Ok, I grant that a number of non-Catholics go out of the way to call the holiday “Resurrection Sunday“ a few seem to have gravitated towards calling it “Pascha” like Eastern Christians do… Some of them dislike the term “Easter” wrongly thinking it connotes paganism. (Taylor Marshall has the 411 on that with today’s entry Why is the festival of Christ’s Resurrection called Easter? – it is about as “pagan” to use the term “Easter” as it is “Thursday” or “January” or “Sunday“[!] for that matter!)
All that as the case may be, it is a curiosity to me that Evangelicals and other non-Catholics who otherwise do not in any way embrace liturgical years and are quick to shun much in Catholic tradition as “Traditions of man” continue to have the dating of Easter serve as a vestigial remnant of the Catholic patrimony of their forebears. All things being equal, why don’t they just opt to celebrate it according to modern Jewish reckonings of Passover?
Any Protestants or ex-Protestants out there who ever dealt with answering questions as to why this ancient dating system is still used? Really, if you are otherwise aliturgical and without a lectionary (as many Evangelicals are) why celebrate Christmas or Easter at all? Or alternately, why celebrate them according to a calendar rather than simply choosing a Sunday every year or month or every other year or…? Why continue to use the non-scriptural dating system set up at Nicea in 325?
March 25, 2008 at 7:15 am |
A couple of my workers are Jehovah’s Witnesses… and they do tie their “Memorial to the Hebrew Passover date Nisan 14.
That said, I also wonder why most other evangelical sects sync up anything with us if they’re truly in “revolt” against the Church. The fact that they copy essentially everything we do, but then conveniently remove the elements that don’t suit them… is revolting in, and of, itself.
March 25, 2008 at 11:58 am |
So much easier to pick and choose, rather than create your own tradition.
March 25, 2008 at 12:18 pm |
In all irony, (or maybe not really!) I understand that Protestants of different stripes in Russia and other Orthodox majority countries generally celebrate it by the same reckoning as the Orthodox on the Julian Calendar do….
Which sort of begs the question, do members of the Russian Baptist congregations celebrate in the US go “new calendar” or “old”?
Hmm. I am going to have to look into that one.
March 25, 2008 at 12:40 pm |
Good question. Many Byzantine Catholics simply follow the date of easter most common in the society the are in, so that most here in the USA follow the Western date. Starting with Pope Paul VI, authority has been given to Latin Catholics to follow the Orthodox date in certain areas — Greece and I believe more recently in Cyprus and Bulgaria.
March 25, 2008 at 1:08 pm |
I was asking myself this just the other day, as we drove home from Easter services, seeing in it another instance of Protestantism being a third-remove reflection of Catholicism.
But there’s a serious answer here, as well, I think. The earliest Protestants, at least, didn’t think they were setting up new denominations, picking and choosing what they liked. Rather, Luther, for instance, was conservative, in that he kept traditions and beliefs he felt weren’t explicitly ruled out by Scripture. (He had some very “Catholic” beliefs about Mary, for instance, and his view of Holy Communion is very, very “high”.) So, most Protestants figure that there’s no good reason for calculating the date of Easter in a way different from how it’s been done for a long time in the West. Where Prots differ on this involves those who figure celebrating Easter is a bad idea because the liturgical calendar is a bad idea in principle — every Sunday is the Sunday of the resurrection, right? So why single out one specific Sunday…
March 25, 2008 at 3:01 pm |
Because as much as they don’t want to mimic the Church they also can’t help themselves. Denominations that had no statements of faith and were big on personal interpretation of Scripture now have long faith statements and strict scriptural interpretation rules. Random dixie cup and bread bit “eucharistic” moments in the Hawaiian shirt evangelical crowd slowly move towards a regular schedule on their “celebrations.” Hating rote prayers gives way to human limitations and habits that turn the extemporaneous pastor into someone with pat phrases that slowly turn into… rote prayers. Fathers both East and West acknowledge the liturgical nature of Man. Run as far afield as you want, but know that in time you will mirror your more traditional neighbors partly because you can’t stop the process and partly because you want to be accepted by the community as a real/valid faith option.
March 25, 2008 at 3:16 pm |
Not every evangelical is hostile to the Catholic Church or decisions made by the Church in the past. Growing up as an evangelical Methodist, I never encountered hostility to the Catholic Church, and probably owing to our Methodism, we celebrated a limited church year. Some (many?) evangelicals are hostile toward Catholicism, but I would tend to classify those deeply hostile as fundamentalists. Those I typically think of as evangelicals (as opposed to the more rigid fundamentalists) seem not to think about it too much, and just kind of inherit the dates of Easter, Christmas, etc, from the other churches and culture around them. Evangelicals tend to be pretty good at picking and choosing theology and practice based on the needs of the congregation or individuals.
From my online experiences, those most hostile to Easter (and Christmas) are the so-called Messianics, in most cases Gentile fundamentalists who are “rediscovering” their Jewish roots through observing tidbits of the Jewish law and mispronouncing Hebrew words. About 5 years ago, endless online encounters with these Gentile Messianics prompted our friend David to write an article, Are Christmas and Easter Pagan Holidays?
March 25, 2008 at 4:39 pm |
“mispronouncing Hebrew words” LOL:)
March 25, 2008 at 6:15 pm |
Those I typically think of as evangelicals (as opposed to the more rigid fundamentalists) seem not to think about it too much, and just kind of inherit the dates of Easter, Christmas, etc, from the other churches and culture around them.
I’m an evang’l Protestant and this was the thought that came to my mind when I read the question. I didn’t even know a liturgical calendar existed until I moved to England in my mid-twenties, and I had been in the church all my life. Many of us have not even thought it through – and I suppose because we’re so far down the historical road, we don’t see any need to change it. Since I now understand that Jesus fulfilled all the Jewish Spring Feasts, I wish we would follow their calendar. It makes more sense to me, theologically speaking.
March 25, 2008 at 7:12 pm |
Katherine, don’t quote me on this one, but I am pretty sure the rather tiny Latin community in Bulgaria does the same… The Finnish Orthodox actually use the western dating for Pascha as well as portions of Orthodox Estonians. In a country like Russia, it would make more sense for the nation’s 600,000 Catholics to use the old calendar dating as well.
It makes more sense to me and it was a wise move for Ven P6 to promote and allow that…
What always struck me as funny or at least curious in the matter of Evangelicals celebrating Easter is how very esoteric the reckoning of the moveable feast can be – or at least I would think it remarkably esoteric to folks who don’t otherwise use liturgical calendars.
March 25, 2008 at 8:02 pm |
-Some of them dislike the term “Easter” wrongly thinking it connotes paganism-
It’s only in English, and German perhaps, that we call it Easter. In Spanish it is La Pascua, which clearly dervives from the Hebrew term. I would bet it is similar in Latin and all Romance languages. This is really only an issue for fundamentalists who think the Bible was written in King James’ English.
March 25, 2008 at 9:12 pm |
Simple Sinner, I’m not following your meaning of esoteric – cryptic, secretive, mysterious – because the date changes every year? We just follow the calendar we get from the store, it’s in there, we always know what weekend to celebrate. ;)
March 25, 2008 at 9:20 pm |
Michelle I think you speak to the heart of the thing that I find ironic… I always wonder why more people don’t question the origins of Easter dating in Evangelicalism but instead simply accept that – for whatever reason – they will look at their calendar they get from the bank or their Aunt Jenny at Christmas. (I get one every year that is dedicated to the breed of dogs I rescue – Thanks Aunt Jenny!)
I mean it to be esoteric in the sense that it is sort of mysterious in light of how little else of the liturgical year the Catholic Church has safeguarded and created through the ages is still observed in monst non-Catholic/non-Orthodox circles. When involved in an Evangelical group in college I would hear regularly “all we need is the Bible” “It should be in the Bible” “We don’t want to be involved in vain repetion” etc… Knowing I was Catholic a lot of the comments made seemed to be apologetic in nature… Then when Easter rolled around they were celebrating a liturgical calendar holiday that is reckoned based on standards of a Catholic Church council from the 300s…
In this article (which I plan to write about this week) the author claims that Constantine (at the council of Nicea) distorted Christianity in 325:
http://johnluke.wordpress.com/2008/03/25/priesthood-of-all-believers/
How ironic that this author likely heeds the rulings of the council that brought such distortion when it comes to what time of the year he annually commemorates a holiday.
March 25, 2008 at 9:30 pm |
On the Christian radio station in my town, run by Seventh Day Adventists, they just finished “40 days of purpose.” I guess based on the Purpose Driven Life, which has you do a 40 day program. We Catholics have that too. We had it first, actually. It’s called Lent.
Thanks for asking the question, Simple Sinner. I was wondering that myself.
Have you noticed, too, that Protestants oppose crucifixes because Jesus is risen, but they will have manger scenes (creches) in their homes at Christmas? Jesus isn’t a baby anymore either.
March 25, 2008 at 10:00 pm |
So I’m thinking the real question is why do we accept some traditions and not others?
March 25, 2008 at 11:07 pm |
So I’m thinking the real question is why do we accept some traditions and not others?
Michelle,
I think that is the basic thrust of the post. Some evangelicals seem to position themselves against the Catholic Church (i.e. that the Church became corrupt, etc), yet despite doing so, actually rely on Catholic thought and tradition in many real ways. One major example I can think of is the canon of the New Testament, although I have met some Messianics online who deny the deity of Christ, and observe the Jewish law, who do not accept the Letters of Paul and the Gospel of John, which is at least consistent.
As I mentioned earlier, I grew up evangelical, and we accepted the dates of Easter, Christmas, etc, because we believed the Catholic calculation was correct. We had nothing against Catholics. Sure, we disagreed with certain aspects of Catholic theology, but our pastor (my dad actually) worked with Catholic priests, and even studied under some at the University of Dayton. I think part of the issue is that “evangelical” is a broad term.
March 25, 2008 at 11:10 pm |
As a Protestant, I think the answer is that most of us don’t think about when Easter is – and believe it somehow timed with Passover.
As for rejecting the Catholic Church, it has been my understanding that we share a lot more in common than we have differences. We have a common church history up to the Reformation, share (some of) the same holy scriptures, and have many core beliefs that are identical. The emphasis on parts of those beliefs is an issue whether you are comparing the Catholic church vs. a protestant church or comparing two protestant churches.
And I’ve never heard of protestants opposing crucifixes… but don’t doubt it happens in some denominations.
I agree this is an interesting question.
March 25, 2008 at 11:24 pm |
I’m not against the Catholic church – some of my best friends are Catholic. :)
No, seriously, I have many Catholic friends and indeed, in school my best friend was Greek Orthodox. We tended to focus on what we had in common. We just called ourselves “Christian.” Yes, I understand there are very real differences and I believe it is important to discuss those differences so we can better understand one another.
Thanks for making this forum available.
March 26, 2008 at 12:01 am |
Joseph, great comment. Imagine all the prayers in a future evangelical sacramentary beginning:
Father-Gawd, I juss wanna…
or
Father-Gawd, You juss, you juss, juss…exceed awwwwll my expectations!
R./ Amen. Brother, Amen.
March 26, 2008 at 12:22 am |
David, I like the distinction you make between evangelicals and fundamentalist. This is a distinction that has been lost in recent years in the media and in the minds of Catholics. Once there was a very clear distinction. Evangelical meant non-liturgical and born-again. Fundamentalist meant the 5 fundamentals the most famous of which is literal interpretation of scripture.
Since fundamentalism has gotten such a bad name, they have lumped themselves in a s”Christians” and the rest of the world has called them Evangelicals. Personally, I have known some liberal evangelicals. Examples of liberal Evangelicals include the Sojourners community in DC and the Jimmy Carter stripe of Baptists, not to meantion the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America–the most liberal and largest of the Lutheran sects.
Morningglories, your unawareness of Prot. opposition to the crucifix is evidence of just what a moving target Protestantism. Until the 19th Century, most Protestants even distanced themselves from the naked crosses. At one time (18th Century) you could tell a Catholic Church by the cross on its steeple. Protestant churches of the time usually carried weather vanes. Opposition to the bare cross disappeared in the late 19th Century while opposition to the crucifix remains to a lesser extent until today.
Through the 1980’s in Virginia where I am from it was common for Protestants to decry the Catholic use of the dead, unrisen Jesus as something morbid. I suspect much of that thinking has vanished since The “Passion of the Christ” came out.
Michelle, nice to see you as always. Are you aware of the method from reaching the date for Easter? It is kinda crazy, if you think about it. Easter is the first Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox. And, this method comes from 325! Would many Evangelicals be aware of this calculation?
March 26, 2008 at 12:48 am |
Hello Fr. J., I was hoping you would join the conversation. Yes, I am aware of the way it is decided. It was explained to me, please correct me if I have been told wrong, that in an effort to bring the Northern Barbarians into the church, the pagan holiday was “Christianized” for their consumption. I’m assuming since we are a nation (America) of British (Anglo-Saxon) transplants, the holiday remained as it had been when the Catholic church moved into England. Is this the history?
No, I don’t believe many Evang’ls would be aware – at Easter dinner my family discussed this very thing. It was news to some.
I would prefer we (Protestant – Bible churches) use the Jewish calendar since that was the original Holy Week – the feast Jesus came to fulfill. I’m still looking for the fulfillment of the Fall feasts – I keep expecting Jesus to return at the last trumpet (Feast of Trumpets).
March 26, 2008 at 1:15 am |
Michelle,
I am not so sure about the Barbarians part. As I understand it, they were mostly Arians (the heresy, not the race) and would not have accepted Nicea. So, why did Nicea choose a method that was both solar and lunar? I believe it had to do with the Lord being master of the Jews(lunar calendar) and the Gentiles (solar calendar). Is this what you were thinking of or are you referring to the Roman Imperial crisis of the second century. That might explain a lot, actually.
I admit I am not up on my Feast of Trumpets. You may have to educate me on that one.
As for the dating of Easter, were you aware that there was an attempt to fix a common date for the feast for both East and West back in the 1990’s? One solution proposed was to just hop onto the Jewish calendar as you suggest. Another was to always have it on the second Sunday of April. In the end, the Nicea solution seemed the strongest with a gentle nudge to the Orthodox to get onboard. Who knows what may come of those attempts.
I bet SS has a post on this somewhere.
March 26, 2008 at 1:17 am |
This post turned out to be a live one! I just knew George & EB would do the trick!
At any rate, I largely agree with Father J & David but do want to clarify for Michelle and MG what my thinking was in putting this up.
I am not accusing Evangelicals in general or as individuals of being anti-Catholic (at least not consciously so)… I am certainly not accusing MG or Michelle of being anti-Catholic. Golly if they were, they would not hang around this shaggy group of proponents of popery! :)
What I am making a point to point out is simple:
The dating method of Easter which is ascriptural which means it is not explicitly based in any directive from Scripture (which doesn’t, you will note, even mandate or direct us to celebrate ANY holidays). This doesn’t mean it is UNBiblical or ANTI-Biblical , just that it is best classified as one of the Traditions (cf. 2 Tess 2:15) passed down to us.
By and large a lot of other practices that are that way were rejected by reformers or later Protestant communities. Some exceptions (like calling the stage or pulpit area “the altar”) remain… but other than that, many Evangelicals would be quick to tell you “if it isn’t in the Bible, it is a tradition of man!” This is ironic, as almost all of them – many never thinking about it – follow this particular “tradition of man”. And most of them (like most Catholics!!!) could never tell you why.
On a side note, whether most realize it or not, by so much as even celebrating two holidays – Christmas and Easter – they are more “liturgical” than they would normally think of themselves as being!
It is kinda like my dad who had an old hunting rifle in the attic he hadn’t touched in 30 years. (His hunting trips ended at McDonalds – he was a better fisherman!) Although it was a gun dad owned, would never have described himself as a “gun owner”.
March 26, 2008 at 1:53 am |
“As for the dating of Easter, were you aware that there was an attempt to fix a common date for the feast for both East and West back in the 1990’s? One solution proposed was to just hop onto the Jewish calendar as you suggest. Another was to always have it on the second Sunday of April. In the end, the Nicea solution seemed the strongest with a gentle nudge to the Orthodox to get onboard. Who knows what may come of those attempts.”
Eh… I don’t think that was a very serious attempt… Honestly the system we have now works well enough – please understand, Father, that some of us Greek Catholics celebrate Easter when the Orthodox do – as well as (as Karen noted) some Latins in Orthodox majority nations. When push comes to shove, what we have now generally “works” even if not ideal.
But to get all “the East” to synch up, you would need to have someone go around and organize 25+ self governing Churches and talk them all into doing it… Or else you are just shifting some into the “western system” while others stay in the east, and some factions from the “pro-western dating” party break off to form a “Old Easter True Church”….
It would be FAR easier to convince the Eastern Churches to just add Feb 29 on the Julian Calendar for the next 17 years… or would they have to skip it for the next 52? I am not good with dating, that is why I am single. At any rate if they did that, the calendars would synch again.
March 26, 2008 at 1:55 am |
SS – My guess is that most Evangelicals would point out that at the Last Supper Jesus commands us to “do this in remembrance of me.” Obviously, communion is the sacrament we celebrate as a result of that command, but you could tie it to the final week of his life. A stretch, I know.
We have what my brother & I call “high church” in protestant churchs too – certain churches are more formal in dress with vestments than others, but all have a set form of service. Whether they recognize it or not may be another matter. I’ve not attended a church who re-invented the wheel every week!
On a side note, the discussion tearing apart protestant churches currently is what kind of music to play during the services. Do you use hymnals or praise songs or a combination of both? A band with one leader or a group of singers? Do you have two services – one traditional or one contemporary? The issue sounds trival (and likely is in the overall scheme of things) but it is dividing congregations down generational lines.
March 26, 2008 at 2:22 am |
morningglories, I like your pan name.
The Catholic Church has been through the wringer on Church music, too, though that has taken a back seat recently to issues around the rites themselves. Generally, there is more peace now over music, though we do still have different masses for youth in places. It is good to know that a mass is a mass is a mass regardless of the music style or if there is not music at all. All the fundamental norms for mass should be observed everywhere–and generally are.
Catholic liturgy tended to mirror Protestant worship on the level of style for much of the past 40 years, We had folk masses with guitar, middle of the road modern hymnody, some old fashioned hymns and Praise and Worship trends much like the Protestants. We are now in a trend toward Latin, chant, old Catholic hymns etc. So, we are now departing many of the conversations and conflicts common among Protestants (and starting some new ones of our own).
March 26, 2008 at 2:35 am |
“My guess is that most Evangelicals would point out that at the Last Supper Jesus commands us to “do this in remembrance of me.” Obviously, communion is the sacrament we celebrate as a result of that command, but you could tie it to the final week of his life. A stretch, I know. “
Not a stretch at all! Not in our (Catholic) book anyway! We actually believe that our liturgical year (as the New Israel) with major and minor fasts is in total and utter continuity with the liturgical year of the Old Israel – and the Old Testament is rife with examples of how their worship was temple-centered and based on major and minor holidays throught the year.
As to the nature of different Protestants being high and low church – this is something we are largely aware of, as the majority of the 14 posters here are converts to the Catholic faith from Protestantism. I am one of the oddballs who was never anything else – though I had been taking instructions to become Orthodox, and for the better part of the last ten years just quit going to Church…
As to the music question… Boy, you don’t ask the easy questions! At my parish we chant everything without instruments – always have. But that is sort of unique to a sub-group of Catholics whose services come from lands where that was always the case. For the majority of Catholics, hymnals are the norm…. But in the past 40 years there has been a HUGE culture clash with many parishes adopting more “folk music” styles of hymns that were more on the trendy side when they came out. Now it just sounds dated and people who really like that the most are – sorry to be blunt – looked at as aging hipsters. (Sorry mom & dad, I know you dig it…)
Right now there are some folks that use praise and worship music in the Catholic Church but its usage is tends to be more used in para-church type prayer services… There is some use of it in Mass settings, but that is generally not the norm, and given the standards of solemnity for Eucharistic celebrations, I don’t believe it will become as common or the norm in too many places. I believe that it WILL continue to grow in popularity among a lot of youth groups and prayer groups that like to gather for prayer meetings outside the Mass and come together to sing and have fellowship in youth groups and small prayer gatherings.
Most places do not have a band or large musical ensemble. Most of the singing is congregational in most places. You really don’t see solos and choirs performing in that fashion most places. Choir singing is not popular to us in the same degree as it is for different Protestant communities. In Catholic “Liturgical division of labor” 9x out of 10 Catholics would prefer to try go sing along with hymns they know. The exception you most commonly find is when we are going to communion, a lot of people would perhaps be just as happy for an organ to be playing or a choir to be singing, because as we prepare to recieve the Eucharist, most of us don’t want to be looking in a hymnal or even worrying about singing….
In the future I think a lot of us who grew up with the “groovy” 70s music will continue to search for more timeless liturgical music to sing at Mass.
As to your questions about “traditional and contemporary” honestly it usually is something that isn’t divided between services but instead between parish congregations. “Saint Mark” might be known for being more contemporary with a piano for all 4 Sunday Masses… Whereas “Holy Redeemer” may have a reputation for being “all hymns, all the time” (to sound like a radio station ad!) I see the division as being more ideological than generational. If anything, younger priests are more conservative than priests ordained in the 60s and 70s.
I hope this doesn’t shock you, but one parish where I attend Mass at 7am on Sunday sometimes does not have hymns at all except for the 3 prayers we chant as a congregation acapella! While music enriches our worship, it is not an essential element to what we gather for on Sunday. Most sermons only last 5-10 minutes and on weekdays they can just be a 30 second reflection and sometimes we don’t have them at all. (And yes, we do have opportunties to go to Mass every single day of the week.) Because these elements are not the essential elements of the faith and worship of a Catholic, they are not really as divisive to us when we disagree about preferences.
March 26, 2008 at 2:53 am |
Good point, SS, about the sermon and the music being of lesser importance. For me, the homily (that’s Catholic for sermon, protestant friends!) is the least important part of the mass.
I am sure that most Catholics agree that the liturgy of the Eucharist is the most important part of worship. And this comforts me because, no matter how goofy or lame the priest’s homily is, when he confects the Eucharist, that priest stands in persona Christi. I truly believe that, if it wasn’t for knowledge of this among Catholics, we would have fallen apart long ago.
Can you imagine how riven with division we would be if we all placed prime importance on the homily? Think of some of the homilies you’ve heard!
March 26, 2008 at 2:59 am |
That kind of reminded me just now… Father J was in my hometown a few weeks ago and we went to Mass together on a Saturday evening at a place where an Irish Festival was being held – after Mass, games, crafts, and corned beef and cabbage dinner and what not…
In taking advantage of having some of the musicians who were going to be playing Irish music on site, the musicians were asked to play for Mass. Fiddles & Guitars – very moving.
That being said, I think he and I both agreed that the instrumentation sounded wonderful… The lyrics were a little “vague” which bothered us more than anything. There was no theological problem with them, per se but they were rather “generic” sounding about a “generic god”. He and I (speak up if I mispeak, Father!) tend to have a preference for more Christ-centered and Christ-specific hymns and songs. Here we were in a Catholic Mass with this great instrumental music of an Irish folk variety singing lyrics that were not by any means some “world ending heresy” – they were just “generic” about God – any Muslim or Jewish or other Monotheist could have sung these songs. It is kind of like the “grace” we used to pray (a quarter of a century ago) at my secular pre-school: “God is great, God is good, let us thank Him for our Food” Since we were a motley collection of Catholics, Lutherans and Methodists at that daycare which was actually secular (I doubt they pray before their juice and ‘bumps-on-a-log’ anymore!) it was a non-sectarian prayer that we would all pray together. That is fine in and of itself, but often the friction in the Catholic Church over music is between parties that are interested in seeing lyrics with a more Catholic world view. But even though this might divide us somewhat, it simply isn’t our understanding of a church that we have an option to divide and form new parishes over it. That is why you see so many Catholic parishes that have 2-3-5,000+ members… we have a unity of faith that is bigger than disagreements about music or preaching style.
March 26, 2008 at 4:10 am |
Sorry to have skipped out…a friend came by to visit.
I wasn’t aware of the 2nd century controversy until I went to Wikipedia to “bone up” for this discussion. It seems that is where the early church stepped away from the biblical meaning of Christ being our Passover lamb. Well, we kept the meaning, but in an effort to separate from the Jewish believers we stepped away to “Christianize” our worship. I come down on the side of Polycarp and St. John – I don’t think we should have ever moved away from the Passover celebration, the symbolism is beautiful. So if there is ever a chance to change the calendar, instead of going back to the 300’s let’s just back it up another 150 years and get back to the biblical meaning of Passover.
As I understand it, Fr. J., Christ fulfilled all the Spring feasts that are celebrated in the 1st month (Nisan) Passover, Unleavened Bread, First Fruits (1Cor. 5:7-8, 20-23). Next, Pentecost or Feast of Weeks in the 3rd month (Sivan) (Acts 2:1-47, I Cor. 12:13, Eph. 2:11-22) So now we are waiting for the fulfillment of the Fall Feasts that are celebrated in the 7th month (Tishri) The Feast of Trumpets, The Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Booths or Tabernacles. When the remainder of the word from the Prophets will come to fruition. Jer. 32:37-41 and Ezekiel 36:24 tell of the regathering of Israel in preparation for the final day of atonement. I think this began with the Zionist movement in the late 1800’s and became “official” with the state of Israel in 1948. I believe we are experiencing the Feast of Trumpets every year until the last trumpet is blown and “we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet, for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.” That whole rapture bit. Then the last two feasts and we are set for a New Heaven and New Earth!!
That’s my thinking…Pretty far out there, huh?
March 27, 2008 at 12:04 am |
Asimplesinner said: But to get all “the East” to synch up… and some factions from the “pro-western dating” party break off to form a “Old Easter True Church”…
Isn’t that exactly what happened with the Old Calendarists in Greece back in the ‘20s?
March 27, 2008 at 12:07 am |
James – essentially yes.
June 24, 2008 at 4:03 pm |
i have a question, why do evangelicals and others not celebrate the eucharist and the other sacraments? please e-mail if you know heinzh@carnegielibrary.org