The language of the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter jesusmademe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jesusmademe

Guest
In the Creed it is said:
I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Resurrection of the dead in itself does not have to refer to a glorious resurrection. It can refer to what happened to Lazarus. Oftentimes I hear words/terminology that refers to something more specific than what the words in themselves do. I have given you such an example.
What is the Church’s philosophy behind this? The Creed could have stated that it refers to a glorious ressurection. It did not.
How are we to understand this?
 
jesusmademe said:
How are we to understand this?
Click to expand...
In context. The raising of Lazarus from the dead was a miracle, but Lazarus would go on to die again. The Creed is talking about what will happen at the end of the world, at the General Judgment, when the dead will receive their glorified bodies. There’s no contradiction here. It’s all about how the word is being used where it’s being used.

-Fr ACEGC
 
The Creed is more of a summary so it doesn’t go into full detail.
 
The Creed says" I BELIEVE IN THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY" but couldn’t it say something like “I BELIEVE IN THE GLORIOUS RESURRECTION OF THE BODY”**?
Even if it is a summary they could have used a more specific terminology, right?
I am not sure if you even like the “glorious Resurrection”. Why is “resurrection” better when it doesnt even specify what kind of resurrection we are talking about?
 
jesusmademe said:
Why is “resurrection” better when it doesnt even specify what kind of resurrection we are talking about?
Click to expand...
Because there’s only one kind of resurrection. (If you want to be precise, Lazarus wasn’t resurrected, he was revived. As Fr @edward_george1 mentioned to you, Lazarus subsequently died. That’s not a characteristic of a ‘resurrection’. 😉

So, in this context, ‘resurrection’ is completely specified and is a sufficient description.
 
It’s a relief that baptisms of other denominations are being recognized.

www.ncronline.org

Pope Francis and Coptic pope agree not to re-baptize

Cairo: Francis and Tawadros signed the surprise declaration at the Orthodox St. Mark Cathedral, a significant step forward in relations between the Roman Catholic and Coptic Orthodox Churches.
www.ncronline.org www.ncronline.org
 
It’s explained in fuller depth in the Catechism and most people understand what they are talking about.
 
Last edited:
jesusmademe said:
In the Creed it is said:
I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Resurrection of the dead in itself does not have to refer to a glorious resurrection. It can refer to what happened to Lazarus. Oftentimes I hear words/terminology that refers to something more specific than what the words in themselves do. I have given you such an example.
What is the Church’s philosophy behind this? The Creed could have stated that it refers to a glorious ressurection. It did not.
How are we to understand this?
Click to expand...
Catechism
998 Who will rise? All the dead will rise, “those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.” 552
552 Jn 5:29; cf. Dan 12:2.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top