What are we really supposed to do?

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,191
5,710
49
The Wild West
✟476,419.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
I am; but you are the king.

I appreciate the compliment, but my hope is to organize a liturgical community of interest here among members who know a great deal about the liturgy. Also @PsaltiChrysostom knows more about it than I do, at least the Byzantine Rite.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,191
5,710
49
The Wild West
✟476,419.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
This line of thinking doesn't make sense since Scripture says The Church is The Authority.

This is true. Now there are Protestant ecclesiological models that address this and recognize the Church as such, albeit interpreted differently than Catholic ecclesiology or the most common form of Orthodox ecclesiology. Some of these are preferable to others; I am not a huge fan of the Invisible Church ecclesiology, but rather prefer those Protestant models which, like the Orthodox and Catholic ecclesiologies, are Eucharistic and centered around the communion in the church.
 
Upvote 0

Rescued One

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me
Dec 12, 2002
35,529
6,408
Midwest
✟80,125.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
-
God does not have to say that His church is invisible, that is an obvious observation, especially in this contemporary time period.

Being a member of a church is no sign or guarantee, that a person has believed in Jesus for God's free gift of Eternal Life and is a born again child of God.
Do you think we determine who is Christian by their fruits? I'm curious because many people claim to be saved by faith but how can someone tell if they are?
 
Upvote 0

d taylor

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2018
10,732
4,737
59
Mississippi
✟251,743.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Do you think we determine who is Christian by their fruits? I'm curious because many people claim to be saved by faith but how can someone tell if they are?

Well that is a hard call. Because a person may believe in Jesus, that is they may believed He lived and died on the cross, etc.. But the question is do they understand how The Bible defines belief in Jesus. Which is to believe He, Jesus is the resurrection and the life (for people), that Jesus is the promised Messiah/the only begotten Son of God.

Now if a person does understand The Bibles definition of belief in Jesus and has believed in Jesus. That can not be determined by fruits. As the parable of the sower shows, out of the three believers only one bore much fruit. The third soil bore some fruit but the world drew this person away and the second soil bore no fruit.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Rescued One

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me
Dec 12, 2002
35,529
6,408
Midwest
✟80,125.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Well that is a hard call. Because s person may believe in Jesus, that is they may believed He lived and died on the cross, etc.. But the question is do they understand how The Bible defines belief in Jesus. Which is to believe He, Jesus is the resurrection and the life (for people), that Jesus is the promised Messiah/the only begotten Son of God.

Now if a person does understand The Bibles definition of belief in Jesus and has believed in Jesus. That can not be determined by fruits. As the parable of the sower shows, out of the three believers only one bore much fruit. The third soil bore some fruit but the world drew this person away and the second soil bore no fruit.
Thank you. That's not very helpful though. I don't know who is a Christian; there are more that three people on this planet. The Bible says that we will know them by their fruits.
 
Upvote 0

d taylor

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2018
10,732
4,737
59
Mississippi
✟251,743.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Thank you. That's not very helpful though. I don't know who is a Christian; there are more that three people on this planet. The Bible says that we will know them by their fruits.

Are you sure it is believers that verse you are speaking of is talking about. Because a verse from Matthew states a believer will know false prophets by their fruits.

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?
 
Upvote 0

Rescued One

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me
Dec 12, 2002
35,529
6,408
Midwest
✟80,125.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Are you sure it is believers that verse you are speaking of is talking about. Because a verse from Matthew states a believer will know false prophets by their fruits.

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?
Well. how can Christians be identified? Are they not grafted to the Vine? The Vine is Christ.
 
Upvote 0

d taylor

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2018
10,732
4,737
59
Mississippi
✟251,743.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Well. how can Christians be identified? Are they not grafted to the Vine? The Vine is Christ.

God knows all who has believed in Jesus for God's free gift of Eternal Life.
As for each believer knowing who is actually a believer. That is something a believer really can not know for 100%. All a believer can know is, if a person says they have believed in Jesus, then this person has to be taken at their statement, that they have believed in Jesus.

Now if a person says they believe in Jesus, but what they say they believe about is, Jesus was a real person and lived and did die on a cross.

That is not the same as saying i believe in Jesus for Eternal Life. Because this belief is believing that Jesus is the resurrection and the life, The promised Messiah/The only begotten Son God (Messiah and Son of God are interchangeable titles/names)
 
Upvote 0

Rescued One

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me
Dec 12, 2002
35,529
6,408
Midwest
✟80,125.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
God knows all who has believed in Jesus for God's free gift of Eternal Life.
As for each believer knowing who is actually a believer. That is something a believer really can not know for 100%. All a believer can know is, if a person says they have believed in Jesus, then this person has to be taken at their statement, that they have believed in Jesus.

Now if a person says they believe in Jesus, but what they say they believe about is, Jesus was a real person and lived and did die on a cross.

That is not the same as saying i believe in Jesus for Eternal Life. Because this belief is believing that Jesus is the resurrection and the life, The promised Messiah/The only begotten Son God (Messiah and Son of God are interchangeable titles/names)
Okay. I guess since I am not God, when I meet people at church, I can't know. What is the reason for attending church?
 
Upvote 0

d taylor

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2018
10,732
4,737
59
Mississippi
✟251,743.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Okay. I guess since I am not God, when I meet people at church, I can't know. What is the reason for attending church?

Well back in The Bible when the church was begging, it was to assemble together as like minded believers and for new believers to be correctly grounded in instruction for their growth.

Now there are many reasons people attend church. Some like to sing in the choir or have fellow ship with people, many families like attending with their children, to have a mostly moral place to fellowship in.

Some may find it is good for their business to attend a church or make business contacts. Many people like that chuches have charities and they like to be involved in that type of activity. The list can go on and on as to why people attend church.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Rescued One

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me
Dec 12, 2002
35,529
6,408
Midwest
✟80,125.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Well back in The Bible when the church was begging, it was to assemble together as like minded believers and for new believers to be correctly grounded in instruction for their growth.

Now there are many reasons people attend church. Some like to sing in the choir or have fellow ship with people, many families like attending with their children, to have a mostly moral place to fellowship in.

Some may find it is good for their business to attend a church or make business contacts. Many people like that chuches have charities and they like to be involved in that type of activity. The list can go on and on as to why people attend church.
I have trouble communicating my questions. I know that individuals have various reasons. But the Bible says, "Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together." I've not found people friendly in most churches. And some people believe you are sinning if you don't attend. I don't have transportation; that's an insurmountable problem unless you belong to a cult.
 
Upvote 0

d taylor

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2018
10,732
4,737
59
Mississippi
✟251,743.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
I have trouble communicating my questions. I know that individuals have various reasons. But the Bible says, "Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together." I've not found people friendly in most churches. And some people believe you are sinning if you don't attend. I don't have transportation; that's an insurmountable problem unless you belong to a cult.
-
I stopped going to church several years ago, I am a single person never married and just was tired of the same ole same. Each Sunday go seek out your pew spot and go through the same ole routine each Sunday.
 
Upvote 0

Rescued One

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me
Dec 12, 2002
35,529
6,408
Midwest
✟80,125.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
-
I stopped going to church several years ago, I am a single person never married and just was tired of the same ole same. Each Sunday go seek out your pew spot and go through the same ole routine each Sunday.
Okay. You understand that not everyone fits the expected mold.
 
Upvote 0

JSRG

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2019
1,445
826
Midwest
✟161,101.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
This was the best attribution I could find from here:

"This excerpt from a homily written in the second century by an anonymous Early Church Father (Cap. 13, 2-14, 5: Funk 1, 159-161) speaks of what it means to honor and blaspheme the name of Jesus Christ and his body, the Church. This excerpt is read in the Roman Office of Readings on Thursday in the 32nd week in Ordinary Time. The accompanying biblical reading is taken from Daniel 9:1-4, 18-27."
Vague as that citation offered by that page was (which was fairly obviously copied), I managed to use it to figure it out, so thanks for providing it. It turns out it's from the Second Epistle of Clement. The name "Second Epistle of Clement" is actually inaccurate given that it wasn't by Clement (though for a while it was attributed to him, hence the name) and it isn't an epistle, but rather an anonymous sermon. This is presumably why the Liturgy of the Hours used the more accurate statement of "a homily written in the second century". Unfortunately, it also made it way harder than it should have been to figure out where it was from; I wish it had said it was from "a homily written in the second century attributed to Clement" which keeps things reasonably accurate and makes it easier to figure out where it's from.

Anyway, it's Chapters 13 and 14 of the work (the quote in the opening post from the Liturgy of the Hours omits a little of the start of Chapter 13). The Second Epistle of Clement can be read in its entirety here, albeit in a different translation:

In case anyone is wondering the convoluted process that led to me figuring this all out (and it was very convoluted), I'll include it here.

The mention of the Office of Readings was the first step. Thankfully someone has it all available online. The Thursday of the 32nd Week of Ordinary time (for this year, anyway) can be found here. Scroll down to "second reading" and you'll see it. It says it's "from a homily written in the second century."

Unfortunately, it gives no further information about who wrote this homily, nor what "(Cap. 13, 2-14, 5: Funk 1, 159-161)" is. Sometimes weird citations like that are just taken from older books, so I searched for the phrase in Google Books and something that popped up was a printed version of Liturgy of the Hours. It was in snippet view so I couldn't see much other than that it was in it and apparently listed as the source of a reading, but the good news is that the work in question was available--in full--on The Internet Archive, although it requires you to get a free account to read it. You can find it here.

Looking at some other readings listed, it appears the first part of the citation refers to the chapter/verse of the work being cited. For example, on page 56 we see a reading that it says is from the Epistle of Barnabas ("Epistle attributed to Barnabas" is what it says), which it cites as: "Cap. 1. 1-8; 2, 1-5: Funk 1, 3-7)." And if we look at chapter 1 and chapter 2 of the Epistle of Barnabas, we can see that the context lines up perfectly (although the linked translation omits verse numbers). Page 326 offers a portion from Polycarp's letter to the Philippians, and cites it as "Cap. 9, 1-11, 4: Funk 1, 275-279". And we can see its content in chapters 9-11 of the letter (available here).

Unfortunately, that ultimately left me no closer to figuring out where this homily is from or can be found (knowing where in the homily the excerpt is from is not useful if I don't know where the homily is!), or any information on what the "Funk" is supposed to mean. So in a bit of random desperation, I just thought to search the Catholic Encyclopedia for "Funk" (that is, search "site:newadvent.org/cathen funk") to see if maybe it was someone important, and I find there was a guy named Franz Xaver von Funk. I looked into a list of his works (his Wikipedia page lists them more conveniently than the Catholic Encyclopedia does) and figured that what was probably in mind was "Opera Patrum apostolicorum, 2 vols., 1878–1881; 2nd ed., 1901." (as it specifies it has two volumes and the title indicates it would contain early works).

Here we find page 159 in the original edition. Remember that the citation given was "(Cap. 13, 2-14, 5: Funk 1, 159-161)". And what do you know, page 159 contains chapter 13, or XIII as they write in the Latin. The quotation says "Cap. 13, 2-14", so we see what we get in the second verse of Chapter 13, which reads in the Latin:

"Dicit enim etiam Dominus: Omnino nomen meum blasphematur in omnibus gentibus, et iterum: Vae illi, propter quem blasphematur nomen meum."

I'm citing the Latin rather than the Greek (the work includes the Greek original and a Latin translation) because it's way easier to type up and I know Latin better than Greek. I know enough Latin to recognize this as the quote (and even if I didn't, it can be confirmed by popping this into an automated translator--Latin to English machine translation is far from perfect, but is leagues ahead of it where it was a few years ago). And this ends up answering the "Cap. 13, 2-14, 5". It's saying it's 13:2 to 14:5 (I was very puzzled for a while, thinking it was saying there were fourteen verses in chapter 13, even though there are only four). Anyway, with the fact it says "II Clementis Ad. Cor." at the top of the page, I recognize it as the Second Epistle of Clement.

And thus the mystery is solved! I told you it was a convoluted process. Most of the above was actually being typed up by me while I was trying to figure it out, as I didn't think I'd end up finding the answer and just wanted to share the information I did find for other people's benefit, but then I ended up solving it.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: tz620q
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tz620q

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 19, 2007
2,677
1,048
Carmel, IN
✟575,116.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Vague as that citation offered by that page was (which was fairly obviously copied), I managed to use it to figure it out, so thanks for providing it. It turns out it's from the Second Epistle of Clement. The name "Second Epistle of Clement" is actually inaccurate given that it wasn't by Clement (though for a while it was attributed to him, hence the name) and it isn't an epistle, but rather an anonymous sermon. This is presumably why the Liturgy of the Hours used the more accurate statement of "a homily written in the second century". Unfortunately, it also made it way harder than it should have been to figure out where it was from; I wish it had said it was from "a homily written in the second century attributed to Clement" which keeps things reasonably accurate and makes it easier to figure out where it's from.

Anyway, it's Chapters 13 and 14 of the work (the quote in the opening post from the Liturgy of the Hours omits a little of the start of Chapter 13). The Second Epistle of Clement can be read in its entirety here, albeit in a different translation:

In case anyone is wondering the convoluted process that led to me figuring this all out (and it was very convoluted), I'll include it here.

The mention of the Office of Readings was the first step. Thankfully someone has it all available online. The Thursday of the 32nd Week of Ordinary time (for this year, anyway) can be found here. Scroll down to "second reading" and you'll see it. It says it's "from a homily written in the second century."

Unfortunately, it gives no further information about who wrote this homily, nor what "(Cap. 13, 2-14, 5: Funk 1, 159-161)" is. Sometimes weird citations like that are just taken from older books, so I searched for the phrase in Google Books and something that popped up was a printed version of Liturgy of the Hours. It was in snippet view so I couldn't see much other than that it was in it and apparently listed as the source of a reading, but the good news is that the work in question was available--in full--on The Internet Archive, although it requires you to get a free account to read it. You can find it here.

Looking at some other readings listed, it appears the first part of the citation refers to the chapter/verse of the work being cited. For example, on page 56 we see a reading that it says is from the Epistle of Barnabas ("Epistle attributed to Barnabas" is what it says), which it cites as: "Cap. 1. 1-8; 2, 1-5: Funk 1, 3-7)." And if we look at chapter 1 and chapter 2 of the Epistle of Barnabas, we can see that the context lines up perfectly (although the linked translation omits verse numbers). Granted, the citations can be a little weird here. Page 326 offers a portion from Polycarp's letter to the Philippians, and cites it as "Cap. 9, 1-11, 4: Funk 1, 275-279". And we can see its content in chapters 9-11 of the letter (available here).

Unfortunately, that ultimately left me no closer to figuring out where this homily is from or can be found (knowing where in the homily the excerpt is from is not useful if I don't know where the homily is!), or any information on what the "Funk" is supposed to mean. So in a bit of random desperation, I just thought to search the Catholic Encyclopedia for "Funk" (that is, search "site:newadvent.org/cathen funk") to see if maybe it was someone important, and I find there was a guy named Franz Xaver von Funk. I looked into a list of his works (his Wikipedia page lists them more conveniently than the Catholic Encyclopedia does) and figured that what was probably in mind was "Opera Patrum apostolicorum, 2 vols., 1878–1881; 2nd ed., 1901." (as it specifies it has two volumes and the title indicates it would contain early works).

Here we find page 159 in the original edition. Remember that the citation given was "(Cap. 13, 2-14, 5: Funk 1, 159-161)". And what do you know, page 159 contains chapter 13, or XIII as they write in the Latin. The quotation says "Cap. 13, 2-14", so we see what we get in the second verse of Chapter 13, which reads in the Latin:

"Dicit enim etiam Dominus: Omnino nomen meum blasphematur in omnibus gentibus, et iterum: Vae illi, propter quem blasphematur nomen meum."

I'm citing the Latin rather than the Greek (the work includes the Greek original and a Latin translation) because it's way easier to type up and I know Latin better than Greek. I know enough Latin to recognize this as the quote (and even if I didn't, it can be confirmed by popping this into an automated translator--Latin to English machine translation is far from perfect, but is leagues ahead of it where it was a few years ago). And this ends up answering the "Cap. 13, 2-14, 5". It's saying it's 13:2 to 14:5 (I was very puzzled for a while, thinking it was saying there were fourteen verses in chapter 13, even though there are only four). Anyway, with the fact it says "II Clementis Ad. Cor." at the top of the page, I recognize it as the Second Epistle of Clement.

And thus the mystery is solved! I told you it was a convoluted process. Most of the above was actually being typed up by me while I was trying to figure it out, as I didn't think I'd end up finding the answer and just wanted to share the information I did find for other people's benefit, but then I ended up solving it.
There should be a "Master Detective" badge that can be given on this site. I love this type of research; but have not had the time lately to do it. So thank you for delving the highways and byways of our common Christian heritage to ferret this out.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: AlexB23
Upvote 0
Jun 26, 2003
8,127
1,189
Visit site
✟258,241.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Vague as that citation offered by that page was (which was fairly obviously copied), I managed to use it to figure it out, so thanks for providing it. It turns out it's from the Second Epistle of Clement. The name "Second Epistle of Clement" is actually inaccurate given that it wasn't by Clement (though for a while it was attributed to him, hence the name) and it isn't an epistle, but rather an anonymous sermon. This is presumably why the Liturgy of the Hours used the more accurate statement of "a homily written in the second century". Unfortunately, it also made it way harder than it should have been to figure out where it was from; I wish it had said it was from "a homily written in the second century attributed to Clement" which keeps things reasonably accurate and makes it easier to figure out where it's from.

Anyway, it's Chapters 13 and 14 of the work (the quote in the opening post from the Liturgy of the Hours omits a little of the start of Chapter 13). The Second Epistle of Clement can be read in its entirety here, albeit in a different translation:

In case anyone is wondering the convoluted process that led to me figuring this all out (and it was very convoluted), I'll include it here.

The mention of the Office of Readings was the first step. Thankfully someone has it all available online. The Thursday of the 32nd Week of Ordinary time (for this year, anyway) can be found here. Scroll down to "second reading" and you'll see it. It says it's "from a homily written in the second century."

Unfortunately, it gives no further information about who wrote this homily, nor what "(Cap. 13, 2-14, 5: Funk 1, 159-161)" is. Sometimes weird citations like that are just taken from older books, so I searched for the phrase in Google Books and something that popped up was a printed version of Liturgy of the Hours. It was in snippet view so I couldn't see much other than that it was in it and apparently listed as the source of a reading, but the good news is that the work in question was available--in full--on The Internet Archive, although it requires you to get a free account to read it. You can find it here.

Looking at some other readings listed, it appears the first part of the citation refers to the chapter/verse of the work being cited. For example, on page 56 we see a reading that it says is from the Epistle of Barnabas ("Epistle attributed to Barnabas" is what it says), which it cites as: "Cap. 1. 1-8; 2, 1-5: Funk 1, 3-7)." And if we look at chapter 1 and chapter 2 of the Epistle of Barnabas, we can see that the context lines up perfectly (although the linked translation omits verse numbers). Page 326 offers a portion from Polycarp's letter to the Philippians, and cites it as "Cap. 9, 1-11, 4: Funk 1, 275-279". And we can see its content in chapters 9-11 of the letter (available here).

Unfortunately, that ultimately left me no closer to figuring out where this homily is from or can be found (knowing where in the homily the excerpt is from is not useful if I don't know where the homily is!), or any information on what the "Funk" is supposed to mean. So in a bit of random desperation, I just thought to search the Catholic Encyclopedia for "Funk" (that is, search "site:newadvent.org/cathen funk") to see if maybe it was someone important, and I find there was a guy named Franz Xaver von Funk. I looked into a list of his works (his Wikipedia page lists them more conveniently than the Catholic Encyclopedia does) and figured that what was probably in mind was "Opera Patrum apostolicorum, 2 vols., 1878–1881; 2nd ed., 1901." (as it specifies it has two volumes and the title indicates it would contain early works).

Here we find page 159 in the original edition. Remember that the citation given was "(Cap. 13, 2-14, 5: Funk 1, 159-161)". And what do you know, page 159 contains chapter 13, or XIII as they write in the Latin. The quotation says "Cap. 13, 2-14", so we see what we get in the second verse of Chapter 13, which reads in the Latin:

"Dicit enim etiam Dominus: Omnino nomen meum blasphematur in omnibus gentibus, et iterum: Vae illi, propter quem blasphematur nomen meum."

I'm citing the Latin rather than the Greek (the work includes the Greek original and a Latin translation) because it's way easier to type up and I know Latin better than Greek. I know enough Latin to recognize this as the quote (and even if I didn't, it can be confirmed by popping this into an automated translator--Latin to English machine translation is far from perfect, but is leagues ahead of it where it was a few years ago). And this ends up answering the "Cap. 13, 2-14, 5". It's saying it's 13:2 to 14:5 (I was very puzzled for a while, thinking it was saying there were fourteen verses in chapter 13, even though there are only four). Anyway, with the fact it says "II Clementis Ad. Cor." at the top of the page, I recognize it as the Second Epistle of Clement.

And thus the mystery is solved! I told you it was a convoluted process. Most of the above was actually being typed up by me while I was trying to figure it out, as I didn't think I'd end up finding the answer and just wanted to share the information I did find for other people's benefit, but then I ended up solving it.
That was a lot of work, and thank you for undertaking the task. Very informative and helpful
 
Upvote 0