Unity in the Body As ambassadors for the Lord urge you to live in a manner worthy of the call you have received with all humility and gentleness with patience bearing with one another through love striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace one body and one Spirit as you were also called to the one hope of your call one Lord one faith one baptism one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.
Diversity of Gifts But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. Therefore it says: He ascended on high and took prisoners captive he gave gifts to humanity What does he ascended mean except that he also descended into the lower regions of the earth. The one who descended is also the one who ascended far above all the heavens that he might fill all things. And he gave some as apostles others as prophets others as evangelists others as pastors and teachers: to equip the holy ones for the work of ministry for building up the body of Christ. Until we all attain to the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God to mature manhood to the extent of the full stature of Christ. So that we may no longer be infants tossed by waves and swept along by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery from their cunning in the interests of deceitful scheming. Rather living the truth in love we should grow in every way into him who is the head Christ from whom the whole body joined and held together by every supporting ligament with the proper functioning of each part brings about the body’s growth and builds itself up in love.
Renewal in Christ So I declare and testify in the Lord that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do in the futility of their minds. darkened in understanding alienated from the life of God because of their ignorance because of their hardness of heart they have become callous and have handed themselves over to licentiousness for the practice of every kind of impurity to excess. That is not how you learned Christ assuming that you have heard of him and were taught in him as truth is in Jesus that you should put away the old self of your former way of life corrupted through deceitful desires and be renewed in the spirit of your mindsand put on the new self created in God’s way in righteousness and holiness of truth.s
Daily Conduct an Expression of Unity Rules for the New Life Therefore putting away falsehood speak the truth each one to his neighbor for we are members one of another. Be angry but do not sin u do not let the sun set on your anger and do not leave room for the devil. The thief must no longer steal but rather labor doing honest work with his own hands so that he may have something to share with one in need. No foul language should come out of your mouths but only such as is good for needed edification that it may impart grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the holy Spirit of God with which you were sealed for the day of redemption All bitterness fury anger shouting and reviling must be removed from you along with all malice. And be kind to one another compassionate forgiving one another as God has forgiven you in Christ.—(Ephesians 4)
I rejoiced when they said to me Let us go to the house of the LORD a And now our feet are standing within your gates Jerusalem Jerusalem built as a city walled round about There the tribes go up the tribes of the LORD As it was decreed for Israel to give thanks to the name of the LORD There are the thrones of justice the thrones of the house of David
For the peace of Jerusalem pray May those who love you prosper May peace be within your ramparts prosperity within your towers For the sake of my brothers and sisters and friends I say Peace be with you For the sake of the house of the LORD our God I pray for your good
It is the clear doctrine of the Scriptures that God can be known. Our Lord teaches that eternal life consists in the knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ, whom He hath sent. The Psalmist says, “In Judah is God known” (Ps. lxxvi. 1). Isaiah predicts, that “the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord” (Is. xi. 9). Paul says even of the heathen, that they knew God, but did not like to retain that knowledge (Rom. i. 19, 20, 21, 28).
A. State of the Question. It is, however, important distinctly to understand what is meant when it is said, God can be known.
This does not mean that we can know all that is true concerning God. There were some among the ancient philosophers who taught that the nature of God can be as fully understood and determined as any other object of knowledge. The modern speculative school teaches the same doctrine. Among the propositions laid down by Spinoza, we find the following: “Cognitio æternæ et infinitæ essentiæ Dei, quam unaquæque idea involvit, est adæquata et perfecta.”Ethices, ii. prop. xlvi. edit. Jena, 1803, vol. ii. p. 119. Hegel says, that God is, only so far as He is known. The sin against the Holy Ghost, according to Hegel, is to deny that He can be known.See Mansel’s Limits of Religious Thought, Boston, 1859, p. 301. Cousin holds the same doctrine. “God in fact,” he says, “exists to us only in so far as He is known.”Sir William Hamilton’s Discussions, p. 16. Princeton Review on Cousin’s Philosophy, 1856. According to Schelling, God is known in his own nature by direct intuition of the higher reason. He assumes that there is in man a power which transcends the limits of the ordinary consciousness (an Anschauungs Vermögen), which takes immediate cognizance of the Infinite. Hegel says that “Man knows God only so far as God knows Himself in man; this knowledge is God’s self-consciousness, but likewise a knowledge of the same by man, and this knowledge of God by man is the knowledge of man by God.”Werke, xii. p. 496, edit. Berlin, 1840. Cousin finds this knowledge in the common consciousness of men. That consciousness includes the knowledge of the Infinite as well as of the finite. We know the one just as we know the other, and we cannot know the one without knowing the other. These philosophers all admit that we could not thus know God unless we were ourselves God. Self-knowledge, with them, is the knowledge of God. Reason in man, according to Cousin, does not belong to his individuality. It is infinite, impersonal, and divine. Our knowledge of God, therefore, is only God knowing Himself. Of course it is in no such sense as this that the Scriptures and the Church teach that God can be known. God Inconceivable.
It is not held that God, properly speaking, can be conceived of; that is, we cannot form a mental image of God. “All conception,” says Mr. Mansel,Prolegomena Logica, edit. Boston, 1860, p. 34. “implies imagination.” To have a valid conception of a horse, he adds, we must be able “to combine” the attributes which form “the definition of the animal” into “a representative image.” Conception is defined by Taylor in the same manner, as “the forming or bringing an image or idea into the mind by an effort of the will.” In this sense of the word it must be admitted that the Infinite is not an object of knowledge. We cannot form an image of infinite space, or of infinite duration, or of an infinite whole. To form an image is to limit, to circumscribe. But the infinite is that which is incapable of limitation. It is admitted, therefore, that the infinite God is inconceivable. We can form no representative image of Him in our minds. The word, however, is often, and perhaps commonly, used in a less restricted sense. To conceive is to think. A conception is therefore a thought and not necessarily an image. To say, therefore, that God is conceivable, in common language, is merely to say that He is thinkable. That is, that the thought (or idea) of God involves no contradiction or impossibility. We cannot think of a round square, or that a part is equal to the whole. But we can think that God is infinite and eternal. God Incomprehensible.
When it is said that God can be known, it is not meant that He can be comprehended. To comprehend is to have a complete and exhaustive knowledge of an object. It is to understand its nature and its relations. We cannot comprehend force, and specially vital force. We see its effect, but we cannot understand its nature or the mode in which it acts. It would be strange that we should know more of God than of ourselves, or of the most familiar objects of sense. God is past finding out. We cannot understand the Almighty unto perfection. To comprehend is (1.) To know the essence as well as the attributes of an object. (2.) It is to know not some only, but all of its attributes. (3.) To know the relation in which these attributes stand to each other and to the substance to which they belong. (4.) To know the relation in which the object known stands to all other objects. Such knowledge is clearly impossible in a creature, either of itself or of anything out of itself. It is, however, substantially thus that the transcendentalists claim to know God. Our Knowledge of God Partial.
It is included in what has been said, that our knowledge of God is partial and inadequate. There is infinitely more in God than we have any idea of; and what we do know, we know imperfectly. We know that God knows; but there is much in his mode of knowing, and in its relation to its objects, which we cannot understand. We know that He acts; but we do not know how He acts, or the relation which his activity bears to time, or things out of Himself. We know that He feels; that He loves, pities, is merciful, is gracious; that He hates sin. But this emotional element of the divine nature is covered with an obscurity as great, but no greater, than that which rests over his thoughts or purposes. Here again our ignorance, or rather, the limitation of our knowledge concerning God, finds a parallel in our ignorance of ourself. There are potentialities in our nature of which, in our present state of existence, we have no idea. And even as to what we are now, we know but little. We know that we perceive, think, and act; we do not know how. It is perfectly inscrutable to us how the mind takes cognizance of matter; how the soul acts on the body, or the body on the mind. But because our knowledge of ourselves is thus partial and imperfect, no sane man would assert that we have no self-knowledge. The common doctrine on this subject is clearly expressed by Des Cartes:Epistolæ, I., cx., edit. Amsterdam, 1682. “Sciri potest, Deum esse infinitum et omnipotentem, quanquam anima nostra, utpote finita, id nequeat comprehendere sive concipere; eodem nimirum modo, quo montem manibus tangere possumus, sed non ut arborem, aut aliam quampiam rem brachiis nostris non majorem amplecti: comprehendere enim est cogitatione complecti; ad hoc autem, ut sciamus aliquid, sufficit, ut illud cogitatione attingamus.” Even SpinozaEpistola, lx., vol. i. p. 659, edit. Jena, 1802. says: “Ad quæstionem tuam, an de Deo tam claram, quam de triangulo habeam ideam, respondeo affirmando. Non dico, me Deum omnino cognoscere; sed me quædam ejus attributa, non autem omnia, neque maximam intelligere partem, et certum est, plurimorum ignorantiam, quorundam eorum habere notitiam, non impedire. Quum Euclidis elementa addiscerem, primo tres trianguli angulos duobus rectis æquari intelligebam; hancque trianguli proprietatem clare percipiebam, licet multarum aliarum ignarus essem.” While, therefore, it is admitted not only that the infinite God is incomprehensible, and that our knowledge of Him is both partial and imperfect; that there is much in God which we do not know at all, and that what we do know, we know very imperfectly; nevertheless our knowledge, as far as it goes, is true knowledge. God really is what we believe Him to be, so far as our idea of Him is determined by the revelation which He has made of Himself in his works, in the constitution of our nature, in his word, and in the person of his Son. To know is simply to have such apprehensions of an object as conform to what that object really is. We know what the word Spirit means. We know what the words infinite, eternal, and immutable, mean. And, therefore, the sublime proposition, pregnant with more truth than was ever compressed in any other sentence, “God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and immutable,” conveys to the mind as distinct an idea, and as true (i.e., trustworthy) knowledge, as the proposition “The human soul is a finite spirit.” In this sense God is an object of knowledge. He is not the unknown God, because He is infinite. Knowledge in Him does not cease to be knowledge because it is omniscience; power does not cease to be power because it is omnipotence; any more than space ceases to be space because it is infinite. B. How do we know God? How does the mind proceed in forming its idea of God? The older theologians answered this question by saying that it is by the way of negation, by the way of eminence, and by the way of causality. That is, we deny to God any limitation; we ascribe to Him every excellence in the highest degree; and we refer to Him as the great First Cause every attribute manifested in his works. We are the children of God, and, therefore, we are like Him. We are, therefore, authorized to ascribe to Him all the attributes of our own nature as rational creatures, without limitation, and to an infinite degree. If we are like God, God is like us. This is the fundamental principle of all religion. This is the principle which Paul assumed in his address to the Athenians (Acts xvii. 29): “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.” For the same reason we ought not to think that He is simple being, or a mere abstraction, a name for the moral order of the universe, or the unknown and unknowable cause of all things, — mere inscrutable force. If we are his children, He is our Father, whose image we bear, and of whose nature we partake. This, in the proper sense of the word, is Anthropomorphism, a word much abused, and often used in a bad sense to express the idea that God is altogether such a one as ourselves, a being of like limitations and passions. In the sense, however, just explained, it expresses the doctrine of the Church and of the great mass of mankind. Jacobi“Von den göttlichen Dingen,” Werke, iii. pp. 422, 423, edit. Leipzig, 1816. well says: “We confess, therefore, to an Anthropomorphism inseparable from the conviction that man bears the image of God; and maintain that besides this Anthropomorphism, which has always been called Theism, is nothing but atheism or fetichism.” C. Proof that this Method is Trustworthy. That this method of forming an idea of God is trustworthy, is proved, —
Because it is a law of nature. Even in the lowest form of fetichism the life of the worshipper is assumed to belong to the object which he worships. The power dreaded is assumed to possess attributes like our own. In like manner under all the forms of polytheism, the gods of the people have been intelligent personal agents. It is only in the schools of philosophy that we find a different method of forming an idea of the Godhead. They have substituted τὸ ὃν for ὁ ὢν, τὸ θεῖον for ὁ Θεός, τὸ ἀγαθόν for ὁ ἀγαθός. It is here as with regard to the knowledge of the external world. The mass of mankind believe that things are what they perceive them to be. This philosophers deny. They affirm that we do not perceive the things themselves, but certain ideas, species, or images of the things; that we have, and can have, no knowledge of what the things themselves really are. So they say we can have no knowledge of what God is; we only know that we are led to think of Him in a certain way, but we are not only not authorized to believe that our idea corresponds to the reality, but, say they, it is certain that God is not what we take Him to be. As the people are right in the one case, so are they in the other. In other words, our conviction that God is what He has revealed Himself to be, rests on the same foundation as our conviction that the external world is what we take it to be. That foundation is the veracity of consciousness, or the trustworthiness of the laws of belief which God has impressed upon our nature. “Invincibility of belief,” according to Sir William Hamilton, “is convertible with the truth of belief,”Philosophy, edit. Wight, New York, 1854, p. 233. although, unhappily, on this subject, he did not adhere to his own principle, “That what is by nature necessarily believed to be, truly is.”Ibid. p. 226. No man has more nobly or more earnestly vindicated this doctrine, which is the foundation of all science and of all faith. “Consciousness,” he says, “once convicted of falsehood, an unconditioned scepticism, in regard to the character of our intellectual being, is the melancholy but only rational result. Any conclusion may now with impunity be drawn against the hopes and the dignity of human nature. Our personality, our immateriality, our moral liberty, have no longer an argument for their defence. ‘Man is the dream of a shadow.’ God is the dream of that dream.”Ibid. p. 234. The only question, therefore, is, Are we invincibly led to think of God as possessing the attributes of our rational nature? This cannot be denied; for universality proves invincibility of belief. And it is a historical fact that men have universally thus thought of God. Even Mr. ManselLimits of Religious Thought, edit. Boston, 1859, pp. 56, 57. exclaims against the transcendentalists, “Fools, to dream that man can escape from himself, that human reason can draw aught but a human portrait of God.” True, he denies the correctness of that portrait; or, at least, he asserts that we cannot know whether it is correct or not. But this is not now the question. He admits that we are forced by the constitution of our nature thus to think of God. And by the fundamental principle of all true philosophy, what we are forced to believe must be true. It is true, therefore, that God really is what we take Him to be, when we ascribe to Him the perfections of our own nature, without limitation, and to an infinite degree. Our Moral Nature demands this Idea of God.
It has already been shown, when speaking of the moral argument for the existence of God, that all men are conscious of their accountability to a being superior to themselves, who knows what they are and what they do, and who has the will and purpose to reward or punish men according to their works. The God, therefore, who is revealed to us in our nature, is a God who knows, and wills, and acts; who rewards and punishes. That is, He is a person; an intelligent, voluntary agent, endowed with moral attributes. This revelation of God must be true. It must make known to us what God really is, or our nature is a lie. All this Mr. Mansel, who holds that God can not be known, admits. He admits that a sense of dependence on a superior power is “a fact of the inner consciousness;” that this superior power is “not an inexorable fate, or immutable law, but a Being having at least so far the attributes of personality, that He can show favour or severity to those dependent upon Him, and can be regarded by them with the feelings of hope, and fear, and reverence, and gratitude.”Limits of Religious Thought, etc., p. 120. No man, however, is, or can be grateful to the sun, or to the atmosphere, or to unintelligent force. Gratitude is a tribute of a person to a person. Again, the same author admits that “the moral reason, or will, or conscience of man, call it by what name we please, can have no authority save as implanted in him by some higher spiritual Being, as a law emanating from a law-giver.”Ibid. p. 121. “We are thus compelled,” he says, “by the consciousness of moral obligation, to assume the existence of a moral [and of course of a personal] Deity, and to regard the absolute standard of right and wrong as constituted by the nature of that Deity.”Ibid. p. 122. Our argument from these facts is, that if our moral nature compels us to believe that God is a person, He must be a person, and consequently that we arrive at a true knowledge of God by attributing to Him the perfections of our own nature. Our Religious Nature makes the same Demand.
The argument from our religious, as distinct from our moral nature, is essentially the same. Morality is not all of religion. The one is as much a law and necessity of our nature as the other. To worship, in the religious sense of the word, is to ascribe infinite perfection to its object. It is to express to that object out acknowledgments for the blessings we enjoy, and to seek their continuance; it is to confess, and praise, and pray, and to adore. We cannot worship the law of gravity, or unconscious force, or the mere order of the universe. Our religious nature, in demanding an object of supreme reverence, love, and confidence, demands a personal God, a God clothed with the attributes of a nature like our own; who can hear our confessions, praises, and prayers; who can love, and be loved; who can supply our wants, and fill all our capacities for good. Thus again it appears that unless our whole nature is a contradiction and a falsehood, we arrive at a true knowledge of God when we ascribe to Him the perfections of our own nature. Mr. Mansel admits that our nature does demand a personal and moral Deity; but, he says, “the very conception of a moral nature is in itself the conception of a limit, for morality is the compliance with a law; and a law, whether imposed from within or from without, can only be conceived to operate by limiting the range of possible actions.”Limits of Religious Thought, etc., p. 127. In like manner he says, “The only human conception of personality is that of limitation.” Therefore, if God be infinite, he can neither be a person, nor possess moral attributes. This is the argument of Strauss, and of all other pantheists, against the doctrine of a personal God. Mr. Mansel admits the force of the argument, and says we must renounce all hope of knowing what God is, and be content with “regulative knowledge,” which teaches not what God really is, but what He wills us to think Him to be. We are thus forbidden to trust to our necessary beliefs. We must not regard as true what God by the constitution of our nature forces us to believe. This is to subvert all philosophy and all religion, and to destroy the difference between the rational and the irrational. Why is this contradiction between reason and conscience, between our rational and moral nature, assumed to exist? Simply because philosophers choose to give such a definition of morality and personality that neither can be predicated of an infinite Being. It is not true that either morality or personality imply any limitation inconsistent with absolute perfection. We do not limit God when we say He cannot be irrational as well as rational, unconscious as well as conscious, finite as well as infinite, evil as well as good. The only limitation admitted is the negation of imperfection. Reason is not limited when we say it cannot be unreason; or spirit, when we say that it is not matter; or light, when we say it is not darkness; or space, when we say it is not time. We do not, therefore, limit the Infinite, when we exalt Him in our conceptions from the unconscious to the conscious, from the unintelligent to the intelligent, from an impersonal something to the absolutely perfect personal Jehovah. All these difficulties arise from confounding the ideas of infinite and all.
The fourth argument on this subject is, that if we are not justified in referring to God the attributes of our own nature, then we have no God. The only alternative is anthropomorphism (in this sense) or Atheism. An unknown God, a God of whose nature and of whose relation to us we know nothing, to us is nothing. It is a historical fact that those who reject this method of forming our idea of God, who deny that we are to refer to Him the perfections of our own nature, have become atheists. They take the word “spirit,” and strip from it consciousness, intelligence, will, and morality; and the residue, which is blank nothing, they call God. Hamilton and Mansel take refuge from this dreadful conclusion in faith. They say that reason forbids the ascription of these, or of any other attributes, to the Infinite and Absolute, but that faith protests against this conclusion of the reason. Such protest, however, is of no account, unless it be rational. When Kant proved that there was no rational evidence of the existence of God, and fell back from the speculative to the practical reason (i.e., from reason to faith), his followers universally gave up all faith in a personal God. No man can believe in the impossible. And if reason pronounces that it is impossible that the Infinite should be a person, faith in His personality is an impossibility. This Mr. Mansel does not admit. For while he says that it is a contradiction to affirm the Infinite to be a person, or to possess moral attributes, he nevertheless says that, “Anthropomorphism is the indispensable condition of all human theology;”Limits of Religious Thought, etc., p. 261. and he quotes from Kant“Kritik der Praktischen Vernunft.” Works, edit. Rosenkranz, vol. viii. p. 282. this passage: “We may confidently challenge all natural theology to name a single distinctive attribute of the Deity, whether denoting intelligence or will, which, apart from anthropomorphism, is anything more than a mere word, to which not the slightest notion can be attached, which can serve to extend our theoretical knowledge.” It is greatly to be lamented that men should teach that the only way in which it is possible for us to form an idea of God, leads to no true knowledge. It does not teach us what God is, but what we are forced against reason to think He is. Argument from the Revelation of God in Nature.
A fifth argument is from the fact that the works of God manifest a nature like our own. It is a sound principle that we must refer to a cause the attributes necessary to account for its effects. If the effects manifest intelligence, will, power, and moral excellence, these attributes must belong to the cause. As, therefore, the works of God are a revelation of all these attributes on a most stupendous scale, they must belong to God in an infinite degree. This is only saying that the revelation made of God in the external world agrees with the revelation which He has made of himself in the constitution of our own nature. In other words, it proves that the image of himself which He has enstamped on our nature is a true likeness. Argument from Scripture.
The Scriptures declare God to be just what we are led to think He is, when we ascribe to Him the perfections of our own nature in an infinite degree. We are self-conscious, so is God. We are spirits, so is He. We are voluntary agents, so is God. We have a moral nature, miserably defaced indeed, God has moral excellence in infinite perfection. We are persons, so is God. All this the Scriptures declare to be true. The great primal revelation of God is as the “I am,” the personal God. All the names and titles given to Him; all the attributes ascribed to Him; all the works attributed to Him, are revelations of what He truly is. He is the Elohim, the Mighty One, the Holy One, the Omnipresent Spirit; He is the creator, the preserver, the governor of all things. He is our Father. He is the hearer of prayer; the giver of all good. He feeds the young ravens. He clothes the flowers of the field. He is Love. He so loved the world as to give his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him might not perish but have everlasting life. He is merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth. He is a present help in every time of need; a refuge, a high tower, an exceeding great reward. The relations in which, according to the Scriptures, we stand to God, are such as we can sustain only to a being who is like ourselves. He is our ruler, and father, with whom we can commune. His favour is our life, his loving-kindness better than life. This sublime revelation of God in his own nature and in his relation to us is not a delusion. It is not mere regulative truth, or it would be a deceit and mockery. It makes God known to us as He really is. We therefore know God, although no creature can understand the Almighty unto perfection. Argument from the Manifestation of God in Christ.
Finally, God has revealed Himself in the person of his Son. No man knoweth the Father but the Son; and he to whom the Son shall reveal Him. Jesus Christ is the true God. The revelation which He made of Himself was the manifestation of God. He and the Father are one. The words of Christ were the words of God. The works of Christ were the works of God. The love, mercy, tenderness, the forgiving grace, as well as the holiness, the severity and power manifested by Christ, were all manifestations of what God truly is. We see, therefore, as with our own eyes, what God is. We know that although infinite and absolute, He can think, act, and will; that He can love and hate; that He can hear prayer and forgive sins, that we can have fellowship with Him, as one person can commune with another. Philosophy must veil her face in the presence of Jesus Christ, as God manifest in the flesh. She may not presume in that presence to say that God is not, and is not known to be, what Christ himself most clearly was. This doctrine that God is the object of certain and true knowledge lies at the foundation of all religion, and therefore must never be given up.
This is a list of Catholic philosophers and theologians whose Catholicism is important to their works. The names are ordered by date of birth in order to give a rough sense of influence between thinkers.
Ancient (born before 500 AD)
Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35/50 – between 98 and 110) Papias of Hierapolis (c. 60 – c. 163) Polycarp of Smyrna (c. 69 – c. 155) Justin Martyr (100–165) Irenaeus (130–202) Clement of Rome (died 99) Clement of Alexandria (150–215) Tertullian (155–222) Origen of Alexandria (184–253) Cyprian of Carthage (200–258) Aphrahat (270–345) Athanasius of Alexandria (296–373) Hillary of Poitiers (300–368) Ephrem the Syrian (306–373) Basil of Caesarea (329–379) Gregory Nazianzus (329–390) Gregory of Nyssa (335–395) Ambrose (340–397) Jerome (347–420) John Chrysostom (347–407) Augustine of Hippo (354–430) Cyril of Alexandria (378–444) Isaac of Antioch (451–452) Boethius (477–524)
Early Medieval (born between 500 AD and 1100 AD)
Pope Gregory I (540-604) Isadore of Seville (560-636) Maximus the Confessor (580-662) Bede (672/3-735) John of Damascus (675/6-749) Radbertus (785-865) John Scotus Eriugena (800-877) Anselm of Canterbury (1033/4-1109) Peter Abelard (1079-1142) Adelard of Bath (1080-1152) Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) Peter Lombard (1096-1160) Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179)
High Medieval (born between 1100 AD and 1450 AD)
Robert Grosseteste (1175-1253) Francis of Assisi (1181/2-1226) Alexander of Hales (1185-1245) Albertus Magnus (1193-1280) Henry of Ghent (1217-1293) Roger Bacon (1219/20-1292) Bonaventure (1221-1274) Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) Ramon Llull (1232-1315) Giles of Rome (1243-1316) Godfrey of Fontaines (1250-1306/9) James of Viterbo (1255-1307) Gertrude of Helfta (1256-1302) Meister Eckhart (1260-1328) Dante Alighieri (1265-1321) John Duns Scotus (1266-1308) William of Alnwick (1275-1333) William of Ockham (1287-1347) William of Ware (1290-1305) Henry Suso (1295-1366) Jean Buridan (1300-1358/61) Bridget of Sweden (1303-1373) Albert of Saxony (1320-1390) Nicole Oresme (1325-1382) Catherine of Siena (1347-1380) Jean Gerson (1363-1429) John Capreolus (1380-1444) Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464)
Renaissance and Early Modern (born between 1450 AD and 1750 AD)
Sylvester Mazzolini (1456/7-1527) Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463-1494) Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) John Mair (1467-1550) Thomas Cajetan (1469-1534) Francesco Silvestri (1474-1528) Thomas More (1478-1535) John Fisher (1469-1535) Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) Francisco de Vitoria (1483-1546) Ignatius of Loyola (1491-1556) Peter Faber (1506-1546) Teresa of Ávila (1515-1582) Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) Domingo Báñez (1528-1604) Franciscus Patricius (1529-1597) Luis de Molina (1535-1600) John of the Cross (1542-1591) Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) Justus Lipsius (1547-1606) Francisco Suárez (1548-1617) Lawrence of Brindisi (1559-1619) Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) Péter Pázmány (1570-1637) John of St. Thomas (John Poinsot) (1589-1644) Michael Wadding (1591-1644) René Descartes (1596-1650) Matthias Tanner (1630-1692) Nicolas Malebranche (1638-1715) Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) Noel Alexandre (1639-1724) Giambattista Vico (1668-1744) Giovanni Battista Scaramelli (1687-1752) Peter Dens (1690-1775) Alphonsus Liguori (1696-1787) Febronius (Johann Nikolaus von Hontheim) (1701-1790)
Doctor of the Church (Latin: doctor \”teacher\”), also referred to as Doctor of the Universal Church (Latin: Doctor Ecclesiae Universalis), is a title given by the Catholic Church to saints recognized as having made a significant contribution to theology or doctrine through their research, study, or writing.
Christian writers [Doctors of The Church] of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries are usually referred to as the Ante-Nicene Fathers
Fathers of the Church attained this honour in the early Middle Ages: Gregory the Great, Ambrose, Augustine of Hippo, and Jerome. The \”four Doctors\” became a commonplace notion among scholastic theologians, and a decree of Boniface VIII (1298) ordering their feasts to be kept as doubles throughout the Latin Church is contained in his sixth book of Decretals (cap. \”Gloriosus\”, de relique. et vener. sanctorum, in Sexto, III, 22).
In the Byzantine Church, three Doctors were pre-eminent: John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, and Gregory of Nazianzus. The feasts of these three saints were made obligatory throughout the Eastern Empire by Leo VI the Wise. A common feast was later instituted in their honour on 30 January, called \”the feast of the three Hierarchs\”. In the Menaea for that day it is related that the three Doctors appeared in a dream to John Mauropous, Bishop of Euchaita, and commanded him to institute a festival in their honour, in order to put a stop to the rivalries of their votaries and panegyrists. This was under Alexius Comnenus (1081–1118; see \”Acta SS.\”, 14 June, under St. Basil, c. xxxviii). But sermons for the feast are attributed in manuscripts to Cosmas Vestitor, who flourished in the tenth century. The three are as common in Eastern art as the four are in Western. Durandus remarks that Doctors should be represented with books in their hands. In the West analogy led to the veneration of four Eastern Doctors, Athanasius of Alexandria being added to the three hierarchs.
The Four Great Doctors of the Western Church were often depicted in art, here by Pier Francesco Sacchi, c. 1516. From the left: Saint Augustine, Pope Gregory I, Saint Jerome, and Saint Ambrose, with their Cultural attributes.
The Church Fathers, Early Church Fathers, Christian Fathers, or Fathers of the Church were ancient and influential Christian theologians and writers who established the intellectual and doctrinal foundations of Christianity. The historical period in which they worked became known as the Patristic Era and spans approximately from the late 1st to mid-8th centuries, flourishing in particular during the 4th and 5th centuries, when Christianity was in the process of establishing itself as the state church of the Roman Empire
The Church Fathers, an 11th-century Kievan Rus\’ miniature from Svyatoslav\’s Miscellany
In traditional religious theology, authors considered Church Fathers are treated as authoritative, and a somewhat restrictive definition is used. The academic field of patristics, the study of the Church Fathers, has extended the scope of the term, and there is no definitive list. Some, such as Origen and Tertullian, made major contributions to the development of later Christian theology, but certain elements of their teaching were later condemned.
Great Fathers
In the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church traditions there are four Fathers each who are called the \”Great Church Fathers”. In the Catholic Church, they are collectively called the \”Eight Doctors of the Church\”
Western Church Ambrose (A.D. 340–397) Jerome (347–420) Augustine of Hippo (354–430) Pope Gregory I (540–604) Eastern Church Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296 or 298 – 373) Gregory of Nazianzus (329 – c. 390) Basil of Caesarea (c. 330 – 379) John Chrysostom (347–407) In the Eastern Orthodox Church, three of them (Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus and John Chrysostom) are honored as the \”Three Holy Hierarchs\”.
Apostolic Fathers
Main article: Apostolic Fathers The Apostolic Fathers were Christian theologians who lived in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, who are believed to have personally known some of the Twelve Apostles, or to have been significantly influenced by them. Their writings, though popular in Early Christianity, were ultimately not included in the canon of the New Testament once it reached its final form. Many of the writings derive from the same time period and geographical location as other works of early Christian literature that did come to be part of the New Testament, and some of the writings found among the Apostolic Fathers\’ seem to have been just as highly regarded as some of the writings that became the New Testament. The first three, Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, are considered the chief ones.
Clement of Rome
Pope Clement I The First Epistle of Clement (c. 96), is the earliest extant epistle from a Church Father. In the epistle, Clement calls on the Christians of Corinth to maintain harmony and order.
Copied and widely read in the Early Church, First Clement had been considered by some as part of the New Testament canon, e.g., listed as canonical in Canon 85 of the Canons of the Apostles, among other early canons of the New Testament, showing that it had canonical rank in at least some regions of early Christendom. As late as the 14th century Ibn Khaldun mentions it as part of the New Testament.
Ignatius of Antioch
Ignatius of Antioch Ignatius of Antioch (also known as Theophorus) (c. 35 – c. 110) was the third bishop of Antioch and a student of the Apostle John. En route to his martyrdom in Rome, Ignatius wrote a series of letters which have been preserved. Important topics addressed in these letters include ecclesiology, the sacraments, the role of bishops, and the Incarnation of Christ. Specifically, concerning ecclesiology, his letter to the Romans is often cited as a testament to the universal bounds of the Roman church. He is the second after Clement to mention Paul\’s epistles.
Polycarp of Smyrna
Polycarp Polycarp of Smyrna (c. 69 – c. 155) was a Christian bishop of Smyrna (now İzmir in Turkey). It is recorded that he had been a disciple of \”John\”. The options/possibilities for this John are John, the son of Zebedee, traditionally viewed as the author of the Gospel of John, or John the Presbyter. Traditional advocates follow Eusebius of Caesarea in insisting that the apostolic connection of Polycarp was with John the Evangelist and that he was the author of the Gospel of John, and thus the Apostle John.
Polycarp tried and failed to persuade Pope Anicetus to have the West celebrate Passover on the 14th of Nisan, as in the Eastern calendar. Around A.D. 155, the Smyrnans of his town demanded Polycarp\’s execution as a Christian, and he died a martyr. The story of his martyrdom describes how the fire built around him would not burn him, and that when he was stabbed to death, so much blood issued from his body that it quenched the flames around him. Polycarp is recognized as a saint in both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.
Papias of Hierapolis
Papias of Hierapolis Very little is known of Papias apart from what can be inferred from his own writings. He is described as \”an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp\” by Polycarp\’s disciple Irenaeus (c. 180). Eusebius adds that Papias was Bishop of Hierapolis around the time of Ignatius of Antioch. In this office, Papias was presumably succeeded by Abercius of Hierapolis. The name Papias was very common in the region, suggesting that he was probably a native of the area. The work of Papias is dated by most modern scholars to about A.D. 95–120.
Despite indications that the work of Papias was still extant in the Late Middle Ages, the full text is now lost; however, extracts appear in a number of other writings, some of which cite a book number.
Alexandrian (Egypt) Fathers
Those who wrote in Greek are called the Greek (Church) Fathers. In addition to the Apostolic Fathers, famous Greek Fathers include: Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, the Cappadocian Fathers (Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa), Peter of Sebaste, Maximus the Confessor, and John of Damascus
Modern Church: In the Western Catholic Church, the patristic era is believed to have passed and The The Eastern Orthodox Church does not consider the age of Church Fathers to be over.
Orthodox view is that men do not have to agree on every detail, much less be infallible, to be considered Church Fathers; whereas after the Nicene councils the new church of the west decided that the Father of the church is infallible [inability to be wrong; even if he is]
NICENE: [Root word meaning) From 14c., \”of or pertaining to Nicaea (Greek Nikaia, modern Turkish Isnik), city in Bithynia where an ecclesiastical council of 325 C.E. dealt with the Arian schism and produced the Nicene Creed. A second council held there (787) considered the question of images. The name is from Greek nikaios \”victorious,\” from nikē \”victory\” (see Nike) greek goddess Nike Athena
Nike: literally \”upper hand\” (in battle, in wars, and in civil court) connected with neikos \”quarrel, strife,\” neikein \”to quarrel with,\” As the name of a type of U.S. defensive surface-to-air missiles, attested from 1952. The brand of athletic shoes and apparel, based near Portland, Oregon, has been so known since 1971, named for the Greek goddess, having been founded in 1964 as Blue Ribbon sport.
Nicaea: Nicaea or Nicea (/naɪˈsiːə/; Greek: Νίκαια, Níkaia) was an ancient Greek city in northwestern Anatolia and is primarily known as the site of the First and Second Councils of Nicaea (the first and seventh Ecumenical councils in the early history of the Christian Church), the Nicene Creed (which comes from the First Council), and as the capital city of the Empire of Nicaea following the Fourth Crusade in 1204, until the recapture of Constantinople by the Byzantines in 1261.
325 AD
First Council of Nicaea, (325), the first ecumenical council of the Christian church, meeting in ancient Nicaea (now İznik, Turkey). It was called by the emperor Constantine I, an unbaptized catechumen, who presided over the opening session and took part in the discussions.
Meeting at Nicaea in present-day Turkey, the council established the equality of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the Holy Trinity and asserted that only the Son became incarnate as Jesus Christ. The Arian leaders were subsequently banished from their churches for heresy.
GOD- THE FATHER MASCULINE
GOD-THE SON OF GOD HOLY SEED
GOD- THE HOLY SPIRIT FEMINE
The son, was born of the Holy Spirit, thus making him true a God. Without sin as he was made by the power of the Holy Spirit. Mary The Mother of God the Incarnate Word (Logos) gave birth to The Son Incarnate Word (Logos) by The Almighty Father (Supreme Logos)
He took on the flesh of Mankind, as Did His Mother as Mother of God, so that The Word could be revealed through them. And The New Covenant could be made, by the last sacrifice- one in which closed the chapter for the old not taking away one dot or tittle, from the laws of God, but to establish the Children of God that would then be made. As Christs Children. Although, through the passion after the 3rd day, he was risen into his ascension to His Father, to sit at His right hand, where he says he was from the beginning. (Before Abraham WAS, I AM) – he sits on the judgment seat, until the fullness of the righteous are complete and then he’s coming with the Sword. Not to bring peace, but to punish those who has done abominations against the Word (Logos) those who choose not to do the physical and spiritual works that was instructed of us. The ones who have done them to the T (Tee), according to how they are and firmly established will gain eternal life, granted new bodies made in the image of the one The Son of God was in. As ascension calls for the bodies to be of a higher spiritual essence. (haven’t you read; YE are Gods, Gods Children) —Psalm 82. Thus says the Lord, Ye are gods and children of the Most High. If we are gods, as children of God, then we should act like this. But, if we take away the divinity of us as children and that of His Son and Mother, then we go against the Commandment that says: Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” (Ex. 20:12) – this commandment wasn’t just for our Earthly Parents, but our Heavenly Ones as well.
What the Nicene Council above, thought to create was a newer thought: different from all ancient culture and knowledge: they believe—
All are equal and that There’s ONLY one God, The Father and his only begotten Son, and He was Born through the immaculate conception which shows his divinity, but only half, so he’s not technically a full God, only God the Father is God. And The Holy Spirit is God as The Fathers Spirit that is in them all. Which makes the trinity. But, since The Son in this case would be half flesh of a Mother as a Human and not divine, he suffers and is condemned then raised up and then will come again to judge the living and the dead. And in the second coming he will lift those up and condemn the rest, and those he lifts up they don’t have to keep all the laws and commandments because they have been saved by grace and not by their physical and spiritual works to deserve it.
Similar stories, but one seems to gain the prize without the hard work to suffer the gain. And the other suffered until the end, for fear (respect) of their Creator. By making all 3 (1) entity instead of Gods (3) —3 as Gods Family— they have made the perfect imperfect by imperfecting the original Word of God.
Which in John 1:1 says:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Seems very clear that The Word is Gods Son, seated on the Right Side, and The Word his Son was God. (A God, because His Father is God (A God) & The Holy Spirit His Mother (A God)
Commandment 3 \”Therefore I say to you, every blasphemy said from the mouths of wicked men will be forgiven, but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Wisdom) will not be forgiven of men who do this\” (Matthew 12:31).
[Jesus speaking] —Like do whatever you want, but never speak against My Mother [Blessed are you Mary The Mother of All.
Please check out the book of Wisdom books 1-19 https://bible.usccb.org/bible/wisdom/1
Last thing to consider: Is a Man a Woman? And is a Woman a Man? Or is a Child of them their equal? Or is there some kind of hierarchy to the Family Unit? Not based on demeaning behavior or what being the Head of the Son or Wife they don’t honor, but the true nature of the roles one of Honor. Is The Father a Mother? Or a Mother a Father or a Child both their parents Mother and Father? Wouldn’t that create some type of problem if there’s no one to answer to for the repercussions of actions? If everyone’s the parent, then who does what when? Is this order or chaos? Asking ourselves by our real life experiences do we find ourselves wondering which of the two paths we find to be more righteous in building moral character and charitable nature? And which seeks death? By the unrighteous acts to never to be condemned?
Ireland is an island country located in the North Atlantic, bounded by the North Channel, the Irish Sea, and St. George’s Channel. It is known as Eire in the Gaelic language, which comes from the old Irish Eriu, the name of a daughter of the mother goddess Ernmas of the Tuatha De Danaan, the mystical pre-celtic race of Ireland.
Ireland 12c. in Anglo-Norman, a Germanic-Celtic hybrid, with land (n.) + Celtic Eriu
Irish
c. 1200, “the Irish people,” from Old English Iras “inhabitant of Ireland.” This is from Old Norse irar, which comes ultimately from Old Irish Eriu “Erin.” The reconstructed ancestry of this derives it from Old Gaelic Iveriu (Iberia) *Iverionem, ablative Iverione (Iberian)
Kingdom of Iberia In Greco Roman geography Iberia Ancient Greek Ἰβηρία Iberia Latin Hiberia was an exonym foreign name for the Georgian kingdom of Kartli Georgian ქართლი known after its core province which during Classical Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages was a significant monarchy in the Caucasus either as an independent state or as a dependent of larger empires notably the Sassanid and Roman empires Iberia centered on present day Eastern Georgia was bordered by Colchis in the west Caucasian Albania in the east and Armenia in the south
Places of interest *The church of St. Martin, dating from the eighteenth century. *The sixteenth-century chateau. -Répertoire national des élus les maires data.gouv.fr Plateforme ouverte des données publiques françaises in French
In Irish mythology Ériu Old Irish ˈeːrʲu modern Irish Éire ˈeːɾʲə listen daughter of Delbáeth and Ernmas of the Tuatha Dé Danann was the eponymous matron goddess of Ireland. The name Ériu has been derived from reconstructed Archaic Irish Īweriū which is related to the ethnic name Iverni The University of Wales derives this from Proto Celtic Φīwerjon nominative singular Φīwerjō This is further derived from Proto Indo European piHwerjon [Friesian] fertile land or land of abundance from the adjective piHwer cognate with Ancient Greek píeira and Sanskrit pīvarī full abounding The Archaic Irish form was borrowed into Ancient Greek as Ἰέρνη Iernē [IER-NANI] -NANI OF NINEVEH [Inhabitants of ancient Nineveh before the Babylon Invasion] and Ἰουερνία Iouernia [I -O-NIA]-[LIONESS NINA] and into Latin Hibernia. (Iberiana- Iberian Peninsula) Penin Sula ~~~~Penin is a commune in the Pas de Calais department in the Hauts de France region of FranceThe chateau of Penin [see images above]
[See more about this land areas history titled: SAINT OMER]- will link here once complete
From mid-15c. in reference to the Celtic language spoken in Ireland. Some Middle English forms of the word suggest influence of (or punning on) Old French irais, irois” “Iris” wrathful, bad-tempered” (literally “ire-ous”) and Irais “Irish.”
Meaning “temper, passion” is 1834, American English (first attested in writings of Davy Crockett), from the legendary pugnacity of the Irish. Irish-American (n.) is from 1816 (as an adjective from 1820). Wild Irish (late 14c.) originally were those not under English rule; ~~~~~>>>Black Irish in reference to those of Mediterranean appearance is from 1888
[See more about this subject above titled: TRUE HISTORY OF SAINT PATRICK-[will link here once complete]
Eriu is also connected to the beautiful Eshu. The beautiful Chief at the Crossroads of the living and the dead. There he is to judge. Weighing the hearts of man on the scales of Liber [Law] Libra [Found within The African Traditional Religion]
Oxford-Hachette French Dictionary
CALAIS
From Ancient Greek καλάσινον (kalásinon)
Kyrie Kyrie Kalasinon [Elysian]
Kyrie a transliteration of Greek Κύριε vocative case of Κύριος Kyrios is a common name of an important prayer of Christian liturgy also called the Kyrie eleison ˈkɪəri.eɪ ɪˈleɪ.ɪsɒn sən KEER ee ay il AY iss on ən Ancient Greek Κύριε ἐλέησον romanized Kýrie eléēson lit Lord have mercy
In the Bible
Further information Chesed and Eleos
ELEOS: In ancient Athens Eleos Ancient Greek Ἔλεος m or Elea was the personification of mercy clemency compassion and pity the counterpart of the Roman goddess Clementia Pausanias described her as among all the gods the most useful to human life in all its vicissitudes Eleos: Personification of Mercy and compassion.
Statius in Thebaid (1st century) describes the altar to Clementia in Athens (treating Eleos as feminine based on the grammatical gender in Latin): “There was in the midst of the city [of Athens] an altar belonging to no god of power; gentle Clementia (Clemency) [Eleos] had there her seat, and the wretched made it sacred
CHESED: Chesed Hebrew חֶסֶד also Romanized ḥesed is a Hebrew word that means kindness or love between people specifically of the devotional piety of people towards God as well as of love or mercy of God towards humanity. It is frequently used in Psalms in the latter sense, where it is traditionally translated “loving kindness. In Biblical Theology: it is used for love or charity between people. Chesed in this latter sense of ‘charity’ is considered a virtue on its own, and also for its contribution to tikkun olam (repairing the world). It is also considered the foundation of many religious commandments practiced especially “inner” [esoteric] commandments. Chesed is also one of the ten Sephirot on the Kabbalistic Tree of Life. It is given the association of kindness and love, and is the first of the emotive attributes of the sephirot.
Etymology and translations
The root chasad has a primary meaning of eager and ardent desire used both in the sense good kind and shame contempt The noun chesed inherits both senses on one hand zeal love kindness towards someone and on the other zeal ardour against someone envy reproach In its positive is used of mutual benevolence mercy or pity between people of devotional piety of people towards God as well as the grace favour or mercy of God towards people.
It occurs throughout the scriptures the majority of cases (149 times), the King James Bible (KJV) translation is mercy, following the Septuagint (LXX) eleos. Less frequent translations are: kindness (40 times), lovingkindness (30 times), goodness (12 times), kindly (five times), merciful (four times), favour (three times) and good, goodliness, pity (once each). Only two instances of the noun in its negative sense are in the text, translated reproach in Proverbs 14:34, and wicked thing in Leviticus 20:17
The translation of loving kindness in KJV is derived from the Coverdale Bible of 1535. This particular translation is used exclusively of chesed used of the benign attitude of KYRIE (“the LORD”) or Elohim (“God”) towards his chosen, primarily invoked in Psalms (23 times), but also in the prophets, four times in Jeremiah, twice in Isaiah 63:7 and once in Hosea 2:19. While lovingkindness is now considered somewhat archaic, it is part of the traditional rendition of Psalms in English Bible translations.
The Septuagint has mega eleos ‘great mercy’, rendered as Latin misericordia. As an example of the use of chesed in Psalms, consider its notable occurrence at the beginning of Psalm 51 (חָנֵּנִי אֱלֹהִים כְּחַסְדֶּךָ, lit. ‘be favourable to me, Elohim, as your chesed’):
ἐλέησόν με ὁ θεός κατὰ τὸ μέγα ἔλεός σου (LXX) Miserere mei, Deus, secundum misericordiam tuam (Vulgate) “God, haue thou merci on me; bi thi greet merci.” (Wycliffe 1388) “Haue mercy vpon me (o God) after thy goodnes” (Coverdale Bible 1535) “Haue mercie vpon mee, O God, according to thy louing kindnesse” (KJV 1611) “Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness” (KJV 1769, RV 1885, ASV 1901) “Favour me, O God, according to Thy kindness” (YLT 1862) “Have mercy on me, O God, according to thy steadfast love” (RSV 1952) “Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love” (NRSV 1989) In Judaism, love is often used as a shorter English translation. Religious Theologian Daniel Elazar has suggested that chesed cannot easily be translated into English, but that it means something like ‘loving covenant obligation’. Other suggestions include grace and compassion.
The world rests upon three things: Instructions for Mankind, service to God, and bestowing kindness” –Chesed is the CORE ethical virtue.
The Instructions for Mankind: Begin and End with Chesed:
Qualities of chesed: love God so completely that one will never forsake his service for any reason provide a child with all the necessities of their sustenance and love the child circumcise a child [8th day-science proves why the 8th day from birth this is the safest] visiting and healing the sick giving charity to the poor offering hospitality to strangers attending to the dead bringing a bride to the chuppah marriage ceremony making peace between a person and another human being. ***A person who embodies chesed is known as a chasid (hasid, חסיד), one who is faithful to the covenant and who goes “above and beyond that which is normally required” and a number of groups throughout Jewish history which focus on going “above and beyond” have called themselves chasidim. These groups include the Hasideans of the Second Temple period, the Maimonidean Hasidim of medieval Egypt and Palestine, the Chassidei Ashkenaz in medieval Europe, and the Hasidic movement which emerged in eighteenth century Eastern Europe.
Meaning of ‘charity’, and a “chesed institution” in refers to any charitable organization run by religious groups or individuals. Charitable organizations described as “chesed institutions” include:
▫️dedicated to visiting and caring for the sick and their relatives an institution dedicated to (‘providing kindness’), often with free loan funds or by lending or giving away particular types of items (toys, clothes, medical equipment, etc.) ▫️Organizations typically provide free services for emergency medical dispatch and ambulance transport (EMTs and p – organizations that perform religious care for the deceased, and often provide logistical help to their families relating to autopsies, transport of the body, emergency family travel, burial, running a Shiva home, and caring for mourners ▫️Friendship– organizations going by this name typically provide free roadside assistance and emergency help with mechanical or structural problems in private homes ▫️Guardian groups – community watch groups
Bringing clarity to a perplexing diagram Luke 11
The Lord’s Prayer He was praying in a certain place and when he had finished one of his disciples said to him Lord [KYRIE] teach us to pray just asJohn taught his disciples He said to them When you pray say: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth[Crown Keter], [Wisdom Chochma (Breath/Wind/Spirit/Energy/Chi/Ka], [Understanding Binah], [MercyLovingkindness Chesed], [Strength, Gevurah], [Beauty, Tiferet], [Practice, Victory Netzach], [Theo, Empathy, Hod], [Foundation& Kingdom &SovereigntyYesod, Malkhut]
Father hallowed be your name your kingdom come Give us each day our daily bread and forgive us our sins for we ourselves forgive everyone in debt to us and do not subject us to the final test
The first three of the ten sephirot are the attributes of the intellect, while chesed is the first sephira of the attribute of action. In the kabbalistic Tree of life, its position is below Chokhmah, across from Gevurah and above Netzach. It is usually given four paths: to chokhmah, gevurah, tiphereth, and netzach
The Bahir states, “What is the fourth (utterance): The fourth is the righteousness of God, His mercies and kindness with the entire world. This is the right hand of God.” Chesed manifests God’s absolute, unlimited benevolence and kindness. The angelic order of this sphere is the Hashmallim, ruled by the Archangel Zadkiel. The opposing Qliphah is represented by the demonic order Gamchicoth (or Gha’agsheblah), ruled by the Archdemon Astaroth.
The prayer Kyrie eleison Lord have mercy derives from a Biblical phrase Greek ἐλέησόν με κύριε have mercy on me Lord is the Septuagint translation of the phrase חָנֵּנִי יְהוָה found often in Psalms 6:2, 9:13, 31:9, 86:3, 123:3
In the New Testament the Greek phrase occurs three times in Matthew
Matthew 15:22 the Canaanite woman cries out to Jesus Have mercy on me O Lord Son of David Ἐλέησόν με κύριε υἱὲ Δαβίδ
Matthew 17:15 Lord have mercy on my son Κύριε ἐλέησόν μου τὸν υἱόν
Matthew 20:30 two unnamed blind men call out to Jesus Lord have mercy on us Son of David Ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς κύριε υἱὸς Δαβίδ
In the Parable of the Publican and the Pharisee Luke 18:9-14 the despised tax collector who cries out Lord have mercy on me a sinner is contrasted with the smug Pharisee who believes he has no need for forgiveness
Luke 17:13 has epistates master instead of kyrios lord Ἰησοῦ ἐπιστάτα ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς being less suggestive of the kyrios lord used as euphemism for YHWH in the Septuagint There are other examples in the text of the gospels without the kyrie lord e.g Mark 10:46 where blind Bartimaeus cries out Jesus Son of David have mercy on me In the biblical text the phrase is always personalized by an explicit object such as on me on us on my son while in the Eucharistic celebration it can be seen more as a general expression of confidence in God’s love.
In Eastern Christianity
See also Hesychasm
The phrase Kýrie eléison Greek Κύριε ἐλέησον whether in Greek or in other languages is one of the most oft repeated phrases in Eastern Christianity including the Eastern Orthodox Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches The Greek phrase Kýrie eléison is for instance extensively used in the Coptic Egyptian Christian liturgy which uses both the Coptic and the Greek languages
The various litanies frequent in Eastern Orthodox rites generally have Lord have mercy as their response either singly or triply Some petitions in these litanies will have twelve or even forty repetitions of the phrase as a response
The phrase is also the origin of the Jesus Prayer beloved by eastern Christians as a foundation of personal prayer and is increasingly popular among some Western Christians
The prayer is simultaneously a petition and a prayer of thanksgiving an acknowledgement of what God has done what God is doing and what God will continue to do It is refined in the Parable of The Publican Luke 18:9–14 God have mercy on me a sinner which shows more clearly its connection with the Jesus Prayer
In Rome, the Liturgy was first celebrated in Greek. Josef Jungmann suggests the Kyrie in the Roman Mass is best seen as a vestige of a litany at the beginning of the Mass, like that of some Eastern churches, retained after Latin became normative.[3]: 335f.
As early as the sixth century, Pope Gregory the Great noted that there were differences in the way in which eastern and western churches sang Kyrie. In the eastern churches all sing it at the same time, whereas in the western church the clergy sing it and the people respond. Also the western church sang Christe eléison as many times as Kyrie eléison. In the Roman Rite liturgy, this variant, Christe, eléison, is a transliteration of Greek Χριστέ, ἐλέησον.
“Kyrie, eléison” (“Lord, have mercy”) may also be used as a response of the people to intentions mentioned in the Prayer of the Faithful. Since 1549, Anglicans have normally sung or said the Kyrie in English. In the 1552 Book of Common Prayer, the Kyrie was inserted into a recitation of the Ten Commandments. Modern revisions of the Prayer Book have restored the option of using the Kyrie without the Commandments. Other denominations, such as Lutheranism, also use “Kyrie, eléison” in their liturgies.
Kyrie is [Lord] Eleison is [Mercy]
Interesting Ireland etymology is Erie like Kyrie and Calais was a place known to connect to the people, but situated in France today.
Calais is Kalesion
The Vatican says this
Kyrie Eleison [The Lord have Mercy] then Christi Eleison [Christ have Mercy]
Irish [Kyri] —also Iris like the Lilly of the nile valley & the Fleur de lis [Lilly] —
You can’t find the mysteries without studying scripture
Kyrie as section of the Mass ordinary
Edit
See also Mass ordinary I Kyrie
In the Tridentine Mass form of the Roman Rite Kýrie eléison is sung or said three times followed by a threefold Christe eléison and by another threefold Kýrie eléison Collectively the nine invocations are said to unite the petitions of the faithful to those of the nine choirs of angels in heaven In the Paul VI Mass form in the interests of brevity each invocation is made only once by the celebrating priest a deacon if present or else by a cantor with a single repetition each time by the congregation though the Roman Missal allows for the Kyrie to be sung with more than six invocations thus allowing the traditional use Even if Mass is celebrated in the vernacular the Kyrie may be in Greek This prayer occurs directly following the Penitential Rite or is incorporated in that rite as one of the three alternative forms provided in the Roman Missal The Penitential Rite and Kyrie may be replaced by the Rite of Sprinkling
In modern Anglican churches it is common to say or sing either the Kyrie or the Gloria in Excelsis Deo but not both In this case the Kyrie may be said in penitential seasons like Lent and Advent while the Gloria is said the rest of the year Catholics however usually follow Roman norms in this as in most other liturgical matters
Thank God for those who know the TRUE ROMAN RITE bless those who stand against the fallacies of man’s doing that choose to erase what’s sacred and profane it.
Bless them for their courage under all odds to keep the truth alive even through the expressions of wisdom through song.
Kyrie Eleison
Christi Eleison
As it was in the beginning ever shall be world without end. Alleluia.
In the Tridentine Mass the Kyrie is the first sung prayer of the Mass ordinary It is usually but not always part of any musical setting of the Mass Kyrie movements often have a ternary ABA musical structure that reflects the symmetrical structure of the text Musical settings exist in styles ranging from Gregorian chant to folk Additionally the musician Judee Sill emulated the Greek Orthodox delivery of the Kyrie in her song The Donor on the album Heart Food
The band Mr Mister released their popular song Kyrie in 1985.
Use in litanies
Edit
The Kyrie serves as the beginning of litanies in the Roman Rite
Pronunciations
The original pronunciation in Medieval Greek was ˈcyri.e eˈle.ison xrisˈte eˈle.ison just when the Byzantine Rite was in force The transliteration of ἐλέησον as eléison shows that the post classical itacist pronunciation of the Greek letter eta η is used Although the Greek words have seven syllables Ký ri e e lé i son pronunciations as six syllables Ký ri e e léi son or five Ký rie e léi son have been used
In Ecclesiastical Latin a variety of pronunciations are used the italianate ˈkiri.e eˈle.ison ˈkriste eˈle.ison having been proposed as a standard dubious discuss Text underlay in mediaeval and Renaissance music attests that Ký ri e léi son five syllables was the most common setting until perhaps the mid th century William Byrd’s Mass for Four Voices is a notable example of a musical setting originally written with five syllables in mind later altered for six syllables citation needed
The Mediaeval poetic form Kyrielle sometimes uses Kýrieléis an even more drastic four syllable form which is reduced to three syllables or even to kyrleis in the German Leise ˈlaɪzə
In the Suomi language of Finland the phrase is rendered kuria eläissäin punish guide me while I’m living id est not after death 16th century
Modern Catholic thought
The terms aggiornamento (bringing up to date) and ressourcement (light of the Gospel) figure significantly into the documents of Vatican II: “The Church carries the responsibility of scrutinizing the signs of the times and interpreting them in the light of the Gospel” (Gaudium et spes, 4). Louis Bouyer, a theologian at Vatican II, wrote of the distortion of the Eucharistic spirit of the Mass over the centuries, so that “one could find merely traces of the original sense of the Eucharist as a thanksgiving for the wonders God has wrought.” The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) notes that at the Council of Trent “manuscripts in the Vatican … by no means made it possible to inquire into ‘ancient and approved authors’ farther back than the liturgical commentaries of the Middle Ages … [But] traditions dating back to the first centuries, before the formation of the rites of East and West, are better known today because of the discovery of so many liturgical documents”. Consonant with these modern studies, theologians have suggested that there be a continuity in praise of God between the opening song and the praise of the Gloria. This is explained by Mark R. Francis of Catholic
Theological Union in Chicago, speaking of the Kyrie:
Its emphasis is not on us (our sinfulness) but on God’s mercy and salvific action in Jesus Christ. It could just as accurately be translated “O Lord, you are merciful!” Note that the sample tropes all mention what Christ has done for us, not how we have sinned. For example, “you were sent to heal the contrite,” “you have shown us the way to the Father,” or “you come in word and sacrament to strengthen us in holiness,” leading to further acclamation of God’s praises in the Gloria.
In this same line, Hans Urs von Balthasar calls for a renewal in our whole focus at the Eucharist:
We must make every effort to arouse the sense of community within the liturgy, to restore liturgy to the ecclesial plane, where individuals can take their proper place in it…. Liturgical piety involves a total turning from concern with one’s inner state to the attitude and feeling of the Church. It means enlarging the scope of prayer, so often narrow and selfish, to embrace the concerns of the whole Church and, indeed – as in the Our Father – of God.”
In the New Dictionary of Sacramental Worship, the need to establish communion is reinforced as it quotes the GIRM to the effect that the purpose of the introductory rites is “to ensure that the faithful who come together as one establish communion and dispose themselves to listen properly to God’s word and to celebrate the Eucharist worthily” (GIRM, 46, emphasis added).
In addition to the original Greek and the local vernacular, many Christian communities use other languages, especially where the prayer is repeated often.
Flynn, Gabriel; Murray, Paul D, eds. (2011). Ressourcement: A Movement for Renewal in Twentieth-Century Catholic Theology. Chapter 24, Ressourcement and Vatican II. Oxford.
Fortescue, Adrian. “Kyrie Eleison.” The Catholic Encyclopedia Vol. 8. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910.
The Scriptural account of the origin of man is contained in Genesis i. 26, 27, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.” And Gen. ii. 7, “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
Two things are included in this account; first that man’s body was formed by the immediate intervention of God. It did not grow; nor was it produced by any process of development. Secondly, the soul was derived from God. He breathed into man “the breath of life,” that is, that life which constituted him a man, a living creature bearing the image of God.
Many have inferred from this language that the soul is an emanation from the divine essence; particula spiritus divini in corpore inclusa. This idea was strenuously resisted by the Christian fathers, and rejected by the Church, as inconsistent with the nature of God. It assumes that the divine essence is capable of division; that his essence can be communicated without his attributes, and that it can be degraded as the souls of fallen men are degraded. —Delitzsch’s “Biblical Psychology” in T. and T. Clark’s “Foreign Library,” and Auberlen in Herzog’s “Encyclopädie,” article “Geist der Menschen.”
(John 6:36-47) Introduction A. Summary of the story of the “Prodigal Son” (Luke 15:11-24) B. Jesus says, “Whoever comes to Me I will never cast out” (John 6:37). March 2014
Jesus says, in essence, “No matter what they’ve done – no matter where they’ve been – no matter what they’ve lost – if they come to Me like the prodigal son came to his father, I will receive them and love them, and will never drive them away.”
Like the prodigal son, we deserve to be turned away. C. What is grace?
“Grace” (charis), used 157 times in the New Testament, refers to God’s favor and loving kindness to sinners who do not deserve it.
Repeatedly, the New Testament emphasizes that man’s salvation is a result of God’s grace.
Though our text does not use the word “grace,” we see an example of it in verse 37 and 40. D. There is a temptation to present an unbalanced picture of God’s grace to others.
When talking to Christians with sin in their lives, it is tempting to play the ‘grace card’ in an effort to minimize the seriousness of their sin. As a result, some actually think that God will overlook the sins that they do not want to give up!
When talking to non-Christians, it is tempting to only stress God’s grace and Christ’s love while minimizing their need for repentance. We fear we will run people away from the gospel if we talk about sin, so we try to keep the conversation positive. E. Jesus did not believe in easy believe-ism; He taught exactly what was coming between them and God’s grace.
When the rich young ruler asked what he needed to do to inherit eternal life, Jesus could have said, “It’s easy: God loves you, and I love you too! Just believe in Me and you’re good to go!” Instead, He pinpointed the man’s heart problem (Luke 18:22).
Jesus told the unbelieving crowd that they must die to themselves (Mark 8:34-35).
It turns out that following Jesus is not so easy! F. Jesus never taught anything less than total commitment, and as a result, many left Him (John 6:66). G. What was keeping the Jews from coming to Jesus in faith? I. Disbelief (John 6:36-40) A. The Jews asked for a “sign” that they might believe (cf. John 6:30). Yet, Jesus had given them more than a sign; they had listened to His Words and they had witnessed an astonishing miracle the day before (cf. John 6:1-15). Neither the miracle nor the sign influenced them to believe. B. Their problem was not a lack of evidence, but stubbornness and reluctance of heart. C. An adequate amount of evidence is not always the answer to disbelief.
If one miracle were insufficient, what difference would a second miracle make?
The rich man’s brothers had ample evidence from the testimony of Moses and the prophets (cf. Luke 16:27-31), and people today have plenty of evidence from Christ and His apostles.
Miraculous “signs” are inadequate to the complete testimony of Jesus (cf. 1 Cor. 13:10). D. There must be a desire to believe the gospel; God will not force mankind to believe. II. Wrong Attitudes (John 6:41-43) A. Some were probably suffering from an attitude of over-familiarity with Jesus and His family.
Jesus, now in Capernaum (cf. John 6:59), might have lived with his family in Capernaum (cf. John 2:12). His audience was well acquainted with His earthly family.
Some may have been thinking, “The Jesus I’ve watched grow up couldn’t be the Son of God!” 3. Based upon a false assumption, some today think, “Jesus is too nice to condemn anyone
B. Some were probably suffering from an attitude of presumptuousness.
They thought, “There’s no way Jesus is from heaven, He has a mother and a father!” 2. Like Nicodemus, they were trying to fit God’s ways into man’s ways (cf. John 3:10-12). 3. They were oblivious to Christ’s virgin birth (cf. Luke 1:26-33). C. Some were probably suffering from an attitude of dissatisfaction with God’s plan.
Note the Old Testament parallel. God gave bread in the form of manna to Israel during the days of Moses, and they grumbled (cf. Ex. 17:3; Num. 11:1).
God graciously provided for them, but they were still not satisfied (1 Cor. 10:9-10). D. The wrong attitude certainly keeps many from coming to know Jesus today.
“Stop grumbling” (v. 43) is the only response Jesus directly gave to what the Jews’ attitude. He did not bother to defend Himself against their complaint.
Arguments from bad attitudes are seldom worth responding to (cf. Matt. 7:6). III. Apathy (John 6:44) A. These words would have been very sobering to anyone with a soft heart. B. Genuine belief in Christ is more than a casual response made on a whim.
For a matters of the heart, one must be led (“drawn”) to Christ by of God Himself through the penetrating power of the Gospel.
There are many who have followed Christ for superficial or temporal reasons.
Yet, a desire for God must be etched on the human heart for belief to be valid (Jer. 31:33). IV. Ignorance (John 6:45-46) A. Previously, Jesus stated, “No one can come to Me unless the Father Who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44). How does God draw men? Through the teaching of His Word.
Calvinists argue that God, through an obscure influence of His Spirit, ‘picks and chooses’ who He will “draw” to Himself. Yet, if the term “draw” is an irresistible force, then all would be saved because Christ “will draw all people” to Himself (John 12:32).
The “drawing” of (John 6:44) is a beneficial, yet universal, pull through the Gospel’s power. B. Jesus quoted (Isa. 54:13).
Thus, all who learn properly of the Father come to Christ, for His teaching influences them and points them to His Son.
All who are drawn to Christ by the Father are those who have believed the Law and the Prophets and (today) the teachings of the New Testament.
God told Israel in the days of Jeremiah (Jer. 31:3). C. The truth was given to the Jews, but they refused to be taught, and thus their ignorance was keeping them from the Bread of Life (cf. Hosea 4:6). D. How many today are lost, weak, or insecure in their faith because of ignorance of God’s Word? V. Stupidity (John 6:47) A. Stupidity: “foolish, senseless” (Random House); “lacking common sense” (Collins English Dictionary.” B. Jesus’ Jewish audience was suffering from stupidity because they were spiritually near-sighted; they were not thinking about eternity, they were only thinking about their current physical condition. C. Jesus is the Bread of Life (John 6:35, 48), meaning believing and obeying His Word is essential for eternal life with the Father (cf. John 3:16). D. It is the highest degree of stupidity to not be concerned about one’s eternal salvation. Conclusion A. Being saved by the God’s grace is more than simply mentally acknowledging Jesus as the Son of God. 1. Faith apart from works is dead (Jas. 2:20-26)
![](\"https://rosarywisdomdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2022/11/img_8451-1.jpg?w=300\")
![](\"https://rosarywisdomdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/img_2671-4.jpg?w=952\")
![](\"https://rosarywisdomdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/image-3-1.jpg?w=655\")
![\"\"](\"https://rosarywisdomdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/img_2793.jpg?w=218\")
![\"\"](\"https://rosarywisdomdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/img_1701.jpg?w=350\")
![\"\"](\"https://rosarywisdomdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/img_2796.jpg?w=230\")
![\"\"](\"https://esotericanthropologyscience.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/img_2750.jpg?w=258\")
![\"\"](\"https://esotericanthropologyscience.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/img_2749.jpg?w=976\")
![\"\"](\"https://esotericanthropologyscience.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/img_2735.jpg?w=270\")
![\"\"](\"https://esotericanthropologyscience.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/img_2737.jpg?w=799\")
![\"\"](\"https://esotericanthropologyscience.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/img_2754.jpg?w=519\")
![\"\"](\"https://esotericanthropologyscience.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/img_2748.jpg?w=600\")
![\"\"](\"https://rosarywisdomdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/img_2774.jpg?w=800\")
![\"\"](\"https://esotericanthropologyscience.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/img_2771.jpg?w=958\")
![\"🌹\"](\"https://s0.wp.com/wp-content/mu-plugins/wpcom-smileys/twemoji/2/svg/1f339.svg\")
![\"🙏🏽\"](\"https://s0.wp.com/wp-content/mu-plugins/wpcom-smileys/twemoji/2/svg/1f64f-1f3fd.svg\")
![](\"https://rosarywisdomdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/image-3.jpg?w=189\")
![](\"https://rosarywisdomdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/img_2671-1-2.jpg?w=952\")