Do Not Disavow By: Rick Davis When Charlemagne established law Salic in barb’rous land, The gospel flourished, and he saw Christ’s praise on every hand. (“Do you approve his methods now?”) I do not disavow. King Godfrey took Jerusalem From bloody paynim hands And brought a halt to Musselmen Invading Christian lands. (“He did some mean things anyhow!”) I do not disavow. King Richard with his scarlet shield And passant lions ‘bossed Rode forth again unto the field To regain what was lost. (“His deeds at Acre you allow?”) I do not disavow. Unto the Germans Luther brought The gospel full restored, And Calvin at Geneva taught The glory of the Lord. (“The Jews? Servetus? Holy cow!”) I do not disavow. Stonewall and Lee like knights of old Fought for their native soil, The true and lovely to uphold Against the tyrant’s spoil. (“Those vile racists ...
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Comments
If you count up the days from Ash Wednesday to Easter (Pascha for you Greek types) you get 46. But Lent is a 40 day period. Why? Because you have to subtract the 6 Sundays. 46 – 6 = 40.
And yes, I know you Greek types have the weird phase-in model for Lent. However, the main point is that THE preeminent Christian Holy Day is the Sabbath, which trumps all other observances and holy days. The Church has historically recognized this to be the case.
“From the very earliest days, the Church has declared that Sunday, the day of Christ's Resurrection, is always a feast day, and therefore fasting is forbidden.”
http://catholicism.about.com/b/2008/02/29/reader-question-should-we-fast-on-sundays.htm.
Some other sources to read:
http://marysaggies.blogspot.com/2009/02/lent-2009.html
http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Feb2002/wiseman.asp#F5
I purposefully didn’t include any Protestant sources for you, though most Protestants that celebrate Lent would say the same thing about Sundays.
2 Lent is actually 50 days for the Orthodox.
3) The Sabbath is Saturday we celebrate the Lord's Day.
Why are you including all ROMAN CATHOLIC sources? The Churches are still divided and therefore do not apply to me (and will not apply because I am confident when things are worked out I will be long dead and if they are worked out before then the Orthdox view will prevail because we all know that Catholicism is based entirely around Papal Monarchy)
As far as the beginning of Lent, IHOP agreed with the Western Church by giving out free pancakes last Tuesday. Unless you found someone giving out free pancakes yesterday, then I think you have to concede the point.
Shrove Tuesday is something that comes from Papal Monarchy. Not a part of Apostolic Tradition therefore, we don't practice it. We take a week to get rid of our eggs by eating pancakes for an entire week (potentially) far superior to cramming down a bunch of pancakes all in one day.
What about beads? Did you get any beads Monday?
Check and Mate.
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding going on here. 1) You are saying these things to egg me on 2) Western Christianity and Eastern Christianity are to different animals. While similar in some of the fundamentals Catholicism's beliefs and practices have their origin in papal monarchy. Much of the weird beliefs and practices that are considered authoritative in the Catholic Church happened AFTER the Great Schism, therefore invalidating much of its tradition as an abberation. The same thing goes for Protestantism, it is an abberation stemming from an abberation. They were reacting to the tyranny of the Roman pope.
To answer your questions to the point. No beads. Catholic Tradition, no pancakes, Catholic tradition.
As for the dating of Pascha I am not a bishop and therefore cannot speak on behalf of the Church. The reason why we hold to the dating of Pascha is because the Pope just changed it for the West rather than bringing it to council If had been brought to council it probably would have been changed. Instead in keeping with the "traditon" of papal monarchy the pope decreed it to be so and it was and the Greeks just decided not to listen to an unlawful authority.
Dale,
A few questions:
1) What are Eastern and Western Christianity to different animals?
2) Can an unlawful authority ever be right? And if they do happen to be right, shouldn't you believe them? But, hey, I'm just a silly Protestant. We have a bad tendency to believe things simply because they're true.
3) I actually won the argument back in comment 4. (Okay, so that wasn't a question.)
Cum Latine nescias, nolo manus meas in te maculare.
No an unlawful authority is never right because the unlawful authority is an oxymoron by nature. The fact that an authroity is unlawful robs it of its authority. Not only is that authority unlawful he was also being un-apostolic nor was he being truly Catholic when he just changed it by fiat. If you meet someone who is trying to steal your lunch money everyday and then for whatever reason they tell you the time and leave you alone that day really, should the kid being told the time believe the bully? Probably not.
Rick. We are not Romans. Don't use Latin. Use English. Latin is a dead language, just let it go.
Until then, lighten up.
And have a pancake.
Δεν θυμάμαι να σας προσβλητική άμεσα ή έμμεσα.
Η αλήθεια της μιας αλήθειας πρόταση εξαρτάται σε μεγάλο βαθμό από την ακεραιότητα του προτείνοντα. Η αλήθεια δεν μπορεί να μειωθεί στα Μαθηματικά, αν μπορούσε θα ζουν στην Martix.
Δεν ίδιος ο Πάπας δεν είναι ένα κώλο, οπότε ... η προσβολή είναι άσχετο.
Είστε λείπει το σημείο. Ο Πάπας είχε ξεκίνησε μια συνήθεια να ενεργεί εκτός του concilar παράδοσης. Conciliarism είναι ζωτικής σημασίας για τον Χριστιανισμό και γι 'αυτό τα τμήματα που προκαλείται από Καθολικισμός και προτεσταντισμός είναι τέτοια παρωδία.
Θα μιλήσω για σας όρους.
Θα προσπαθήσουμε να κάνουμε πιο απλό και να μειωθεί αυτή η συζήτηση σε ένα ναι / δεν απαντώ ή συλλογισμός όταν έχω την ευκαιρία.
I never said that Truth was mathematical. Truth (with a capital T)is a person, Jesus. We only know Truth by knowing him.
However, I was talking about the truth values of specific propositions. The Law of Excluded Middle excludes the possibility of a statement being neither true nor false. If I say "The United States has 50 states," then I am making a statement that must be true or false. If a man raving in an asylum uttered the sentence, "The United States has 50 states," it would be a true statement. If the devil, the father of lies himself, said it, it would be a true statement. Likewise, it cannot be both true and false at the same time: "Yes, the United States has 50 states, but no, the United States does not have 50 states."
Now when the western church added the filioque clause to the Nicene Creed, two distinct questions need to be asked.
1) Did the western church alter the creed under proper authority? The answer to this would be, "No." There was no council, so it was improper.
But we need to ask a second question as well:
2) Is it true?
Is it true that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son? This question is separate from the first. Regardless of who uttered it, it is a statement and must be either true or false. Now you could bring in issues of authority to weigh in on one side or the other, but a statement is not false simply because it was spoken by an improper authority.
And no, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father not the the Father and the Son, that would minimize the personhood of the Holy Spirit demoting Him to an energy. Just because the Father and the Son are One does not mean that the Father is the Same Person as the Son. The Son is a distinct person, but He is of the same essence as the Father. The Holy Spirit is also of the same essence but that does not make the Holy Spirit, the Father, or the Son, it means that He is also part of the same essence of being that is God. He is God, co-equal with the Father and Son. Same, Authority, Same Glory Same Essence.