how about I post a picture of Protestants killing Joseph Smith and ask you to get to explaining with scriptures why there is nothing wrong with that picture .. or perhaps the Salem Witch Hunts ??? .. I have 100 more and they get worse .. STOP ALREADY !!!
First Church?
- Thread starter Sweet Pea
- Start date
how about I post a picture of Protestants killing Joseph Smith and ask you to get to explaining with scriptures why there is nothing wrong with that picture .. or perhaps the Salem Witch Hunts ??? .. I have 100 more and they get worse .. STOP ALREADY !!!
Neither i nor other Catholics in this forum wanted to go on and on about defending our faith, yet, when attacked and pushed to the wall with basement type tactics, we don't back down, at least not me anyway. If you are talking about me then address me and not go around insinuating. We, Catholics, have a richness in our faith that goes behind any other, we have Jerome, Polycarp, Ignatius, Ambrose, St. Francis, St. Anthony, Mother Theresa, Padre Pio... etc... there is history of those that were with the Apostles that were witness to the first century events of early Christianity and the passing on of the Apostolic keys of leadership of the church of our Lord to His appointed leaders... we have writings which thought not used as Bible scriptures but rich in history and insight in what was around the Apostles, those that followed later, and the lives of early Christians ...
Maybe you just don't like the fact that your denomination came after they broke away from their original mother church the Catholic church...
MichaelH
Inactive
If some Word of Faith teacher was posted here as doing something against scripture. like I posted that Catholic priest Holding a human head and I was asked what did they mean by saying that? What scripture backs that christian statement?
I would being the man of integrity I am say they were wrong to show or say such a thing and it's not scripture. I am looking for integrity here.
My denomination was named by those that don't even like my denomination. So I am way past that even.
You just jumped in the thread Rosa, so let me fill you in.....................
I never said Catholics were in danger of hell for praying to people in heaven. (Idol worship)
I never said they were not saved.
I never said their church did not do good things and have many good works they do do.
I never said they were a false church.
I never judged their salvation or relationship with God.
It started by the comment.................... non-Catholics are more in danger of hell.
And
The Catholic church is the "TRUE Church" as the rest of us must be going to false churches.
If your going to attack someones relationship with Christ, and if your going to say the rest of our churches are not really true Churches then All I asked was for the common curtesty to back those comments up with scriptures.
That did not happen.
If certain Catholics are going to make these kinds of statements, then everyone should expect that those types of statements be backed by the authority of the word of God.
I did not make any type of statement concerning Catholics not once said their Church is false and not once said they are in danger of hell more than others. Even after all this other back and fourth stuff.
It was your side Rosa that started these statements and did not back them. So then, my suggest was to not make these types of statements if your not prepared to back it up. It was these statements that brought David in here and the rest.
So lets call this thing for what it is................... I am still waiting on scripture to back these statements. No scripture then these statements should have never been made because it's not wisdom understanding there are other denominations here.
First of all the OP was about which was the first church and she mentioned three, none which was yours ...then when a response by Lysander, and later me, was given it seems that hell broke loose by those who instead of discussing the OP went on about asking questions which had nothing to do with the discussion but all to do with starting a war, questions such as 'do you believe that Catholics or RCC is the one true church'...? Or 'do you believe that only those of the RCC will go to heaven '...? These questions were out of line with what was being accomplished and that is to answer the OP...
It was supposed to be about going into history and discussing the history of the first church, not about the Catholics beliefs... yet you and David did that and twisted this thread into that, not to clarify but to demonize. You did not do it, i saw thru you both right away and read between the lines, you wanted to bring on his knees both the Catholics and anyone who defends the Catholic church. Of course your theology is paramount above all else, of course, and even though you only came about because of the break away from the original Catholic church now you have to defend your action and at the same time bash us.
This thread was the opportunity to share in all our knowledge we each have about the early church and early Christianity but you used it to twist it into one of aggressive antagonism just because you don't like anything Catholic... i wonder is there any denomination you agree with other than yours...?
MichaelH
Inactive
It can be a friendly conversation until we get high and mighty saying I belong to the "true church" and Non-Catholics are more in danger of hell.
Your right, all was cool until those anti-Other denomination comments were made.
Nobody can bring any Catholic to their knees if your right and can back up these comments about You belonging to the "true church" Just scripture is all that was required and all questions get answered.
since nobody wants to humble themselves and say..... "UM.... ya.. I don't have scripture for that comment" Then one has to ask why the attack?
Then you turn it around and blame the other side for "Not walking in Love"
If you like I can go back through the thread, show my post and them show you what led up to this. Just in case you can't remember.
you also ignored my statement that I said all denominations have things that are goofy and need correcting, Mine included. That means I don't hold my denomination above yours. I am not also arrogant and say My denomination is the "TRUE CHURCH" because I know better than that and I can't back that with anything.
I also would not be dumb enough to make the comment that MY denomination is the only one not in danger of hell. I could not back that either and it's not even true and there are many good works in the world of different denominations.
so before you go accusing anyone of causing problems, I will be more than happy to go back and show you exactly where it started.
I don't mind folks saying I believe in false doctrines of blab it and grab it. I don't mind people pointing fingers at me saying you believe in that false prosperity gospel. I understand how they feel and of course I don't believe those things. Its just a label.
however....... comments that put your belief superior to anyone elses and comments that attack salvation then I believe those are way out of line and i don't want crying if those type of comments that attack the core relationship with the Lord get put on the chopping block with explanation wanted.
Poke fun at the doctrine fine, it don't bother me, but say the rest are more in danger of hell and We are the TRUE Church as opposed to us that go to the false ones, then it's out of line and don't cry when called out on it.
Once again, I will go back and show you all the comments and what started it. In case you have forgotten.
So much has been not brought in criticism about the church, but blatantly attacked. This is really sad to me as this is the month of Christian Unity.
MichaelH and David, with all due respect, you really misunderstand what Catholicism is, despite all of the detailed, yet easy-to-read explanations. You have only been attacking a bastardized interpretation.
You have insistently claimed I've been making these up as I go along, but you failed to explain the validity of Sola Scriptura each time I asked for it -- and that is very much the heart of where the divide comes from.
None of the Catholics here came to attack Protestants. We regard them as put brothers and sisters in Christ. If you were upset about what I said regarding Protestant being in danger of going to hell, I won't step down from saying the truth. Though many Catholics are also in danger of this, but perhaps for separate reasons -- I'm not playing elitism here.
This forum is for discussion and fellowship, not attacking and pettiness.
MichaelH, you are welcome to stay, but you need to listen to those you speak with and more importantly, respect those you may disagree with.
MichaelH and David, with all due respect, you really misunderstand what Catholicism is, despite all of the detailed, yet easy-to-read explanations. You have only been attacking a bastardized interpretation.
You have insistently claimed I've been making these up as I go along, but you failed to explain the validity of Sola Scriptura each time I asked for it -- and that is very much the heart of where the divide comes from.
None of the Catholics here came to attack Protestants. We regard them as put brothers and sisters in Christ. If you were upset about what I said regarding Protestant being in danger of going to hell, I won't step down from saying the truth. Though many Catholics are also in danger of this, but perhaps for separate reasons -- I'm not playing elitism here.
This forum is for discussion and fellowship, not attacking and pettiness.
MichaelH, you are welcome to stay, but you need to listen to those you speak with and more importantly, respect those you may disagree with.
Let us especially not forget why we're even here in the first place; we are all incredibly in love with Christ. We are motivated by his grace, and are all prepared to defend Him at a drop of the hat.
Doctrinal differences aside, we all have a mission to abide by faith, hope, and charity (emphasis on the latter).
Doctrinal differences aside, we all have a mission to abide by faith, hope, and charity (emphasis on the latter).
Yeah, when I looked into a similar topic a few years back, that's what my findings seemed to suggest as well, the first followers of Jesus were called "the way" or "followers of the way."
And I'm really glad no one calls themselves that now, so no one can say "I belong to the first, and therefore most legitimate denomination."
At any rate, the answer to the question of who was the first church is simply everyone who followed Jesus. And anyone who follows Jesus now is still part of that same church. It doesn't matter what name you give that church, and it's probably better if it doesn't have just one name; it doesn't need to have any name at all. Being a member of or attending any particular denomination doesn't make anyone any more or less part of the church in the slightest.
Last edited:
MichaelH
Inactive
Blatantly attacked?
I think you got things a bit mixed up here.
it was your original comment............. Non-Catholics are more in danger of hell.
I let slide the previous comment that Your church is the True Church as opposed to the false churches we attend.
I already explained Solo Scriptura............ It's God's word and anything outside of God's Word is not the Word of God or direction of the Lord. It's simple to understand.
This website recognizes the Word as final authority and it's the only common book we can provide proof from being a multi denominational site.
After your second comment about Non=Catholics are more in danger of hell it's time to man up and start providing proof. That is attacking everyone else stance and relationship with the Lord.
Then you have the nerve to be called out on the Carpet for it getting upset and then saying your church was being attacked.
That is akin to me kicking your dog and then blaming you for getting upset.
I never attacked anyone's core relationship with the Lord or their church that was you with your "True Church and Danger of Hell" fire" Garbage.
All you had to do was provide scripture to back those statements up, but you don't want Scripture only which is the only thing that proves anything here on this site. You might as well quote Dr. Seuss as truth.
Don't sit here and cry about being attacked, it was you that came up with the attack and can provide ZERO proof. Making fun of Doctrine is one thing, but we don't attack others relationship with the Lord and we don't take any superior position over others saying "I Go TO THE TRUE Church" Occults take this superior stance of they being the ONLY TRUE WAY.
So I ask for scriptural proof.......................... You provided ZERO proof of anything. OH, you believe things that are not scripture so that is my fault............. got it.
This would have all been fine had you just said......and admitted you made some unscriptural comments and you can't back your own comments. Instead you cry about being attacked.
I Back everything I back everything I say by scripture. Solo Scripture or not, the Word of God is our proof here and only common Ground. If you don't respect the Word then fine, but don't make stupid comments Based on no proof and expect to not be called on them.
I don't Rob banks and expect to keep the money if caught.
NOW............. What is up with carrying a human head at service.................. That is demonic and i have no scriptural reference for that. If you admit you believe things outside of the Word and don't Hold the Word as final authority then you need to admit that and we can continue with that understanding.
Because right now, I am not very impressed with your belief system compared to your Word knowledge. It was your side that attacked Core relationships with the Lord....... it was not me as i back everything I say.
MichaelH
Inactive
Keep in mind............. if you believe (No scripture proof) that non-Cathloics are in more danger of Hell and You belong to this "TRUE CHURCH" then you don't believe that statement above about the rest of us. It's a lie and smoke screen. Yelling LOVE!!! LOVE!!! after making your comments is not going to cut it.
Love instructs and provides proof, exhorts and teaches.(YOU PROVIDE NO TEACHING OR PROOF)............... You make comments then expect things to BE OK. You also ask us to believe things OUTSIDE the Word which is nonesence when talking about the Things of God. At that point I can make anything up about God and call it true.
I will do my best to explain where I am coming from. And I want you to know I am not doing it out of malice or hostility. I am doing it because I truly love God. I love being a Christian. I love the Catholic Church. And remarkably, I love you because you are a fellow human being and despite all this, my brother in Christ.
My statement may have rubbed you the wrong way, and I knew it would -- how could it not? However, I said what I said because it is true. Now, if I were to specifically only make this claim on non-Catholics, then I would not only be an elitist for saying that, but I'd also be speaking falsehoods.
By no means was it an attack. When both of us make the statement that God is real and all-loving, this may offend some people, but it is nonetheless true, and we will say it anyway, not with the intention to attack. I never said Non-Catholics are in MORE danger, that is to say more so than even Catholics can be (a Catholics who disobeys God is probably in more danger than a Protestant who lives the best of his abilities to God's Word), but I did say Non-Catholics do put themselves at risk -- and this is still true, whether I want it to be so or not.
Your explanation on Sola Scriptura is as simplistic as me saying "The Catholic Church is the first one because that's what the Church said!" What if the Church is teaching a falsehood, then would historical and Biblical evidence say otherwise? Sola Scriptura can't simply be valid because one claims it alone is God's Word. The Bible doesn't claim the Bible alone as God's Word. God's Word, which does indeed INCLUDE every single word of the Bible, is spoken through the Church. Remarkably, the Bible even teaches this. However, it does not teach Sola Scriptura, and this is why it is such an important subject. If Sola Scriptura is indeed a valid practice in Christianity, then there must be at least one Bible verse that supports it -- and there isn't even one. Though there are verses that express why it alone can't be considered the ONLY infallible source of God's Word (though it is indeed a source which ought not be put away as it is God-breathed).
By no means did I attack anyone. I did provide the Catholic position, but even the Catholic position is that Protestants are our Brothers and Sisters in Christ, and should regarded as such. The attack, and I'm not meaning to play victim, came from your end when you gave misunderstood examples.
You are most definitely entitled to your own opinion and criticisms, but you aren't entitled to your own facts.
You asked for scriptural defense from my side, and I provided it. You are free to disagree with the interpretation or even scriptures if you choose to, but to pretend it was never provided does no good. It was provided, and should at least be addressed if you find concern with it.
Let's pretend for a moment that you are even right about priests carrying Saint relics, such as their bones...let's even go as far to say that it is even Satanic...would the priests who do this be the ones in error, or would it be the magisterium of the Church? Sadly, sometimes priests commit error, even serious error (as do many Protestant pastors, emaums, rabbis, etc), and none of them should be shrugged off as it is insult to God...however, it becomes THEM who are committing error, not the Church. When the despicable sexual abuses took place from Catholics priests, it was not the Church who abused these children, it was the priests...and there is quite a big difference.
Now, I'm only providing an example, and I'm only a layman in certain subjects, but there are some points and principles that I do know quite well, and many of them are being mistaken by you -- no offense.
By no means am I attacking you...I'm really not. I disagree with you doctrinally, but I think you really love Christ, and I suspect you have a great relationship with Him. I certainly hope you do, and if yours is greater than mine, I hope to be like you in that respect. But as a Catholics, it is my responsibility to defend what I truly believe to be the divine institution that Christ founded for us.
By no means have I once said anything in order to attack, offend, or hurt. Those are the last things I want to do. However, if I also keep what I believe to be the truth hidden, then I am not doing God's will.
By no means are we to believe things outside of God's Word. The concern at hand is what is His Word? Is it the Bible alone or is both the Bible and the Church that Christ left for His people?
I hold the position that it is the latter. I understand that yours is the former...it used to be mine as well.
I really want you to know that I am not saying any of this in attack of non-Catholics. In fact, I owe so much to my Protestant brothers and sisters. I've done my best to provide equal scriptural and historical evidence for my faith. The rest is up to you on whether you want to follow up with it or not.
This is a month dedicated to Christian unity. But even if it wasn't, Christianity itself is a faith dedicated to love and service. If what I am saying is not done in love and service, then I ought not speak at all.
By no means do I want you to misunderstand anything I'm saying for attack and malice. It's really not. I'm a sinner, and I fall quite often, but I am really doing my best to be a servant of God.
And lastly, if I have said anything that you took as a personal insult, then I am sorry. And if I did say anything that was delivered that way, then again, I really am sorry.
indeed .. if there was not different interpretations of the word, then there would be one denomination only .. thus scripture alone is not enough .. consider Phillip or Paul explaining the scriptures .. or consider Jesus opening up the minds of the Apostles to what scriptures meant ..
if God thought scripture was enough, then the HS would not need to give the gift of teaching, which is 1st being taught by the spirit ..
MichaelH
Inactive
The Church (Lets call it a building we all meet, not the actual Greek word) takes it's form according to the Word. This is why you have Baptism and repenting, confessing faults to one another.
Since God by the Holy Spirit gave the Word then there be no other pattern to follow but that of man. Jesus said and prayed that the World believe on their word.......... The 12 Apostles of the Lamb. That finished any authoritative Scripture there.
You and I can't sit down and add to the word and make some changes, the permission for the last was given to the 12 by the Words of Jesus.
The Church which patterns after the Word is what all denominations follow (Well most, some don't anoint the sick with oil that they may be healed, some don't speak in tongues) but what they do have is following the word and can be found in scriptures.
The Catholic Church follows that pattern. So does the Baptist Church and many other churches.
Many Baptist Churches Hold service with a flyer hand out and times things will occur for that Sunday. They call it a program flyer or whatever. That practice is not found in scripture.
The practice in itself might not be bad but it's something added by men.
So you say that you "USE" to hold my position, but we still hold the same position, for my church has the singing first, then the tithe and outreach for disaster victims. All those things are not outlined in scripture, but it's what we do and follow.
WE do things "OUTSIDE" of Scripture but the Church is based on the Word of God.
Same with the Catholic Church. They are based on the scripture but have things not found in scripture.
There is no difference.
Because we can't bring our Churches here then the only proof of anything here would be what is common to both. That is the Word of God.
You can tell me about beads and Mary all day, but Zero scripture to back any of it. Mary being blessed among women does not denote Mary was the only blessed women on the planet (I can show more in the Word) and does not denote beads, hail Mary's or anything of the sort. It was added by Your church much like things are added by any other denomination.
So for me to say My church is more true than yours or to say that Your group is in danger of Hell as opposed to my Group when both Groups Base their Church on Scriptures and Both practice things not found in scripture is not the best way to go. It's a superior attitude and not backed by any scripture. It also attacks Relationship with Jesus and a persons core belief system since they follow a false church not belonging to our "TRUE" church.
if you want to make fun of Word of Faith blab it and grab it, or that prosperity gospel that is fine. I hear that all the time and just like any group there is misunderstandings and not all Word of faith folks teach correctly anyway. Poke fun all you want, not a issue.
Its one thing to poke fun about praying to Mary that does not change your relationship with the Lord and you can't back it with scripture anyway no more than I can back blab it and grab it. It's another level when I say you worship idols and can't be saved. I never said those things or said the Catholic church is false. I give to a Catholic food pantry even and love the people there, I don't doubt they love the Lord and are fully saved despite the prayers to Mary. I don't hand my money over to things I think are false, I just don't agree with some of the practices, but won't deny the Good work in spite of what I agree with.
Scripture is the only common ground we have here. So it has to be scripture only, otherwise it's denomination also and that brings in a whole lot of stuff Besides Word of Faith and Catholic belief's that can take us way off what God ever said. If we allow one, then we allow everything else here.
I am not offended but strong statements have to be backed by Scripture, our only common ground here.
Blessings.
hi Michael .. I thought you might find this interesting ..
Luther adhered to the Marian decrees of the ecumenical councils and dogmas of the church. He held fast to the belief that Mary was a perpetual virgin and the Theotokos or Mother of God.[4] Special attention is given to the assertion that Luther, some three-hundred years before the dogmatization of the Immaculate Conception by Pope Pius IX in 1854, was a firm adherent of that view. Others maintain that Luther in later years changed his position on the Immaculate Conception, which at that time was undefined in the Church; however, he maintained belief in Mary's lifelong sinlessness.[5] Regarding the Assumption of Mary, he stated, that the Bible did not say anything about it. Important to him was the belief that Mary and the saints do live on after death. The centerpiece of Luther's Marian views was his 1521 Commentary on the Magnificat in which he extolled the magnitude of God's grace toward Mary and her own legacy of Christian instruction and example demonstrated in her canticle of praise.
Martin Luther said:
She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man's understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child.... Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God.... None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God."[10] This belief was officially confessed by Lutherans in their Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, article VIII.24:
Some Lutherans believe that Mary did not have other children, and did not have any marital relations with Joseph,[12] maintaining that the brothers mentioned in the Gospels were cousins.[13] This is consistent with Luther's lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Jaroslav Pelikan noted that the perpetual virginity of Mary was Luther's lifelong belief,[14] and Hartmann Grisar, a Roman Catholic biographer of Luther, concurs that "Luther always believed in the virginity of Mary, even post partum, as affirmed in the Apostles’ Creed, though afterwards he denied her power of intercession, as well as that of the saints in general, resorting to many misinterpretations and combated, as extreme and pagan, the extraordinary veneration which the Catholic Church showed towards Mary."[15] For this reason even a rigorously conservative Lutheran scholar like Franz Pieper (1852–1931) refuses to follow the tendency among Protestants to insist that Mary and Joseph had marital relations and children after the birth of Jesus. It is implicit in his Christian Dogmatics that belief in Mary's perpetual virginity is the older and traditional view among Lutherans.
In the course of his life, Martin Luther made contradictory statements about Mary's immaculate conception. For example, in 1532 Luther says that Mary was conceived in sin, in 1544 he says: 'God has formed the soul and body of the Virgin Mary full of the Holy Spirit, so that she is without all sins, for she has conceived and borne the Lord Jesus.'[19] Elsewhere, "All seed except Mary was vitiated [by original sin]."[20]
Throughout his lifetime, Luther referred to Mary as the "Queen of Heaven", but he warned against people using the term too much.[22]
Before 1516, Luther's belief that Mary is a mediatrix between God and humanity was driven by his fear of Jesus being the implacable judge of all people.[23] "The Virgin Mary remains in the middle between Christ and humankind. For in the very moment he was conceived and lived, he was full of grace. All other human beings are without grace, both in the first and second conception. But the Virgin Mary, though without grace in the first conception, was full of grace in the second ... whereas other human beings are conceived in sin, in soul as well as in body, and Christ was conceived without sin in soul as well as in body, the Virgin Mary was conceived in body without grace but in soul full of grace."[24]
Luther states in his Magnificat, that one should pray to Mary, so God would give and do, through her will, what we ask. But, he adds, it is God’s work alone.[5] Some interpret his Magnificat as a personal supplication to Mary, but not as a prayerful request for mediation. An important indicator of Luther’s views on the veneration of Mary are not only his writings but also approved practices of Lutherans during his lifetime. The singing of the Magnificat in Latin was maintained in many German Lutheran communities. The Church Order (Kirchenordnung) of Brandenburg, Bugenhagen Braunschweig and other cities and districts decreed by the royal heads of the Lutheran Church, maintained three Marian feast days, to be observed as public holidays.[5] It is known that Martin Luther approved of this.
He also approved of keeping Marian paintings and statues in the Churches.[12] Luther did, however, say that "Mary prays for the church".[25]
http://en.wikipedia.org/...Lutheran_Marian_theology
it seems the Lutheran Protestant Rosarys are the same as Catholic ones ..
while the Anglican Episcopal Rosarys are smaller ..
http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/301025257445?lpid=82
Anglican prayer beads and their use are explained at a web page at King of Peace Episcopal Church in Kingsland, Georgia. ... A Celtic Prayer.
http://www.kingofpeace.org/prayerbeads.htm
The use of the rosary or prayer beads helps to bring us into contemplative of meditative prayer—really thinking about and being mindful of praying, of being in the presence of God—by use of mind, body, and spirit. The touching of the fingers on each successive bead is an aid in keeping our mind from wandering, and the rhythm of the prayers leads us more readily into stillness.
The configuration of the Anglican Prayer Beads relate contemplative prayer using the Rosary to many levels of traditional Christian symbolism. Contemplative prayer is enriched by these symbols whose purpose is always to focus and concentrate attention, allowing the one who prays to move more swiftly into the Presence of God.
It is suggested that you pray around the circle of the beads three times (which signifies the Trinity) in an unhurried pace, allowing the repetition to become a sort of lullaby of love and praise that enables your mind to rest and your heart to become quiet and still.
I like these prayers ..
The Invitatory
O God make speed to save me (us),
O Lord make haste to help me (us),
Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit: As it was in the beginning, is now, and will be forever. Amen.
The Cruciforms
Oh, Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world
have mercy upon us,
Oh, Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world
have mercy upon us,
Oh, Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world
give us Thy Peace.
The Weeks
1. I bind unto myself the power of the great love of cherubim;
2. the sweet "Well done" in judgment hour;
3. the service of the seraphim;
4. confessors’ faith, apostles’ word,
5. the patriarchs’ prayers, the prophets’ scrolls;
6. all good deeds done unto the Lord,
7. and purity of virgin souls.
while the Anglican Episcopal Rosarys are smaller ..
http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/301025257445?lpid=82
Anglican prayer beads and their use are explained at a web page at King of Peace Episcopal Church in Kingsland, Georgia. ... A Celtic Prayer.
http://www.kingofpeace.org/prayerbeads.htm
The use of the rosary or prayer beads helps to bring us into contemplative of meditative prayer—really thinking about and being mindful of praying, of being in the presence of God—by use of mind, body, and spirit. The touching of the fingers on each successive bead is an aid in keeping our mind from wandering, and the rhythm of the prayers leads us more readily into stillness.
The configuration of the Anglican Prayer Beads relate contemplative prayer using the Rosary to many levels of traditional Christian symbolism. Contemplative prayer is enriched by these symbols whose purpose is always to focus and concentrate attention, allowing the one who prays to move more swiftly into the Presence of God.
It is suggested that you pray around the circle of the beads three times (which signifies the Trinity) in an unhurried pace, allowing the repetition to become a sort of lullaby of love and praise that enables your mind to rest and your heart to become quiet and still.
I like these prayers ..
The Invitatory
O God make speed to save me (us),
O Lord make haste to help me (us),
Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit: As it was in the beginning, is now, and will be forever. Amen.
The Cruciforms
Oh, Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world
have mercy upon us,
Oh, Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world
have mercy upon us,
Oh, Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world
give us Thy Peace.
The Weeks
1. I bind unto myself the power of the great love of cherubim;
2. the sweet "Well done" in judgment hour;
3. the service of the seraphim;
4. confessors’ faith, apostles’ word,
5. the patriarchs’ prayers, the prophets’ scrolls;
6. all good deeds done unto the Lord,
7. and purity of virgin souls.
the liberty of the Covenant of Faith allows us to do things outside of that in the scripture as long as it is not explicitly against scripture ..
if you do not believe in the liberty of the Covenant of Faith .. then bring your own house into legalism before you try bringing another's house into the bondage of legalism ..
if you do not believe in the liberty of the Covenant of Faith .. then bring your own house into legalism before you try bringing another's house into the bondage of legalism ..
Last edited: