offering before the Lord strange fire: which was not commanded them. And fire coming out from the Lord destroyed them, and they died before the Lord.

The sons of Aaron did not use the fire of God which He had provided them but instead used "strange fire". This would be like if Abraham had refused the ram in the thicket and found something else to sacrifice instead. God gives us what we need to sacrifice to Him.

Moses said: Thou shalt give us also sacrifices and burnt offerings, to the Lord our God. All the flocks shall go with us: there shall not a hoof remain of them: for they are necessary for the service of the Lord our God: especially as we know not what must be offered, till we come to the very place.

We are not the ones who can make up sacrifices for God, only God allows those sacrifices to Him which He has specified and that which He has specified, He shall provide.

Isaac said to his father: My father. And he answered: What wilt thou, son? Behold, saith he, fire and wood: where is the victim for the holocaust? And Abraham said: God will provide himself a victim for an holocaust, my son. So they went on together.

God Himself provides the Holocaust. He provides His only Son. Christ, the True Sacrifice, continually intercedes for us before the Father, not by words alone but by presenting to the Father His Wounds. We must participate in Christ's Sacrifice in order to become Christ and thus be saved.

Let us rejoice, then, and give thanks that we are made not only Christians, but Christ. Do ye understand, brethren, and apprehend the grace of God upon us? Marvel, be glad, we are made Christ. For if He is the head, we are the members: the whole man is He and we.

So no true sacrifice, no true prayer, nothing which is ordered to God is separated from the Sacrifice of Christ.

And he hath subjected all things under his feet, and hath made him head over all the church, which is his body, and the fulness of him who is filled all in all.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

I also wanted to point out that the Church is offered up as a sacrifice in the Mass through the use of incense. The offerings of the Eucharistic elements are incensed and the altar but also the people. I did not make clear the identification of prayer and incense.

In the Heavenly Liturgy:

And another angel came, and stood before the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar, which is before the throne of God. And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel.

Zecharias meets an angel standing at the right side of the altar of incense (identified as St. Michael in the Mass):

And it came to pass, when he executed the priestly function in the order of his course before God, according to the custom of the priestly office, it was his lot to offer incense, going into the temple of the Lord. And all the multitude of the people was praying without, at the hour of incense. And there appeared to him an angel of the Lord, standing on the right side of the altar of incense.

Here are the prayers at the incensing of the offerings (in English for brevity and clarity):

May the Lord, by the intercession of blessed Michael the Archangel, who standeth at the right side of the altar of incense, and of all His elect, vouchsafe to bless this incense and receive it as an odor of sweetness; through Christ our Lord. Amen.

May this incense, which Thou hast blessed, O Lord, ascend to Thee, and may Thy mercy descend upon us.

(Ps. 140:2-4)
Let my prayer, O Lord, be directed as incense in Thy sight: the lifting up of my hands as an evening sacrifice. Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth, and a door round about my lips. Incline not my heart to evil words: to make excuses in sins.

May the Lord enkindle within us the fire of His love, and the flame of everlasting charity. Amen.

Prayer and incense necessarily go together. That is why I try to get good incense for my altar and burn it as I say the Offices.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

I may be missing something, but why is the 'filioque' and matters of taxis being discussed in a thread about the Theotokos

I brought up "filioque" as a point of contention between the East and West, yet with a proper understanding, the contention dissolves. This was a response to Standing Up's statement to Anglian that the the different Apostolic Churches believe different things (that they "drew different lines"). My point is that there is nothing of real substance different in our understanding of the Faith once delivered to the Apostles. Even the Nestorian Church has signed joint declarations of faith on Christology.

At least half the problems seem to arise, as St. Maximillian the Confessor points out in the passage I quoted (or perhaps right after that, I don't want to go back and look...), with translation issues. He points out that the contention with filioque is really a contention over the proper Greek translation of the Latin word procedit, which can translate into two different Greek words -- one problematic, one orthodox.

Similarly, the word hypostases as used by the Greeks was contended against by the Latins, who originally translated it as substantia. While they both mean "to stand beneath", the implications differ and so the Latins accused the Greeks of heresy, saying that the Three Persons were of different "substances". The preferred Latin word was personae (hence the English "Persons"). Likewise, in the Christological contentions, the Nestorian Church (Assyrian Church of the East) argued against the Greeks and Latins, preferring their own word qnome to refer to each of Christ's "natures".

Thus the three sacred languages on the Cross -- Hebrew, Greek and Latin (Syriac is a Semetic language, so it connects) -- don't always translate well between each other. Language barriers, miscommunication and ignorance/prejudice has caused more contention between the Apostolic Churches than has anything of real substance.

Thus, Standing Up is wrong to say that he can re-create a more pure system of Christianity through his re-creations of what he thinks that the early Church was like. It is not a matter of "these people stop here", "those people stop there", that is to suppose that the Church is a dead thing. It is also to suppose that the faith could change, as though it were not set in stone. The Deposit of Faith (Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition) are certainly concrete. But the way in which that faith is applied to the present situations is what makes the Church a living organism, the Body and Bride of Christ. The Church can never be a set of dogmas apart from the Apostolic faith because then it would be a work of the flesh and not of the spirit, a work of man and not of God. The Liturgy is the union of the work of God and the work of the people.

I hope you get what I am trying to say. However, I have no idea what you mean by "taxis"

 

[laconicstudent]

YouTube - Palm Sunday Matins - The Censing

YouTube - Botafumeiro en la misa del peregrino

YouTube - Let my prayer be set before You as incense

YouTube - At WCC Assembly in Brazil - backstage

YouTube - St. Anthony the Great Orthodox Church - Paschal Divine Liturgy 2009 - Censing

YouTube - Presanctified Liturgy - Saint George Greek Orthodox Church

Psalm 141.2

2Let my prayer be set forth before thee as incense; and the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice.

 

[Coralie]

Originally Posted by Standing Up

Not sure what you are when you go to Church.
​

Coralie--I don't know what you mean by this... I'm hoping you aren't trying to say that I'm not a Christian when I go to Church...

Heavens no. Wouldn't have said sister if I'd have thought that.

I just thought it an interesting distinction you made.

I'm glad I misunderstood.

I guess the thing is, I wasn't distinguishing anything-- when I say "I am just a Christian in my daily life", I include "being in Church" under "daily life".

Anyway, I see you are asking for more comments on the Sub Tuum, which I included in my last post.

I also think of you as my brother. I hope one day we can understand one another fully.

 

[prodromos]

They are no longer walking among us . They are now in the very Presence of the One who called them.

Every year on the feast day of St Spyridon, his incorrupt body is carried in a procession around the parish of the church in which his body usually rests. After all of this is finished there is one more thing that is done. His footwear is replaced with new slippers because his old ones have completely worn out, witness to the much traveling done by the saint as he visited sick all over the world, bringing about healing through his intercessions.
For this reason he is known as "The Walking Saint".

John

 

[Anglian]

We know that the 27 books of the NT are Scripture because the early Church told us it is so.

This keeps being said. The fact is we clearly know that Peter says Paul's letters are scripture. We also know that Paul calls at least Luke scripture.

And you know that Peter's epistle here is by St. Peter how? Much modern Biblical scholarship would query that identification? So, when it comes down to it you only know what is Scripture by the testimony of the same Church which practised marian veneration and intercesssory prayer. That is how the canon and this thread are linked - through the Church which gave us both.

That same Church you seem to think of as corrupt. So, was it corrupt when it gave us scripture in the fourth century, or when it began to practice Marian veneration at some unknown date before this? Of course, if you could cure yourself of the myth that the gates of hell prevailed against the Church, you would not have a problem at all

Even Athanasius in 367 conceded that the 27 books were already given and already divine.

There is no 'even' and no 'concession' on the saint's part. He stated what the Church in Alexandria had long taught.

No Council did that. They rubber stamped what was already known and then claimed the authority for it .

Perhaps banging your head so often hasn't helped you see no one has claimed anything else

The Church got a letter from Paul and passed it around. In that sense, they knew what it was. They got a letter from Peter saying it was scripture. Why do folks fight against Peter so much? The gates of hell will not prevail.

Yes, this is how tradition works. But some Churches knew nothing of the letters of James, Jude or II Peter, so who was it decided that all Churches should receive them as genuine? Some Churches included 1 Clement, Barnabas and Hermas, who was it decided that these should be excluded? Many Churches did not receive the Apocalypse of St. John.

In all of these vexed matters it was the tradition of the Church as expressed through Bishops like St. Athanasius which spoke; yes, you guessed it, that same tradition which practised what you reject, Marian veneration and intercessory prayer.

There's not much point your keep saying that James and Stephen were not prayed for, as we just don't know that; you might as well say that there's no relying on II Peter because no one ever mentions it in the Gospels; or like saying that since Luke, who worked with St. Paul, doesn't so much as mention him in his Gospel, we shouldn't credit St. Paul at all; or that, since no one knows who wrote Hebrews, we should reject it.

The fact is that the books of the NT are that because the Church decided they were; the same Church which practised intercessory prayer. You take the illogical and inconsistent position of accepting one thing and rejecting the other. drawing arbitrary personal lines in the sand and sayng: 'This I accept because the Church was not corrupt then, but this I don't because it was then' might even lead to rejecting the Nicene Creed itself.

There is no knowing how many babies you will throw out if you throw out that much bath water.

peace,

Anglian

 

[prodromos]

Photios I of Constantinople (+893, Saint to the EO) attacked the West for the insertion of the word Filioque into the Creed, saying that it constituted heresy. But two centuries earlier, St. Maximus the Confessor (+662) spoke rightly when he explained:

[T]hey (the Romans) have produced the unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the sacred commentary he composed on the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit -- they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession; but [they use this expression] in order to manifest the Spirit’s coming-forth (προϊένα&#953 through him and, in this way, to make clear the unity and identity of the essence….

The Romans have therefore been accused of things of which it is wrong to accuse them...

When we say, "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" -- "Who proceeds from the Father and the Son" we mean nothing new or different from the Eastern Churches (including both those in communion with Rome and those apart) when they do not include that word. We mean simply that "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son" which is attested to by Holy Scripture and uncontested.

It may have been possible for St Maximus to defend the expression "filioque" in the creed at the time, but the declarations by the Council of Florence have amply demonstrated that he could no longer do so today.
Personally, I don't understand how declaring that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son, would do anything to bolster the argument of Christ's divinity against the Arians of Spain. It seems to me they intended pretty much what was stated at Florence and that is a huge point of contention.

John

 

[Thekla]

I brought up "filioque" as a point of contention between the East and West, yet with a proper understanding, the contention dissolves. This was a response to Standing Up's statement to Anglian that the the different Apostolic Churches believe different things (that they "drew different lines"). My point is that there is nothing of real substance different in our understanding of the Faith once delivered to the Apostles. Even the Nestorian Church has signed joint declarations of faith on Christology.

At least half the problems seem to arise, as St. Maximillian the Confessor points out in the passage I quoted (or perhaps right after that, I don't want to go back and look...), with translation issues. He points out that the contention with filioque is really a contention over the proper Greek translation of the Latin word procedit, which can translate into two different Greek words -- one problematic, one orthodox.

Similarly, the word hypostases as used by the Greeks was contended against by the Latins, who originally translated it as substantia. While they both mean "to stand beneath", the implications differ and so the Latins accused the Greeks of heresy, saying that the Three Persons were of different "substances". The preferred Latin word was personae (hence the English "Persons"). Likewise, in the Christological contentions, the Nestorian Church (Assyrian Church of the East) argued against the Greeks and Latins, preferring their own word qnome to refer to each of Christ's "natures".

Thus the three sacred languages on the Cross -- Hebrew, Greek and Latin (Syriac is a Semetic language, so it connects) -- don't always translate well between each other. Language barriers, miscommunication and ignorance/prejudice has caused more contention between the Apostolic Churches than has anything of real substance.

Thus, Standing Up is wrong to say that he can re-create a more pure system of Christianity through his re-creations of what he thinks that the early Church was like. It is not a matter of "these people stop here", "those people stop there", that is to suppose that the Church is a dead thing. It is also to suppose that the faith could change, as though it were not set in stone. The Deposit of Faith (Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition) are certainly concrete. But the way in which that faith is applied to the present situations is what makes the Church a living organism, the Body and Bride of Christ. The Church can never be a set of dogmas apart from the Apostolic faith because then it would be a work of the flesh and not of the spirit, a work of man and not of God. The Liturgy is the union of the work of God and the work of the people.

I hope you get what I am trying to say. However, I have no idea what you mean by "taxis"

Thanks

Does Latin not have separate words for "and" and "through" ?

By 'taxis' I mean Church organization.

 

[Standing Up]

Back to an example of supposed 'request for prayer'---

Originally Posted by Standing Up

The date of copy is disputed.

Two translations:

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.

Beneath thy mercy,
we take refuge, O Virgin Theotokos:
disdain not our supplications in our distress,
but deliver us from perils,
O only pure and blessed one.

Where exactly is the request for prayer?
​

Not missed. It is apparently not in a form (poetic, of a much earlier era) that you are familiar with.

To pray for another requires compassion from the other, likewise it is merciful to pray for another. To pray for another - to even 'stand in the gap' and pray to God on behalf of another - is an act of mercy and compassion, is sheltering. Her prayers for others (as are yours, for ex.) are an act borne of love, compassion, mercy, sheltering. The prayers of the righteous are strong (see the Epistle of James). To be pure and blessed in the sight of God is equated with righteousness. (Likewise, the prayers of Moses are strong.) The use of the term "only" is a poetic rendering, used as a superlative or emphatic. We are delivered by the prayers of others; we are exhorted to pray for others.

Understood the intercession.

Now where exactly is that request in the sub tuum? IOW, it looks not like this: Thekla, please pray for me. But like this, I take refuge under Thekla.

Beneath thy (Thekla) mercy we take refuge. Instead of per the Psalms, we take refuge under God.

 

[Thekla]

Back to an example of supposed 'request for prayer'---

Originally Posted by Standing Up

The date of copy is disputed.

Two translations:

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.

Beneath thy mercy,
we take refuge, O Virgin Theotokos:
disdain not our supplications in our distress,
but deliver us from perils,
O only pure and blessed one.

Where exactly is the request for prayer?
​

Understood the intercession.

Now where exactly is that request in the sub tuum? IOW, it looks not like this: Thekla, please pray for me. But like this, I take refuge under Thekla.

Beneath thy (Thekla) mercy we take refuge. Instead of per the Psalms, we take refuge under God.

I explained in my previous post; if there is a particular statement in my post that doesn't make sense, let me know and I will try to give a better explanation.

As a parallel, the Psalmist also attests that the Jews were shepherded by the hands Moses and Aaron, yet Christ is the true shepherd.

Likewise, God looks for one who will "stand in the gap" (Ezekiel 22); the Psalmist attests that Moses did "stand in the gap" (in this case interceded - Psalm 106). Also in Psalm 106, the Psalmist records that Phineas pleaded with God on behalf of the Jews - and the plague was stopped.

Allof these (shepherding, interceding, pleading) are forms of sheltering. Moses interceded for God's mercy - which is itself an act of mercy.

 

[Standing Up]

I explained in my previous post; if there is a particular statement in my post that doesn't make sense, let me know and I will try to give a better explanation.

As a parallel, the Psalmist also attests that the Jews were shepherded by the hands Moses and Aaron, yet Christ is the true shepherd.

Likewise, God looks for one who will "stand in the gap" (Ezekiel 22); the Psalmist attests that Moses did "stand in the gap" (in this case interceded - Psalm 106). Also in Psalm 106, the Psalmist records that Phineas pleaded with God on behalf of the Jews - and the plague was stopped.

Allof these (shepherding, interceding, pleading) are forms of sheltering. Moses interceded for God's mercy - which is itself an act of mercy.

Again, understand the 'stand in the gap'.

Where is that in the sub tuum?

Psalm 106, take refuge in the LORD. Versus, sub tuum, take refuge in Mary.

 

[Thekla]

Again, understand the 'stand in the gap'.

Where is that in the sub tuum?

Psalm 106, take refuge in the LORD. Versus, sub tuum, take refuge in Mary.

It is another way to say the same thing - poetic language.

Take refuge in her intercessions. Through the entreaty/intercession of Phineas, the Jews were sheltered from the plague.

 

[Standing Up]

It is another way to say the same thing - poetic language.

Take refuge in her intercessions. Through the entreaty/intercession of Phineas, the Jews were sheltered from the plague.

Not talking about that stuff, but about this example c250-350 of a prayer to Mary. Where is the intercession, as opposed to the stopping at Mary?

Beneath Mary's compassion
The petitioners take refuge, Mother of God.
Don't despise our petitions in troubled times here on earth.
Rescue us Mary from dangers.
(you can do it because you) Mary is the only pure and the only blessed one.


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.

Beneath thy mercy,
we take refuge, O Virgin Theotokos:
disdain not our supplications in our distress,
but deliver us from perils,
O only pure and blessed one.

 

[Thekla]

Not talking about that stuff, but about this example 250-350 of a prayer to Mary. Where is the intercession, as opposed to the stopping at Mary?

It's not different "stuff".

How else can Mary assist, except by prayer ?

There is not an explicit delineation; Mary is not God, and Christians know that all that is good comes from God. That God is uncreated, that Mary is created.

You assume that this is 'stopping at Mary', but have missed that Christians indeed know the difference between God and what He has created.

Were the Jews sheltered by the intercessions of Phineas ?