Liturgy Of St. James

[Makarios]

The Liturgy of St. James is the oldest known liturgy. It proves many things about the Early Church, including their beliefs on Mary. It was written between the second century and the fourth century. Check this out:

Then the Priest says aloud: -
Hail in the highest, our all-holy, pure, most blessed, glorious Lady, the God-mother and ever-virgin Mary.
The Singers.
Verily it is becoming to bless Thee, the God-bearing, the ever-blessed, and all-blameless, and mother of our God, more honourable than the cherubim, and incomparably more glorious than the seraphim; thee, who didst bear with purity God the Word, thee the true God-mother, we magnify.
And again they sing: -
In thee, highly favoured, all creation rejoices, the host of angels, and the race of men; hallowed temple, and spiritual paradise, pride of virgins, of whom God was made flesh and our God, who was before eternity, became a little child: for He made Thy womb His throne, and Thy bowels more capacious than the heavens. In thee, O highly favoured one, all creation rejoices: glory unto thee.

This in itself proves a couple things.

1. The early Christians had orderly worship (St. Paul even said to have orderly worship in an epistle to the Corinthians). This is known as the Liturgy. There was no random speaking in tongues and people flipping out and pretending they are on fire (Sorry Charismatics).
2. The early Church had priests.
3. The early Church believed in Mary as Christ’s mother, ever-virgin, and gave her honor, though she had died earlier (some believe she was assumed into heaven).
4. The communion of saints.

I found this interesting. If the Church had it wrong that early, as Protestants say, well, the Church has been saint worshiping idolizers since about the fourth century. Of course, I go by with what Christ said about the Church (hell shall not prevail against the Church; i.e. the Church shall not die, ever). I also don’t believe everyone for more than 1200 years was damned. So either Catholics have it right, or Christianity is completely wrong.

 

[Domnall]

Interesting. I see your quote, but would you mind providing a link to a website or a bibliographical entry for a book in which this could be found?

Thanks and God Bless!

 

[Apollos]

So either Catholics have it right, or Christianity is completely wrong.

Ooh, somebody took the red pill.

 

[Makarios]

Ooh, somebody took the red pill.

Hahahahahaha!

I guess I should also state that Orthodox Christians also fall in the category, as they are an apostolic church

 

[BrianH]

The Liturgy of St. James is the oldest known liturgy. It proves many things about the Early Church, including their beliefs on Mary. It was written between the second century and the fourth century. Check this out:

This in itself proves a couple things.

1. The early Christians had orderly worship (St. Paul even said to have orderly worship in an epistle to the Corinthians). This is known as the Liturgy. There was no random speaking in tongues and people flipping out and pretending they are on fire (Sorry Charismatics).
2. The early Church had priests.
3. The early Church believed in Mary as Christ’s mother, ever-virgin, and gave her honor, though she had died earlier (some believe she was assumed into heaven).
4. The communion of saints.

I found this interesting. If the Church had it wrong that early, as Protestants say, well, the Church has been saint worshiping idolizers since about the fourth century. Of course, I go by with what Christ said about the Church (hell shall not prevail against the Church; i.e. the Church shall not die, ever). I also don’t believe everyone for more than 1200 years was damned. So either Catholics have it right, or Christianity is completely wrong.

So if I do not believe as Catholics do, I should quit being a Christian?
I have heard this enough that I have considered the implications.
I do not believe, and let me tell you understand I have read and been around long enough to know the teachings, all that you believe. So, what do you think, Jewish? Unitarian? Those are the viable options.

 

[UniversalistGuy]

The Liturgy of St. James is the oldest known liturgy. It proves many things about the Early Church, including their beliefs on Mary. It was written between the second century and the fourth century. Check this out:

Then the Priest says aloud: -
Hail in the highest, our all-holy, pure, most blessed, glorious Lady, the God-mother and ever-virgin Mary.
The Singers.
Verily it is becoming to bless Thee, the God-bearing, the ever-blessed, and all-blameless, and mother of our God, more honourable than the cherubim, and incomparably more glorious than the seraphim; thee, who didst bear with purity God the Word, thee the true God-mother, we magnify.
And again they sing: -
In thee, highly favoured, all creation rejoices, the host of angels, and the race of men; hallowed temple, and spiritual paradise, pride of virgins, of whom God was made flesh and our God, who was before eternity, became a little child: for He made Thy womb His throne, and Thy bowels more capacious than the heavens. In thee, O highly favoured one, all creation rejoices: glory unto thee.

Your point is powerful. I looked up the Orthodox Wiki. According to it, the Liturgy of St. James is still in use. It states:

Today it is the principal liturgy of the Churches of the West Syrian tradition: the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Syrian Catholic Church, the Indian Orthodox Church, the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church, and the Mar Thoma Church.

I’ve narrowed my inquiring down to either Catholic or Orthodox. Because they can both legitimately claim to BE the early Christians. None of the others can, right?

 

[lax16]

So if I do not believe as Catholics do, I should quit being a Christian?
I have heard this enough that I have considered the implications.
I do not believe, and let me tell you understand I have read and been around long enough to know the teachings, all that you believe. So, what do you think, Jewish? Unitarian? Those are the viable options.

What is wrong with being Catholic?

 

[BrianH]

Nothing at all.
I have been here a long time to know what I believe and learn what you do. I do not believe in what you believe in.

 

[lax16]

Nothing at all.
I have been here a long time to know what I believe and learn what you do. I do not believe in what you believe in.

Yes, you have been here a long time (since 2005!)

My question is really - what is it you don’t believe in?

The OP is very interesting as it speaks volumes about early Christianity. The Early Church Fathers and Writings can tell us so much about how the first Christians worshipped and it is very close to the Catholic Church today.

Jesus established one Church and left Peter in charge. I think He wants us all to be together.

 

[rben20]

There are many reasons why people stay in their own schismatic church, but none of them are done in full knowledge. I got to the point that I could no longer be a part of any other church with the history and unbroken lineage I saw in the Catholic Church. There was no way I could deny it. I knew that these early Christians were Catholic or at the least Orthodox. No other church could make this claim as they all came back to a man not CHRIST OUR LORD.

 

[Harpazo]

The Liturgy of St. James is the oldest known liturgy. It proves many things about the Early Church, including their beliefs on Mary. It was written between the second century and the fourth century. Check this out:

This in itself proves a couple things.

1. The early Christians had orderly worship (St. Paul even said to have orderly worship in an epistle to the Corinthians). This is known as the Liturgy. There was no random speaking in tongues and people flipping out and pretending they are on fire (Sorry Charismatics).
2. The early Church had priests.
3. The early Church believed in Mary as Christ’s mother, ever-virgin, and gave her honor, though she had died earlier (some believe she was assumed into heaven).
4. The communion of saints.

I found this interesting. If the Church had it wrong that early, as Protestants say, well, the Church has been saint worshiping idolizers since about the fourth century. Of course, I go by with what Christ said about the Church (hell shall not prevail against the Church; i.e. the Church shall not die, ever). I also don’t believe everyone for more than 1200 years was damned. So either Catholics have it right, or Christianity is completely wrong.

If you become Roman Catholic, you’ll have to deal with the Charismatics as it is officially approved and even encouraged by Rome.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[scottm]

I’ve narrowed my inquiring down to either Catholic or Orthodox. Because they can both legitimately claim to BE the early Christians. None of the others can, right?

And the Coptic Church too, though technically it is Eastern Orthodox. It was started by the gospel-writer Mark. One of the liturgies they still use is the one Mark brought with him to Egypt. That’s so cool!!!

Yes, the cool thing about the Orthodox Church is that it has every single Apostle, and all the places mentioned in the New Testament are Orthodox places with the one exception of Rome. Journeys of Paul? Orthodox land. Seven churches of Revelation? Orthodox. Titles of the epistles? Orthodox, except for “Hebrews” and “Romans.” All the cities mentioned in the greetings? Orthodox. It’s like spilling a pepper shaker on a map of the Near East. Everywhere a pepper grain lands is a church started by and pastored by one of the Apostles, or a direct student of an Apostle.

That’s totally cool!

The Roman Catholic Church gets two Apostles and one city: Peter and Paul, in Rome. There is a legend that James went to Spain and then returned to Jerusalem. Whatever. Give them three Apostles if you want.

As an in-between ground you could consider one of the many varieties of Eastern Catholic. They’re Orthodox in tradition (both practice and theology), but their bishops get along with the Roman pope. You get the best of both sides that way.

 

[UniversalistGuy]

If you become Roman Catholic, you’ll have to deal with the Charismatics as it is officially approved and even encouraged by Rome.

What do they do? Are they like Pentecostals jumping and falling out and speaking tongues?

 

[LDNCatholic]

What do they do? Are they like Pentecostals jumping and falling out and speaking tongues?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charismatic_Renewal

I will say that I’ve never once seen these guys. I have heard about them once using my church. I don’t think they were invited back.

 

[Hesychios]

In the interest of honest scholarship I must point out that we do not know at this point when those particular prayers were added to the liturgy.

The problem is that liturgies tend to grow organically over time, and the church authorities (in this case not Rome) will add a prayer.

One way to help date the prayer is to examine the text in each of the churches which use the liturgy (there are several, I do not know which text this quote is from), if it appears in all of them and in the same location, that may be a clue that the prayer predates the earliest schism. The schisms themselves can be fairly accurately dated.

It is better to do this in the original language, which I cannot do.

I am glad the topic was raised because liturgical theology is often neglected.

 

[JonNC]

=Makarios;6997854]The Liturgy of St. James is the oldest known liturgy. It proves many things about the Early Church, including their beliefs on Mary. It was written between the second century and the fourth century. Check this out:
This in itself proves a couple things.

1. The early Christians had orderly worship (St. Paul even said to have orderly worship in an epistle to the Corinthians). This is known as the Liturgy. There was no random speaking in tongues and people flipping out and pretending they are on fire (Sorry Charismatics).
2. The early Church had priests.
3. The early Church believed in Mary as Christ’s mother, ever-virgin, and gave her honor, though she had died earlier (some believe she was assumed into heaven).
4. The communion of saints.

Lutherans…

1. …agree, though we recognize speaking in tongues as a gift of the Spirit, when done properly (someone there who understands what is being said - not jibberish, etc)
   2)…agree
   3)…agree
   4)…agree

I found this interesting. If the Church had it wrong that early, as Protestants say

As you can see, it isn’t helpful to generalize about “protestants”.

well, the Church has been saint worshiping idolizers since about the fourth century.

I, frankly, don’t see how any of the above 4 are connected with idolatry.

Of course, I go by with what Christ said about the Church (hell shall not prevail against the Church; i.e. the Church shall not die, ever).

I do, too.

I also don’t believe everyone for more than 1200 years was damned.

Not sure what this statement means. If you mean prior to the Reformation, I don’t believe that to be the case, either.

So either Catholics have it right, or Christianity is completely wrong.

Have what right? The above 4?

Jon

 

[dvdjs]

The Liturgy of St. James is the oldest known liturgy. It proves many things about the Early Church, including their beliefs on Mary. It was written between the second century and the fourth century. Check this out:

Then the Priest says aloud: -
Hail in the highest, our all-holy, pure, most blessed, glorious Lady, the God-mother and ever-virgin Mary.
The Singers.
Verily it is becoming to bless Thee, the God-bearing, the ever-blessed, and all-blameless, and mother of our God, more honourable than the cherubim, and incomparably more glorious than the seraphim; thee, who didst bear with purity God the Word, thee the true God-mother, we magnify.
And again they sing: -
In thee, highly favoured, all creation rejoices, the host of angels, and the race of men; hallowed temple, and spiritual paradise, pride of virgins, of whom God was made flesh and our God, who was before eternity, became a little child: for He made Thy womb His throne, and Thy bowels more capacious than the heavens. In thee, O highly favoured one, all creation rejoices: glory unto thee.

Dear Makarios,
To follow up on Hesychios’s point, the current form of the liturgy of St. James has certainly undergone change over the centuries. In particular, the Axion Estin hymn that you quote could not have been part of the early Liturgy of St. James. The latter part of the hymn, …“more honorable than the cherubim…” is an Irmos attributed to St. Cosmas the Hymnographer (died 773). The first part dates from the end of the tenth century.
iconograms.org/sig.php?eid=489
mountathos.gr/active.aspx?mode=en{2aee45f1-c81e-4f0c-9cf9-c2efe471cfd1}View.

 

[dvdjs]

And the Coptic Church too, though technically it is Eastern Orthodox

Not sure what you mean by “technically”, but The Coptic church is Oriental Orthodox not Eastern,

Yes, the cool thing about the Orthodox Church is that it has every single Apostle, and all the places mentioned in the New Testament are Orthodox places with the one exception of Rome.

Again I am not sure what you mean here. Perhaps you are referring to some point in history. But presently, the Christians of the Middle East are, predominantly, within the Catholic communion.

 

[scottm]

Not sure what you mean by “technically”, but The Coptic church is Oriental Orthodox not Eastern.

I researched the Coptic Church a couple years back when I met an actual Egyptian dude who was actually a Coptic Christian. Way back in history in the time of that 4th Council there was a terrible mixup over language. The two sides didn’t speak each other’s languages, and got all confused over interpretations. That has been straightened out over the intervening centuries. The Coptic Church in actuality accepted the statement of the 4th Council way back then, and still does today. Everybody just got confused by language barriers. Their faith is, in actual practice and actual doctrine, identical to the Eastern Orthodox communion.

Again I am not sure what you mean here. Perhaps you are referring to some point in history. But presently, the Christians of the Middle East are, predominantly, within the Catholic communion.

History, yes. Before 1000 AD there was one church: the Orthodox Church, sometimes called the Catholic Church. After the split one of the canonical patriarchs took the name “Catholic,” which meant “universal.” He probably did that because of his empire lust, his vision of universal political domination. The other patriarchs took the name “Orthodox” because they were right. For a long time after the split the lands mentioned in your Bible were almost exclusively Orthodox lands. They just were. That’s history.

That was my point. I live in America where the apostles never set foot. They didn’t even know my country existed. I think it’d be totally cool to live in a land where the apostles walked, and to attend churches in the same cities where the apostles founded churches. I geek out just thinking about how cool that is.

Whether today those churches are technically “Catholic” or not (such as my parish) they still follow the Orthodox traditions with respect to liturgy and doctrine. (My Catholic parish follows the traditions of Byzantine Christianity, not Roman Christianity. We’re under the patriarch of Antioch, not the patriarch of Rome.)

 

[dvdjs]

I researched the Coptic Church a couple years back when I met an actual Egyptian dude who was actually a Coptic Christian. Way back in history in the time of that 4th Council there was a terrible mixup over language. The two sides didn’t speak each other’s languages, and got all confused over interpretations. That has been straightened out over the intervening centuries. The Coptic Church in actuality accepted the statement of the 4th Council way back then, and still does today. Everybody just got confused by language barriers. Their faith is, in actual practice and actual doctrine, identical to the Eastern Orthodox communion.

Joint Christological statements have been published by joint theological commissions of the OO and EO churches (and the OO and Catholic churches). But much remains to be worked out on the path to formal inter-communion - not the least of which is what to do about the findings and anathemas of Ecumenical Councils, which led, “back then” to the breaking of communion over differences of faith - and the ones since then.

History, yes. Before 1000 AD there was one church: the Orthodox Church, sometimes called the Catholic Church. After the split one of the canonical patriarchs took the name “Catholic,” which meant “universal.” He probably did that because of his empire lust, his vision of universal political domination. The other patriarchs took the name “Orthodox” because they were right.

For a long time after the split the lands mentioned in your Bible were almost exclusively Orthodox lands. They just were. That’s history. … Whether today those churches are technically “Catholic” or not (such as my parish) they still follow the Orthodox traditions with respect to liturgy and doctrine. (My Catholic parish follows the traditions of Byzantine Christianity, not Roman Christianity. We’re under the patriarch of Antioch, not the patriarch of Rome.

It would be helpful if you distinguished a church - a communion - from a ritual patrimony or tradition. It is certainly true that the Christians in the Holy Land stem from and adhere to Eastern traditions. At the present they are predominantly within the Catholic Church. Integrating over time, since “the split”? … that is less obvious than you seem to appreciate.