The Vatican has directed that YHWH must not be used in lithergy or service, that Christian god should be known, as, "Lord," to reconcile rites with Paul. The Jewish faith will not like that one.

Oliver,

The vatican has often done things contrary to the Word of God. Nowhere in Scripture are we directed to have a 'lithergy' so I would not be to concerned.

The Jewish faith has never been to friendly to those who follow the Lord Jesus Christ anyway so I don't see what the big deal is about. One day the Holy One of Israel will be revealed to all the Jewish ones who reject the Son of God. They will finally have their eyes open to the Alpha and Omega, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace, the great I AM, the One who was and is and is to come.

It seems to me that it is mainly the Jehovah Witness's who get hung up about God's name Yahweh in the old testament. They are cultish with many un biblical practices.

Hi Oly

mate.. you should provide us with some links mate. More info please.

The primary issue with the Catholic Church is this:

SOLA SCRIPTURA or.. SOLA ECCLESIA? Or a combination?

The Reformed/Protestant position is that all Church tradition and individual behavior should be measured against the Scriptures.
The RC Church on the other hand believes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura
<<The Roman Catholic Church against which the Reformers directed these arguments did not see Scripture and the Sacred Tradition of the faith as different sources of authority, but that Scripture was handed down as part of tradition. Accepted traditions were also perceived by the Roman Church as cohesive in nature.>>

This is most important in understanding why the RC Church has done things which are quite 'off' and different from Scripture at times in both it's doctrines and actions.

A classic example is the issue of celebate Popes and Priests.

Some facts of the RC Church illustrate the problem here.

1/ Peter was the first "Pope".
2/ Popes and Priests must be Celebate.
3/ Peter had a Mother in Law. (i.e..was married)

See the problem? :)

BELIEF and BEHAVIOR is something I've begun (hopefully)in a separate thread, to address this idea of 'how' to evaluate Church behavior at different times in history.

IF...you believe that the Church is the final arbiter in matters of Faith...then the Church says "Priests must be celebate" you will not be too concerned about the clear fact of Scripture that Peter was married.
It follows logically also, that if the Church says "We must stamp out paganism and idolatry with military force in the name of God".. you are more likely to accept this.

It is only when you believe that SOLA SCRIPTURA is the key to true doctrine that you would scrutinize 'CHURCH' actions in that light.

Polly,

The source is The Pope, via the Congregation for Worship & Divine Sacraments. Many references were citing. Key points of scripture, were Phil 2.11 & 1 Corinthians 2.8. It was not a website.

It was a directive. I am unsure whether or not the directive is Ex Cathedra,from Benedict, as The Vicar of Christ.

Poly, The angels said no L, however, poy might not work.

Poly & Oly:

"IF...you believe that the Church is the final arbiter in matters of Faith..." (Poly), then one cannot hold manifest the absolute accuracy of the "selection" of the four gospels from many fourth century gospels, nor the doctrine of the trinity, based so largely on the words/interpretations of men at Nicaea and Constantinople (Oly.).

The priests are celebate not because of reason of scripture, rather the Church did/does not want familial dynasties to evolve in ranks over time, taking control of matters like Royal Houses and, it didn't want to pay to support wives. At different times in the past RC priests could marry and might again in the future. Also, Protestant converts to the RC priesthood remain married, now.

The (Catholic) Church of England was estblished in thirteenth century. Missionaries go back to about the sixth century.

The split occurred over Henry VIII's love-life and a need for a male heir. Later, the rightful heir Queen (Lady) Jane was executed by the Catholics, because she maintained, based on scripture, there were two rather than seven sacraments. And, also, to get her out-of-the-way. Counter moves against "Papism" evolved into the reign of Elizabeth I.

With contention against Mary Queen of Scots (a Catholic), the Elizabethian Court argued over 42 Articles of Faith for a new religion, wherein, Elizabeth I fed-up with cleric's debate, chose the current Church of England 39 Articles of Faith.

A Catholic, I think, would argue that The Chair of Peter (The Rock) was established by Jesus and the succession is known; whilst the other Christian churches were established by people. Jesus did not give the Keys to Elizabeth, Luther and others. Jesus founded the Christian Church on the Foundation of Peter. So Catholics believe.

British monarchs have usurped as dynastic the title, Defender of the Faith, which was awarded to the Catholic (and he died one) Henry VIII, for his "personal" theistic scholarship. Calling QE II Defender of the Faith is a bit like saying the grandchildren on Olympians have gold medals too.

Dear Oly,

I scrawled through so many websites trying
to get to the bottom of why the Vatican
would issue such an order.

And, I still can't quite understand why they
would do it. One suggestion was that the pronunciation
was difficult. However, substituting "Lord" or some
other title for the name Yahweh as another site stated,
renders unintelligible so many key texts in the
Hebrew Scriptures.

Another site stated, "Yahweh is not a 'term.'
It's a name. A memorial name. It's not an expression
of the infinite greatness and majesty of God.
It's about being faithful to the Word Of God as
revealed to us."

It seems that the Vatican is making changes to suit itself
from all sorts of sources, but Scripture itself.

In the Hebrew in which the original Hebrew Scriptures are written, a special name used for God in some places was YHWH, commonly referred to as the tetragammon. Israelite people would not say the name YHWH out loud, as a sign of respect for God's transcendence and greatness. Often they would say "The Name" instead.
YHWH was translated as Jehovah in the King James version.

When written down, Hebrew had no vowels, so the way to say YHWH had literally been forgotten by the time scribes added "pointing" to the Hebrew text to aid pronunciation. Translators in the C20 believed that Yahweh was likely A MORE accurate translation of the tetragammon than Jehovah.

I've only seen the article re the Pope's statement in passing. However, as a corrective to the overly familiar attitude to YHWH of some Christians, who seem to think they can tell YHWH what to do, perhaps it's not a bad idea!

Andrew Prior - http://churchrewired.org

Post Babylonian Jews adressed God as Adonai meaning the Lord. I believe it is important to understand the development of the names for God as it represents an evolution in theological thought. YHWH was first used by Moses in Hebrew thought and became exclusively the God of Israel, the masculine God revealed in the firey cloud. Abraham and the partiarchs Before Moses (the monotheistic patriarchs) worshipped God by the name El Shaddai, which was the many breasted Celestrial female God of all life. Originally chosen from the many gods worshipped at Uggarett. However Jacob while in Edom and several of his Edomite cousins worshipped God by the name Aloah which in Arabic later developed into Allah.

The name or its spelling is of miniscule importance compared to the understanding of what it represents and means. When we address God as Lord, it represents submission to his character and will.
(dinners ready to be continued)

Good point Andrew... I get nauseated by many of the incredibly shallow "Jesus is my bofriend" style songs.. or.. "Oh what a nice day..thank God" kind of stuff floating around.

Hymn
Love divine, all loves excelling,
joy of heaven to earth come down
Fix in us Thy humble dwelling,
All Thy faithful mercies crown.
Jesus, Thou art all compassion,
Pure, unbounded love Thou art;
Visit us with Thy salvation,
Enter every trembling heart."

Just 8 lines and it is so powerful in it's ideas so grandiose that such lame choruses as

In the place Ive found where I can hide.
Its safe inside
Your arms of love.
Like a child whos helped throughout a storm,
You keep me warm
In your arms of love.

SHRIEEEEKKKKK..... warm fuzzy words sure..but any depth? Plus..they are all about ME.. and how "I" feel rather than the centrality of Christ.

I agree Polycarp that there is in Christianity today a Jesus cult that has taken over much of what is called Christian, and fails to recognise the Lord. Jesus was the human being through which God in Christ is made known. We do not worship the icon of the physical Jesus. We worship the character, attitudes, behaviours, actions, sacrifice, achievements, compassion, wisdom, relationships because through that we recognise the Lord.

God is not flesh and blood, but through flesh and blood the character of the eternal God is revealed. The spirit of God is revealed in lives that reflect the character of Christ the Lord. The most notable aspect of our recognition of Christ is to make him Lord. By our admiration and devotion we emulate and follow in his way. We then become in this current history the incarnation of God to demonstrate love, forgivness and reconciliation of sinners.

Dear Foxy,

Thanks for your comments.

I think the Vatican are working from the perspective of what Jesus said, presumably replacing OT references. Albeit, Psalms, I think, has references to the Lord. Some of the churches' scholarship seems to use Vulgar Latin and Koine Greek. Given Jesus' time and place in History, he most likely spoke Aramaic and Attic Greek (Court Greek). The Nicaean framers to modern clerics would have been / are linguistically lower caste than was Jesus.

Dear Poly,

- What is your take on the eccesiastical fallability at Nicaea?
- Whom can rightly start a church? Sells? You? Me? The Queen of England?

Philo,

It is actually more detailed than I have related. My copy of the high-level Church correspondence is in PDF format. The directives are argued and not off-the-cuff.

Cheers,

Peter

Oliver,
Thanks for this discussion. Could you post some of the argument contained in the PDF correspondence. Just acknowledge the section and identify your comments.

I enclosed here a paragraph from my commentary on the book of Job.

"It is essential that all orthodox Biblical revelation is consistent with its most intrinsic Torah principle, “there is no god beside Yahweh ”. This truth is also upheld by Jesus in Mark 12: 29 . The titles we use for “God” in our culture are not as significant as the understanding of the exclusive character the name represents. Wether we call God, Almighty God, El Shaddai as the ancient Hebrew patriarchs, Yahweh as the Israelites, Eloahh as the Edomites, Elahh as the Babylonian monotheists, Allah as the Arabic monotheistic tribes, or Lord; providing our understanding embodies the true character and faithfully represents the person of this unique and only almighty God. That His power, and revelation to man is consistent with a true representation. Christ our Lord revealed to us the true expressed character of our God, as the loving Father who can forgive the repentant sinner and has begotten us of His Spirit. Though the name we use is not significant, it is imperative we recognise the demonstration of His powerful presence and revelation in the Earth."

Oly....interesting questions.

On the surface it might seem obvious that:

If I reject Sola Ecclesia and claim Sola Scriptura as the foundation for the Churches doctrines..... that the Council of not only Nicea but many others also, contradict that state of affairs as it was 'The Church' which decided which scriptures to include and which to reject?

As I said.."on the surface".

The councils were more about recognizing and establishing that which was already in practice and accepted, than developing doctrines of their own.

That disputes will arise is no surprise... that it takes a gathering of Godly Believers to resolve them is also understandable.

I suggest though, that the councils used Scripture as their reference point, not their ecclesiastical authority of the day.
That Christ was both God and man was already accepted. Only when this existing belief was challenged by heretics did it become neccessary to codify this as a specific belief.

This isn't the place for a long blurb about Church history, but it is there I believe for the serious enquirer to ferret out.
blessings.

Dear Oly,

Barbara Thiering in her book,
"Jesus The Man..." gives an
interesting explanation of
"Hierarchy," (Appendix III)p.332.

On page 340, Thiering gives an account
of the titles, "Lord," and "God,"
and "Yahweh/God gave."...

It may be of interest to you to check
this out, if you haven't already done so.

Also, Abram Leon Sachar, in his book,
"A History of the Jews," (5th edition),
gives many concepts of "Yahweh."
Perhaps you could get hold of this book
from your local library?

Oliver, I just want to back up a moment to your opinion that: "British monarchs have usurped as dynastic the title, Defender of the Faith, which was awarded to the Catholic (and he died one) Henry VIII, for his "personal" theistic scholarship. Calling QE II Defender of the Faith is a bit like saying the grandchildren on Olympians have gold medals too."

This was an issue, remember, that was flung about a lot both at Henry's death and at the time of the Interregnum and encompasses the entire question of the rights and duties of English royalty, let alone the more important one of dynastic succession. Only by siding with those who interpret this title as meaning Defender of the Catholic Faith could poor little Lady Jane be considered the "rightful" hier.

I was startled at the subjectiveness of your opinion which is the strictly Catholic viewpoint. If supportive of the Catholic viewpoint historicly, why not from the contemporary POV of the issue of this thread?

(Curious - not combatative)

Philo,

My source is correspondence between the Vatican and an Australian Archbishop. It might not be proper to name the folks involved. Under the Papal emblem, the letterhead reads, "Congregato de Cultu Divino Et Dispina Sacramentorum".

Hope all is well you.

p.s. I am not Archbishop, it is merely a cc to me.

Romany,

Thanks for your comment. I will come back to you again soon: I am an academic in the middle of marking.

However, in the short-term, I agree with you, that my comments did take a strong Catholic slant, but not because I was promoting Catholicism, rather, because Defender of The Faith was a Catholic Award/Acknowledgement by a Catholic Pope, to a Catholic King. I guess the difference between Church of England is, the former was externally conferred, presumably to one person, for scholarship; while the latter, is a transmution of the former, is self-adopted and is dynastic. The former is perhaps my like the Templeton Prize and the latter an hereditary title.

Kind regards,

O,

Poly, Romany, Philo & Foxy,

Responding to Romany's comments:

The Reformed Church of England, heavy-handedness complementing Defender of the Anglican Faith:

"The Act of Supremacy, originally passed under Henry VIII in 1534, made the monarch the supreme head of the Church of England, and gave him authority to reform and redress all errors, heresies, and abuses." During the reign of Edward VI, Parliament enacted the Articles of Faith, which set forth the doctrinal tenets of the Church, and the Book of Common Prayer, which prescribed the liturgy for religious worship. The Acts of Uniformity required all ministers to conform to these requirements, making the Church of England the sole institution for lawful public worship. Its purpose, as stated in the preamble to the 1662 version, was to effect 'an universal agreement in the public worship of Almighty God. The Act Against Papists and Conventicles Act prohibited unlicensed religious meetings; various penal acts punished dissenters for engaging in prohibited religious worship.

Catholics and Puritans were particular targets, because both appeared to threaten the political legitimacy of the state. The flavor of this persecution is indicated by the titles of the laws: 'An Act to prevent and avoid dangers which may grow by Popish Recusants,' (41) or An Act to retain the Queen's majesties subjects in their due obedience." Cite: Mcconnell & law 2003.

Romany, Jane became hier via Frances Grey, as the Elizabeth as a barstard and the Steward or Douglas lineages could have led to Scottish Kings. Which did happend anyhow with James I/VI.

Cont..

So, to lend balance:

"The Greek-Roman world was not...converted to a new religion, but compelled to embrace it." The Emperor Theodosian [one nasty dude] issued a series of decrees or rescripts in the years 341, 345, 356, 381, 383, 386 and 391 CE. The effect of these orders was to "suppress all rival religions, order the closing of the temples, and impose fines, confiscation, imprisonment or death upon any who cling to the older [Pagan] religions." Mcconnell & Law 2003.

The church rivals in history seem much-of-a-muchness as regard the excise of power and the heinous deeds to remove opposition. Even under quasi-republic of Cromwell, General Monk, destroyed and persecuted Catholics.

Christianity, essentially, as we would recognise it, today, was established at the Council of Ephasus 431, after Nicaea & the Councils/Cannons of Constantinople.

The early Romans were much more tolerant.

Oly,

I was recently reading about first century Jews and the facts Andrew raised. When I read your original question I was surprised that it might be an issue for contemporary Jews. Things must have changed greatly. Without adopting Runner's entire first post I would also have thought it was no big deal and that it would be a non issue for all but Jehovah's Witnesses. Even then they aren't Catholic so it is probably of no relevance to them either what a Pope might direct.

Andrew and Philo in their first posts covered almost everything else I was bursting to say when I read your first one. I'd just add that I have read that when the Old Testament was first written in Hebrew they substituted Lord for most of the YHWHs anyway. Very few were left in the King James and I think many modern translations skip them either entirely or almost entirely.

"The priests are celebate not because of reason of scripture, rather the Church did/does not want familial dynasties to evolve in ranks over time, taking control of matters like Royal Houses and, it didn't want to pay to support wives"

In the thread http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2000&page=1 I explained why Catholic priests are celibate and how it came about. You were there at the beginning. It is a shame you missed that. Please take a look at that rather than perpetuate such silly rumours. It makes no sense because celebacy replaced sexual continence and with sexual continence it is pretty difficult to have familial dynasties. On the other hand if there was so much as a hint that a familial dynasty was possible it would indicate that priests were breaking the sexual continence in marriage rule and celibacy would be a logical disciplinary approach to ensure that continence was observed without any reason to consider the issue further.

Oliver: -
"Romany, Jane became hier via Frances Grey..." Yes, I'm fairly well versed in the history of the period, which is why I posed my comment: after all, Elizabeth could be considered a bastard only if one did not believe in divorce, so your post positing Jane as the "rightful" Queen seemed a little anachronistic?

I was also, as stated, a little puzzled by your statement to the effect that Elizabeth II et.al claiming the title Defender of the Faith was like allowing the descendants of Olympic Medalists to claim title as Gold Medalists also? By your post above, you seem quite to accept actions by taken by royals under the auspices of this title, so I am still wondering why, or at what period, you feel the title came to be regarded as per your Olympic medal similie?

I don't want to derail the thread ..but your response intrigued me even further!

"you seem quite to accept actions by taken by royals under the auspices of this title" - Romany

Not "accept", on contrary; too many are willing to accept. I recognise that it has been accepted. I believe the title invalid, after Henry VIII.

What is the legimacy of Elizabeth II, to assume title given by a Pope exclusively to one catholic King? If first improper assumption to the title of "Defender of the Faith" by an English monarch is unfoundered; my view; it follows, therefore, all subsequent assumptions to the titles are similarly muddied.

Henry VIII was given award or prize, if you like. Others just adopted it as their own. Need check, but think it was because the Protestant bishops, as lords in The Parliament, whom allowed the passage of an Act?

As you point-out Protestantism occurred after an Interregnum. On one side of the chronologic interstitium, we have a Pope awarding a man a title for his catholic scholarship. (As I said, like the Templeton Prize.) On the other, we have Protestants, assuming the catholic title, as their own, as right of progressive passage of the title. It is distanced in purpose, time and faith. No disrespect intended, however, QE II should dump it.

I need have a look at the Douglas lineage, before I can comment on the succession matter. My understanding apart from the barstard issue, the English wanted to rule Scotland, rather than be ruled by a Scottish King. It happened anyway.

Is correct for the US to claim it was a country in 1776, when would have been recognised as acountry, until 1783. Is it an anachronism to say, that the American colonies were not the United States in 1777? Say, if you asked someone in Spain in 1777? To that Spanard, was it the US War of Independence or the Revolutionary War fought against British colonial power? If Palestine defeated Israel in 2050, would correct to say in 2100, Israel didn't exist in 2008. When Henry VIII received the title, the rules for the succession of barstards did not apply.

Regards,

O

Dear Foxy,

I will re-read the direction and provide you and our friends more detail. Might be a day or so, as I am marking assignments. If it is not generally out-there, it might be improper to cut and paste, even if it wasn't PDF. There are scripture cites throughout one of the two letters. The under letter is from the Vatican.

Kind regards,

Oly.

My bible tells me that the only name that man will get a responce from God is the name Jesus . There is no other mediator between man and God . It also tells me that Christ is the head of the church . The pope is the head of A denomination not the head of the church . The church is the body of Bornagain believers . There is only one way into the Kingdom of God {you must be born again} Jesus words recorded in book of John chapter 3 . We are told by scripture not to follow blindly the teachings or traditions of man but to test everything against scripture .We are also told to submit to our leaders .So if our leaders lead us to do ungodly things who is in error . For me the buck stops with me so I do as Jesus did and get alone with my heavenly father and talk with him . He comanded me recently to leave the church that had been my spiritual home for over 20 years and I was quite upset at leaving all my friends . After 6 months he gave me the reasons
1 . I am going into new terratory and my pastor cannot lead me and I needed a more mature Pastor {in the Word} and also I needed to trust God more for my physical strength is no more since a stroke and I can no longer live in my own strength . His word is alive and means diferent outcomes in my life . God DOES NOT change , I must or my relationship is dead .
2 . Obedience is better than sacrefice and God only wants the very best for his children .
We must allow God the Holy Spirit to lead us and then we are true sons of God . The price is full commitment but the reward is Joint Heir with the King of Kings and Lord of Lords not to be taken lightly or carelessly .

Richie 10,
I can accept your sincerity, but I believe Oliver is debating who has the power to authorise what title is used of "God" in Church worship.

If you were in a Christian Church in Indonesia you would use a different name to mean Saviour. Jesus means saviour or deliverer. In many Churches today the nature of the spirit of God worshipped is not more than a glorified hero called Jesus or Jesus is my best friend. It fails to grasp the infinite, creative and eternal concept of the Almighty.

Names identify character and the title "Lord" or in Heb "Adonai" represent a concept of Character that commands total attention and devotion. Jesus always addressed himself as "son of man" and pointed worship to his father - Theo (Mathew 4: 10). Though he uses concepts such as 'way', 'life', 'truth', 'good shepherd', 'door' etc to express concepts about the nature of Christ the Lord. God was in Christ, his spirit expressed the very mind (the word) of the eternal God.

It is only through the action of Jesus that man can be saved. But it is only through the approval Of God that the atonement of Christ is effective. Christ dies for sin not his own, approved of as atonement because God so loved that he gave man salvation through the total sacrifice of Christ.

It is true Jesus was the human sacrifice that effects reconciliation between God and the man whom we must mediate through. But his humanity is not divine. It was God in him reconciling the sinners to Himself. A mediator identifies one standing between an agrieved party and another.

I was not debating the atributes of Gods Nature .All the atributes of God are in Jesus "God the son" one of three in the Godhead {father.Son.And Holy Spirit} And are all interchangable as the three are One . Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of the Father. The spirit of Jesus is the Holy Spirit . Fully God not a little god or a power source as the J W presume .

Richie 10,
God is not three anywhere in scripture God is unity, not diversity of persons. The name Father Son and Holy Spirit in Matthew 28: 19 is one name (supported by the singular article in the Greek text), one God; not three persons even as Isaiah 9: 6 is one name bestowed upon one, one God who can be revealed in a child born. God is revealed by His spirit in those born of His spirit and are so called 'sons of God'. Yet it is the same spirit that is revealed in each life so identified by the life of holiness, compassion and purity.

Rich 10,

Do you or I have the commission to commence a church or a denomination of a church?

The Seventh Day Adventists, probably correctly, given what I have read from translations of the dead sea scrolls, maintain Saturday as the Sabbath. (actually scrolls state folks stated sects would wind-down on Friday)... I believe that based on historical and astronomical data that the person whom Christians call, Jesus, was born 7 BCE. Do I have the commission to frame a church on that presumption.

Philo,

You are quite right. The Protestants need to justify their claim.

Universal Christianity arising form Christian Judaism occurred during the time of Hadrian, when the faction (in Pella)required a Latin bishop (Marcus) to enter the Holy Land, from which Jewish religion was banned. This transformation was an expansion, to assimilate the Gentiles, breaking free (except the OT) from Judaism, yet retaining connection to the fifteen (Jewish) popes/bishops going back to Peter. What is significant here, is the line of succession is not broken.

Rich 10,

With Protestant reformers, whom may have had some valid critiques regarding eccliastical error, it is noteworthy others, not Peter, started their own game, rather than work to reform, within the frame of the Mother church.

The Church of England et al., certainty would not have as strong a counter claim regarding its foundation, against Catholicism, as would the Eastern Orthodox churches, as the latter have common roots in their foundation, wherein the differences are focused essentially on the nature of ousia of the trinity.

Rich 10, BTW, if you don't know me from other threads, I maintain one can merely hold a position on theism or athesism, as a hypothesis, that the held belief is the alternative hyothesis and a null hypothesis should first entertained. On the evidence, I have found, thus far, my null hypothesis for the existence of god is currently rejected.

-cont-

Herein, I posit, it is "probable", that the alternative hypothesis god does not exist is true. I shall retain the alternative hypothsis, whilst I test the null hypothesis.

Because it would require an infinite set of information,to determine that god absolutely does not exist, I maintain the lesser proposition
that the probability of god's existence is highly impropable.

Moreover, mathematically, I assume that the existence of a named god (e.g., Jesus, Zeus, Oden) taken from a random sample of gods named is less likely to be, a god or the god, than the basic case that god exists

How much authority do YOU put on Gods point of view ,his word.
How much authority do YOu put on mans point of view .
For me Gods word is Final Authority and I have no right nit picking over it for it then becomes only a bone of contention or foolishness on our part. Ps We are set free from the law and have covernent of grace written in the blood of Jesus in his will and testement . We obey the law with the Holy Spirits help and when we fall he if faithful to pick us up and dust us down if we confess our sin to him. If we chose to hide behind a fig leaf as Adam did we separate ourself from God as the penalty for sin is separation from God

Dear Oly,

Thanks. I am looking forward to your
reply. Because I'm still rather unsure
as to why the Vatican would issue such a
directive.If other Popes did
not have a problem with Yahweh, why is this
a problem now?

Is this a way of going back to the ancient
tradition? - because Jews thought the name
Yahweh was too holy to pronounce.

By the
200's B.C they were using the word "Adonai"
as a respectful substitute when reading from
the scriptures. When Yahweh was preceded by
Adonai, they said "Elohim."

When writing the
word, Jewish scribes mixed the vowels of
Adonai and Elohim with the consonants of YHWH,
the traditional spelling of Yahweh. This mixing
resulted in the Latin spelling, Jehovah, which
carried over into English.

Perhaps the Vatican is doing this out of respect
for the Jewish tradition?

Richie 10

I look forward to your response to my question regarding who (human) can start a church? Constantine? Elizabeth I? You? Me.

The true consequence of your argument is that we do not need churches. The alledged substitutionary randsom would be one-time event in history. History could record such an event.

If the priest does not have power over the Host, why is it necessary for a priest or minister or pastor to be involved. Why shouldn't a Christian family have The Bread & Wine with friends and family? Herein, our relationship with said god would be absolute. Direct, no intercession.

Institutional priesthood have their roots in Sumer and have as much to do with the administration of land (owned by god(s)), when peoples started the first city states, e.g., Ur.

Philo,

You are also correct in saying that my comment on the Vatican's direction relates to the name of God. Greetings.

Essentially the Church is not an organisation based upon a hierarchy. It is a movement in the hearts and spirits of humanity of relationship to our Creator and expressed social relationship to each other, i.e. love of God and human. The love of God is revealed in the spirit of humanity as our spirit lives in the holy aspiration of living in God. No one can say I love God yet hate his neighbour.

Philo, others,

Does the Celebration of the Eucharist necessarily require an ordained person? Or is it a protocol?

Unfortunately when the Church became the State it took on hierarchical roles as established in the Roman Empire. This is not the position forseen by Jesus, who said when two or three are gathered in my name there anm I, and again to paraphrase his words, my kingdom is not established upon power structures as the organisations of this world.

He said my kingdom is within you. He that would be greatest in my kingdom would be your servant. Even the disciples and one mother struggled with this and sought the right hand position for her sons in the new government they assumed. For them they believed His kingdom would be established along hierarchal structured lines. He taught rather it was a kingdom ruling in men's hearts not a State kingdom, based upon power lines. He had high commendation for a poor widow and low regard for learned Jewish professors of the law

Dear Oly,

The Celebration of the Eucharist
requires an ordained person.

Oliver askes Richie10

"Do you or I have the commission to commence a church or a denomination of a church?"

Interesting question Oly.
If not, then the mission was limited to those who heard our Lords words usually called 'The great commission'.

Given the treatment of the issue in Luke 24:44-49 in particular and the totality of Paul writings, it seems clear to me that the issue is not the forming of 'a' Church or denomination, but the proclaiming of the Gospel of Salvation to all mankind.

It does not take any greater qualification than the memorization of John 3:16 to do that.

Let's remember it is the Lords work... not depending just on our human skills or oratory. His Spirit moves in the hearts of those who hear the word and they will be drawn nearer or further depending on their response.

There is only ONE Church ..and it does not have any other name than that. "The Body of Christ".. the body of people who name the name of Jesus as Savior, and honour him with their hearts as well as their lips...'That' ...is 'The Church' :)

Polycarp, I think you got to the heart of the matter in that last comment.Brought up as a Catholic, I remember the comfort of believing I was in the right religion as a child.The ritual and the belonging to a social group: and back then we were not permitted to visit another church or touch the host at communion with our hands.It was not the bible that gave us direction but the priest and the teachers at catholic schools.We still have a lot of the values taught then, but experience in the world has taught us to be tolerant and have no opposition to other christian or different world religions.I am now what I once called a lapsed catholic but I am still a christian in my opinion, in that I have the values and attitudes to life and death that were basic in the faith I was born into.But I agree with Polycarp,-The Church is not a building or an Organisation with rules and a heirachy of people who make the rules, it is a Body of human beings who in various ways have heard of a Jew called Jesus Christ who in his short life taught a more gentle and loving way of living than the old Jewish Religion of an Angry God and rules written in Stone.

Dear Foxy,

If I read correctly, the Cardinal Prefect’s letter, on behalf of the Pope, one issue is that the early Christians did not use the Tetragrammaton; instead the Greeks used the word Kyrios which means, “Lord”. In the second century the Vetus Lina and the Vulgate used the substitute the word “Dominus”, corresponding to the Hebrew, Adonai, and the Greek, Kyrios.

Herein, the Tetragrammaton was never pronounced “by those faithful to the Church’s tradition, even in later translations.

Further, n. 41 of the Liturgiam authenticam, states "the divine tragragrammation is to be rendered by the the equivalent of Adonai/Kyrios: 'Lord' ".

The other issue is Christology. The Cardinal Prefect cites the following sources, with regards to Christology, as well:

- Phil 2.9; Phil 2.11; Acts 2.20; Joel 3:4; 1 Peter 1.25; Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 12:3.

Significantly, The “Lord is exalted above any other name”. The Catholic Church now takes these words to be a proclaimation of divinity.

Not on the Internet yet, as far as I can see. The full text is too comprehensive for our OLO site. Moreover, if the direction is still in the pipe-line,it would be improper to say to quote verbatum.

Peace,

Oly

Dear Oly,

Thank you for clearing things up for me.

I can't help but wonder though, what was
the real name of Jesus Christ?

Will the Vatican ever change that according
to the Scriptures?

DIPLOMAN,

When a teacher our local priest flew at me fow attending the neibouring parish. I used prefer the other church, because it had a yout group where I had friends there. That priest's main sermon was on (not) making nominal donations to the church. The local priest threw me out of a confession once too, for not rememberng if/if not, I had eaten meat on a Friday.

I remember I used to dread going to
confession during my school days
because our parish priest had a
hearing problem.

It was embarrasing when you'd tell
him, "Bless me Father for I have sinned,
it's been two weeks since my last
Confession," and the man would bellow
at you, "You did WHAT?"
"How MANY times?"

I would creep out of that confessional
red-faced, while my friends would
giggle and nudge each other...

Good one Foxy, but I guess it wasn't at the time.

I must have led a boring life, just going to school, hanging out with friends, doing home work and watching TV. I had to make-up sins. Bet I wasn't alone.

At the time, being thrown out was a bit embarrassing. He then turned on the other kids waiting, and gave a lecture on making a "good" Confession. Also, he could see out the church grounds from the Alter and chide peole in a load voice from the Alter in they crossed/loited in the Church grounds. Confette and a marriage was a mortal sin, I suspect.

Albeit, to be fair, he did give me a reference, when I left school, after a few stern words on not seeing me enough on Sundays.

When I believed, I confess (ahem), I did feel on a high after confession.

The name of God didn't come up