For those who doubt me... it's not just bad liturgically but I guess listening to "Christian" music offers no long term sanctification that will prevent a teen from killing his girlfriend's parents. David Ludwig posted lyrics from a christian rock band on his web site. I guess if I listened to Michael W. Smith one too many times I'd wind up on the national evening news as well.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/15/parents.slain/index.html
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Filioque: A History Lesson
For MorningGlory2. A little history lesson on the Nicene Constantinopole Creed from Rev Todd Wilken, host of Issues Ect. on KFUO radio.
One Little Word; One Big Schism. Here’s a quick history lesson. In the year 325, the Church adopted a creed at the Council of Nicea. Today, we call it the “Nicene Creed.” In 381 the Council of Constantinople expanded the creed a bit. This is why eggheads call it the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. By whatever name, Christians today still recite the Nicene Creed exactly as it was in 381 —well, not exactly. More history: When it came to Holy Spirit, the original Nicene Creed read, “And I believe in the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father.” However, in 598, the third council of Toledo added one word to the end of that phrase. The word they added was, “filioque.” It means “and the Son.” They added this word to combat the resurgence of an old heresy that denied the divinity of Jesus. After 598, everyone who recited the Nicene Creed said, “And I believe in the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” Well, not everyone. The churches in the East never approved of the filioque addition. They kept saying the Nicene Creed without the words, “and the Son.” By 1054, this issue, along with medieval politics, led to a complete split between the Western and Eastern churches.[3] Although filioque is just one little word, it represents a big difference between Western and Eastern theology. Again, Montgomery writes: Why the Eastern resistance to the procession of the Spirit from the Father and from the Son —in spite of the powerful biblical testimony in support of the filioque position? Because the Western doctrine seems to subordinate the “free,” “mysterious” Third Person of the Trinity to the concrete, historically-revealed Second Person...[4] Again, what is Montgomery saying? He’s saying that the difference between Western and Eastern theology is NOT so much about the Third Person of the Trinity as it is about the Second Person of the Trinity. The Orthodox reject the filioque because the filioque anchors the Holy Spirit to Jesus. Acceptance of the filioque would be a tacit admission that Jesus Christ is THE definitive revelation of Who the Triune God is. Remember, Orthodoxy is all about man’s participation in the divine life of God. Man participates in this mysterious divine life through the work of the Holy Spirit. The filioque would limit the Holy Spirit to testifying about Jesus. And Orthodoxy needs the Holy Spirit to do more than just that. The truth is, Orthodoxy wants to move beyond the revelation of God in the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, into the mysterious inner life and workings of the Trinity. We usually talk about the person and work of Christ. There’s no disagreement with the Orthodox over the person of Christ. In this respect, Orthodoxy’s Christology is very “orthodox” indeed. However, the same cannot be said when it comes to Orthodoxy’s view of the work of Christ. The question is, “What did Jesus come to do?” Scripture says that Jesus came to save sinners. By “sinners” Scripture means fallen man, dead in trespasses and sins. By “save” Scripture means that, because of Jesus’ perfect life, death and resurrection, God restores sinners to a perfect relationship with Himself by forgiving their sins and declaring them righteous for Jesus’ sake. The Orthodox would affirm that “Jesus came to save sinners,” but they would define the words very differently.
One Little Word; One Big Schism. Here’s a quick history lesson. In the year 325, the Church adopted a creed at the Council of Nicea. Today, we call it the “Nicene Creed.” In 381 the Council of Constantinople expanded the creed a bit. This is why eggheads call it the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. By whatever name, Christians today still recite the Nicene Creed exactly as it was in 381 —well, not exactly. More history: When it came to Holy Spirit, the original Nicene Creed read, “And I believe in the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father.” However, in 598, the third council of Toledo added one word to the end of that phrase. The word they added was, “filioque.” It means “and the Son.” They added this word to combat the resurgence of an old heresy that denied the divinity of Jesus. After 598, everyone who recited the Nicene Creed said, “And I believe in the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” Well, not everyone. The churches in the East never approved of the filioque addition. They kept saying the Nicene Creed without the words, “and the Son.” By 1054, this issue, along with medieval politics, led to a complete split between the Western and Eastern churches.[3] Although filioque is just one little word, it represents a big difference between Western and Eastern theology. Again, Montgomery writes: Why the Eastern resistance to the procession of the Spirit from the Father and from the Son —in spite of the powerful biblical testimony in support of the filioque position? Because the Western doctrine seems to subordinate the “free,” “mysterious” Third Person of the Trinity to the concrete, historically-revealed Second Person...[4] Again, what is Montgomery saying? He’s saying that the difference between Western and Eastern theology is NOT so much about the Third Person of the Trinity as it is about the Second Person of the Trinity. The Orthodox reject the filioque because the filioque anchors the Holy Spirit to Jesus. Acceptance of the filioque would be a tacit admission that Jesus Christ is THE definitive revelation of Who the Triune God is. Remember, Orthodoxy is all about man’s participation in the divine life of God. Man participates in this mysterious divine life through the work of the Holy Spirit. The filioque would limit the Holy Spirit to testifying about Jesus. And Orthodoxy needs the Holy Spirit to do more than just that. The truth is, Orthodoxy wants to move beyond the revelation of God in the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, into the mysterious inner life and workings of the Trinity. We usually talk about the person and work of Christ. There’s no disagreement with the Orthodox over the person of Christ. In this respect, Orthodoxy’s Christology is very “orthodox” indeed. However, the same cannot be said when it comes to Orthodoxy’s view of the work of Christ. The question is, “What did Jesus come to do?” Scripture says that Jesus came to save sinners. By “sinners” Scripture means fallen man, dead in trespasses and sins. By “save” Scripture means that, because of Jesus’ perfect life, death and resurrection, God restores sinners to a perfect relationship with Himself by forgiving their sins and declaring them righteous for Jesus’ sake. The Orthodox would affirm that “Jesus came to save sinners,” but they would define the words very differently.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
The French Fries
Charles Krauthammer has been warning us for years that Europe's biggest problem is multiculturalism. The youths burning France for yucks and giggles right now have been allowed to live there without being assimilated into the society in which they are living. There exist whole sections of Paris that refuse to learn the language or even adapt to the culture. I know this to be true because I've been there. This uprising is more about sedition than about a couple of youth being electrocuted in a substation. This is what happens when we say all cultures should be valued equally which clearly they should not! If the problem was only in France that would be one thing but, this problem exists throughout Europe. The rest of Europe should be ready for the same. It's just a matter of time.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Bring Back the Latin Mass!
It is my sincere wish that the Latin Mass makes a triumphant return. It is shame that we can't go to church and enjoy the historical liturgy. Sure we would have to start learning Latin again but heck, it would be worth it!