The Eucharistic prayer of the Liturgy of St. James is the oldest Anaphora in circulation in the Orthodox Catholic Church although the Ordinary of the Liturgy been subsequently augmented with material from the Divine Liturgy of St. John. The Sarum rite, which my synod uses, has a lot of prayers that directly translated from the Liturgy of St. James into Latin particularly in the Gregorian anaphora. I do think that the anaphora of St. James has its roots in the first century Church which improvised prayers initially but remembered them and passed them down through Holy Tradition. It was as early as the second century that these prayers were written down and used in wide circulation. These prayers were later codified by the Church into liturgies from the fourth century onwards. The Gregorian anaphora that is used in the Orthodox west has not changed since the 6th century and preserves the prayers written by the Brother of our Lord and first Bishop of Jerusalem. As part of my seminary studies I learn the rites of the East and West of the Orthodox Church so I hope to learn how to preside over the Divine Liturgy of St. James one day or at least see it done particularly at the Holy Sepulchre of which we have a Relic in our Cathedral of the Blessed Virgin Mary & Saint Ninian in Dumfries, Scotland.
Really intresting stuff. I have heard that they went into the Anatolian mainland to survive and that that was/is very harsh. Although I am not sure those are the same sort monks.
הלל יהוה ישוע המשיח אדוני אלוהנו الحمد يهوه يسوع المسيح رب Παντόςκράτος Que YaHWeH Señor Deus Sabaoath Christo Rey Pantocrator Todopoderoso les bendiga y Nuestra Señora del Perpetuo Socorro la Conquistadora de Almas Ora Pro Nobis ☦️
Or maybe James - also known as James the Just - was actually Jesus' brother. The Bible states very clearly that Jesus had brothers and sisters. Catholics and Christian Orthodox keep trying to keep Mary a virgin - when the Bible says nothing about her remaining a virgin after Jesus was born.
+Josh? Ezekiel 44:2 Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut. - Mary stayed virgin forever. Joseph was a widower who had those children from a previous wife. Psalms 45:10-14 Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father’s house; So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him. And the daughter of Tyre shall be there with a gift; even the rich among the people shall intreat thy favour. The king’s daughter is all glorious within: her clothing is of wrought gold. She shall be brought unto the king in raiment of needlework: the virgins her companions that follow her shall be brought unto thee. Psalms 45:17 I will make thy name to be remembered in all generations: therefore shall the people praise thee for ever and ever.
If she had other children Jesus wouldn't have entrusted her care to Apostle John from the cross. It was jewish custom of the day that widowers are taken care of by their children. She had no other children, Jesus knew she would not be able to survive alone so he asks John to look after her when He was on the cross.
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker Yes he would because he did. James the Just was Jesus' literal brother and everyone at the time knew it. Josephus even wrote about James being Jesus' brother.
@@jflaugher Nope. You are interpreting in a vacuum. Jewish custom demands children look after widows in that day, Jesus knows He has no siblings so He tells Apostle John while He is on the cross to take care of His mother. James was not her son, he was the son of Mary's cousin.
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker first off - the passage you're referencing doesn't say he gave his mother to John. It says the "Beloved Disciple." Nobody knows who the Beloved Disciple was. Could have been John but maybe not. Second, you are interpreting the passage from the Gospel of John as if it's a historical fact, and almost nothing in the Gospel of John is historical fact. And nothing in any of the gospels about what happened during Jesus' trial and execution (like the conversation with Pilate) is factual - it's all Christian fiction. The author of John is stating his interpretation of who he thinks Jesus is. This is all common knowledge among biblical scholars. Therefore, the passage you're citing most likely never happened. It's a piece of Christian fiction. But, regardless, the passage is still in the Bible and thus should be taken seriously, but not at face value. So the next question is: Why did the author of John put that passage in his gospel? What theological or Christological need does it serve for the author? To answer these questions you need to use post-modern hermeneutics. I strongly suggest you read the works of biblical scholars like Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan.
