Wednesday, December 25, 2019

Pagan Christmas Mythology

An increasing number of Christians have come to believe that Christmas is derived from paganism. They’ve heard that the timing of Christmas may have been borrowed from Roman sun god worship. Or that Christmas trees come from German paganism. Or that the star on top of the Christmas tree comes from astrological worship. But these myths are all so wrong. Christmas—the celebration of the Nativity of our Lord—is a thoroughly Christians celebration. Here’s why.

The date of December 25

The urban legend goes that December 25 is derived from the birth of the ancient Roman sun god. But when we look back in history, we find that several Christian writers calculated the date of the Lord’s Nativity long before the Roman celebration of Dies Natalis Solis Invicti—Birthday of the Unconquered Sun—was established.
The fact is though, ancient Christian writers built the timing for the birth of Christ from the Scriptural observation that Zechariah was on duty on Yom Kippur (September 23). This observation comes from the information we find in the gospel of Luke.

“Once when Zechariah’s division was on duty and he was serving as priest before God, he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to go into the temple of the Lord and burn incense. And when the time for the burning of incense came, all the assembled worshipers were praying outside. Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense” (Luke 1:8–11).

The day of Yom Kippur is the day in which incense was offered in this manner.
Based on this observation, Christians were able to calculate the birth of John the Forerunner as being September 23 + 270 days = June 24. They then observed that the Annunciation of Christ’s birth was six months after John the Baptist’s conception.

“In the sixth month [of Elizabeth’s pregnancy] the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary” (Luke 1:26–27).

Calculating September 23 and adding six months brings us to March 25. Through this reasoning, Irenaeus had established March 25 as the date of the Annunciation before the end of the second century. The Annunciation was being celebrated long before Christmas, since the Annunciation was miraculous, whereas the birth was a mere function of human biology.
The date of December 25 is therefore derived from the date of Jesus’ conception.
By the year 221 AD, three Christian writers had independently calculated the date of Jesus’ birth as December 25. Irenaeus, as we have just said, identified the date of his annunciation before the end of the second century. Hippolytus used a different method, but determined December 25 as the date of the Nativity in 202 AD when he wrote his commentary on Daniel 4:23. Finally, Sextus Julius Africanus, in writing his “Chronology of the World” in 221 AD had also calculated December 25.
When people pushing the pagan conspiracy theory argue that December 25 the date of a pagan festival, they build their argument upon observances of that date. But they never bother to explore the series of Christian dates from which December 25 is derived. They never whisper a word of dissent about September 23 (Conception of John the Baptist), March 25 (Annunciation) or June 24 (Nativity of John the Baptist)! The conspiracy theorist’s only complaint is with December 25. When we examine why Christians began observing December 25 as the birthdate of our Lord, the argument that it was first a pagan holiday simply collapses.
But what makes our conspiracy theorist’s job even more difficult is the fact that it was the pagans who plagiarised from the Christians (not the other way round). The scholar Manfred Claus established that Emperor Aurelian established the cult of Dies Natalis Solis Invicti on December 25, 274 AD, and decreed that day as the day of the Winter Solstice celebration. This is more than 50 years after Sextus Julius Africanus established Christ's birthday; 72 years after Hippolytus had done so, and probably at least 100 years after Irenaeus established March 25 as the Annunciation.
The pagans were responding to the rise of the Church and the subsequent collapse in popularity of pagan observances. They were responding to the “competition” provided by the Church by trying to usurp a date revered by Christians.
Clearly, the date of December 25 for the Nativity of our Lord is Christian, not pagan.

The myth of the snow-filled fields

Many Christians doubt the date of Christ’s birth on December 25 because they have heard it said, “We know that Christmas Day isn’t when Jesus was born because the fields would have been covered by snow in December and therefore the shepherds would not have been in the field.” It’s strange that people can hear this statement and then not check the average temperatures in Israel!
It may come as a surprise to realise that people quite comfortably swim in Tel Aviv, just forty miles from Bethlehem, on Christmas day! The average temperature for Bethlehem in December is 14 degrees Celsius. In other words, Melbourne’s average minimum temperature in December is equal to Bethlehem’s average high temperature! That’s a long way from a temperature that would support snow-covered fields.
So, anyone who believes this myth has unfortunately been conned!
Googling the average temperature of Bethlehem in December will tell us everything we need to know to dismiss this as a complete fabrication.

The use of Christmas trees

Sometimes it is alleged that the Christmas tree is of pagan origin, having been used within German paganism. The problem with this theory is that the use of an evergreen tree is a global Christian tradition that was first practised in the East!
When I look at the decorated fir tree, I always remember the genealogy of Jesus Christ, but also of His mother, Panagia Theotokos, Ever-Virgin Mary Mother of Christ. “There shall come forth a Rod from the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots” (Isaiah 11:1). St. Cosmas the Poet referred to this verse when he wrote of Christ as the blossom which rose up out of the Virgin stem from the stump of Jesse. The root is Jesse, David’s father. The rod is king David. The flower which came from the root and the rod is the Theotokos. And the fruit which came forth from the flower of the Panagia Theotokos is Christ. Holy Scripture presents this wonderfully.
Thus the Christmas tree reminds us of the genealogical tree of Christ as Man, the love of God, but also the successive purification of the Forefathers of Christ. At the top is the star which is the God-Man Christ.
The Christmas tree is evergreen—never losing its vitality during winter—and therefore symbolises the tree of life and the fact that Christ is the tree of life.
It is usually said that the custom of the Christmas tree is foreign and western. But a manuscript in the British Museum from the 13th century informs us that in 512 AD the Emperor Anastasios I built a church at the Monastery of Saint Gabriel in Tur Abdin in northern Syria. Among other dedications, he offered “…two large brass trees which stood on both side of the Beautiful Gate of the sanctuary. On the leaves of the trees, there was a place for lights to flicker. Each tree had one hundred and eighty lamps and fifty silver chains from top to bottom. On these hung small objects of gold, silver or copper, as well as red eggs, vases, animals, birds, crosses, wreaths, bells, carved grape bunches, discs…”
Paul the Silentiary (c. 563 AD) in his Ekphrasis of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople and Ekphrasis from the Ambon of Hagia Sophia, describes in detail the lights of the icon screen and the pulpit of the Great Church. On the architrave of the icon screen, there were metal cone-shaped trees, like a pine tree or a cypress of tender foliage, where instead of fruits they had conically shaped lights. This document even records that illuminated crafted trees (tree-like chandeliers) were placed throughout the Church. This is a description of Hagia Sophia’s Christmas trees.
Christmas tree practice is also documented in the study of the late professor of Byzantine Archaeology at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Constantine Kalokyris, titled, “Sacred Trees and the Eastern Origin of the Christmas Tree.” Here he reveals that the custom of the Christmas tree is not foreign or western European but Byzantine and Orthodox!
Our Christmas tree is not derived from the pagan yule tree. Rather, from the Paradise Tree, adorned in honour of Adam and Eve. The Christmas tree is completely biblical in origin.
How legitimate is it to use a fir tree in the celebration of Christmas? From the earliest days of the Church, Christians brought many things of God's material creation into their life of faith and worship, e.g. water, bread, wine, oil, candles and incense. All these things are part of God’s creation. They are part of the world that Christ came to save. Mankind cannot reject the material creation without rejecting Christ’s own humanity!
Christmas celebrates the great mystery of the Incarnation. In that mystery, God the Word became man. In order to redeem us, God became one of us. He became part of His own creation!
The Incarnation affirms the importance of both man and the whole of creation. “For God so loved the world…” And most importantly, “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us…” Christ entered the material realm, which is why it is valid to use material objects in our worship of Christ.
Enjoy your Orthodox Christmas trees!

The star on the Christmas tree

We place a star on the Christmas tree, not because of astrological observances creeping into Christianity, but because the three pagan kings who came to Judea to worship Christ followed a star.

“After listening to the king, they went on their way. And behold, the star that they had seen when it rose went before them until it came to rest over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy. And going into the house, they saw the child with Mary His mother, and they fell down and worshipped Him” (Matthew 2:9–11).

Christians place a star atop the Christmas tree because it was a star that guided the Magi to worship the Newborn Infant.

Why presents are exchanged

The exchange of presents is not purely crass commercialism—although unfortunately, we do see a fair bit of that today—but actually has both Jewish and Christian origins.
The Jewish origins of gift-giving arise in the history of God’s deliverance of Israel from destruction. In the book of Esther, a new holiday is given during the month of Adar. This holiday was to celebrate the deliverance of the Jewish people from the death decreed by the king.

“And Mordecai wrote these things and sent letters to all the Jews, near and far, who were in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus, to establish among them that they should celebrate yearly the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the month of Adar, as the days on which the Jews had rest from their enemies, as the month which was turned from sorrow to joy for them, and from mourning to a holiday; that they should make them days of feasting and joy, of sending presents to one another and gifts to the poor” (Esther 9:20-22).

So, exchanging gifts was something that arose within the tradition of Judaism. It’s not pagan at all.
But more directly, Christians exchange gifts in remembrance of the three pagan kings who brought presents to our Infant Lord.

“They saw the child with Mary His mother, and they fell down and worshipped Him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered Him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh” (Matthew 2:11).

To understand the message behind these gifts, we need to understand their symbolism. Gold was the symbol of kingship. By giving Jesus gold they were signalling that He is a King. Frankincense was the fragrance burned in the Temple before God. By giving Jesus frankincense they were indicating they knew He was Divine, which is why they fell down and worshipped Him. Myrrh was used in the embalming of bodies. By giving Him myrrh, they were already beginning to prepare Him for His death.
Somehow, these pagan kings knew that Jesus was Lord. Somehow they knew that God Himself and had come into this world in order to die. The gifts they gave Jesus encapsulate the Gospel. By giving each other gifts in front of an evergreen tree with a star atop, we declare that Jesus is the Tree of Life.

What the Shepherds saw

During the first century, every Jewish family was expected to sacrifice a lamb, yet most Jews did not own any flocks. Instead, the Temple had become the largest landowner in Judea and ran their own flocks from which people could purchase sacrificial lambs.
Located in Bethlehem was one of a number of lambing operations whose purpose it was to raise lambs without blemishes that were suitable for sacrifice. They had a tower, whose name was “Tower of the Flock” in which shepherds could obtain a 360-degree view of the surrounding flocks. Near the tower was a small housing section (not more than a dozen or so buildings) on the outskirts of Bethlehem where people could rent the “upper rooms” for lodging.
Below these rooms were caves, some were natural and others had been man-made. In these “caves” the shepherds would house the more vulnerable flocks at night during the cold to protect them from thieves and predators as well as to provide natural warmth to the house at night. Each of these caves had mangers which were used for the birthing of the sacrificial animals.
Now evidently, during the time of the census, these “upper rooms” had become overcrowded leaving no private space for a pregnant mother to give birth, which is what Mary needed according to Jewish law. So they were given the lower level where the animals were housed as a private area for Mary.

“And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child. So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger because there was no room for them in the inn” (Luke 2:1-2, 4-7).

“So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: ‘Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,’ which is translated, ‘God with us’” (Matthew 1:22-23).

The shepherds who tended these flocks were well acquainted with the requirements for the sacrificial lambs. Because small lambs tend to thrash around, they would tend newborns by swaddling them in special cloths to protect them from injury or blemish. Swaddling cloths were strips of cloth about 3 ft in length and about 4-6 inches in width. They were used to tie the legs of the unblemished lambs together to prevent them from injuring themselves.
According to Biblical archeologists, newborn children in that region were not wrapped in swaddling cloths. Rather, it was the custom for babies to be dressed in miniature versions of period style clothing.
When the Angels appeared to the Shepherds, they gave the Shepherds only limited directions. They said that the child would be found in Bethlehem and that the Saviour would be wrapped in “swaddling cloths and lying in a manger.” The Shepherds didn’t need any more detail than that, because they knew exactly what that meant. The Shepherds promptly visited the caves in which the new-born lambs intended for slaughter were swaddled.
And there they saw Jesus. He was wrapped in the cloths used to protect perfect sacrificial lambs. There where they had seen so many lambs born and swaddled, they saw the ultimate Lamb of God.
Even the name Bethlehem—which means “House of Bread”—testified to the fact that Jesus is the Bread of Life come down out of heaven. The sacrifice Who would be Holy Food. The Lamb Who would ratify a New Covenant with mankind.

Isaiah’s prophecy

Isaiah communicated a prophecy of the Nativity. He promised that the Gentiles would rejoice and that their joy would increase.

“Nevertheless the gloom will not be upon her who is distressed,
As when at first He lightly esteemed
The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali,
And afterward more heavily oppressed her,
By the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan,
In Galilee of the Gentiles.
“The people who walked in darkness Have seen a great light;
Those who dwelt in the land of the shadow of death,
Upon them a light has shined.
You have multiplied the nation And increased its joy;
They rejoice before You According to the joy of harvest,
As men rejoice when they divide the spoil.
“For You have broken the yoke of his burden And the staff of his shoulder,
The rod of his oppressor, As in the day of Midian.
For every warrior’s sandal from the noisy battle,
And garments rolled in blood, Will be used for burning and fuel of fire.
“For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of His government and peace There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this” (Isaiah 9:2–7).

As we approach the Nativity, we need to realise that we are among the Gentiles spoken of by this prophecy! We are among the Gentiles who are to celebrate and rejoice in the birth of the Saviour.
The celebration of the Nativity of our Lord is far from pagan. Indeed, it is prophetically foretold that Gentiles would celebrate the birth of the Lord. Let us join in this celebration with our whole hearts.
May God bless us all this season!
Christmas Acrostic: A child has been born for us; A Son is given to us; Authority rests upon Him; and He is Named Jesus.

Christmas Acrostic: A child has been born for us; A Son is given to us; Authority rests upon Him; and He is Named Jesus.

Learn more

About this article

This article resulted from a collaboration between Christians on three continents. Many thanks to Ignatius, Irina, Amy Jo, Daniel, Sandi and Æthelwold for their research, writing and editing of this article.

Friday, November 29, 2019

Glory to God for All Things

This Akathist, also called the “Akathist of Thanksgiving,” was composed by Protopresbyter Gregory Petrov shortly before his death in a prison camp in 1940. The title is from the words of Saint John Chrysostom as he was dying in exile. It is a song of praise from amidst the most terrible sufferings.

Kontakion 1

Everlasting King, Thy will for our salvation is full of power. Thy right arm controls the whole course of human life. We give Thee thanks for all Thy mercies, seen and unseen. For eternal life, for the heavenly joys of the Kingdom which is to be. Grant mercy to us who sing Thy praise, both now and in the time to come. Glory to Thee, O God, from age to age.

Ikos 1

I was born a weak, defenceless child, but Thine angel spread his wings over my cradle to defend me. From birth until now Thy love has illumined my path, and has wondrously guided me towards the light of eternity; from birth until now the generous gifts of Thy providence have been marvelously showered upon me. I give Thee thanks, with all who have come to know Thee, who call upon Thy name.
Glory to Thee for calling me into being
Glory to Thee, showing me the beauty of the universe
Glory to Thee, spreading out before me heaven and earth
Like the pages in a book of eternal wisdom
Glory to Thee for Thine eternity in this fleeting world
Glory to Thee for Thy mercies, seen and unseen
Glory to Thee through every sigh of my sorrow
Glory to Thee for every step of my life’s journey
For every moment of glory
Glory to Thee, O God, from age to age

Kontakion 2

O Lord, how lovely it is to be Thy guest. Breeze full of scents; mountains reaching to the skies; waters like boundless mirrors, reflecting the sun’s golden rays and the scudding clouds. All nature murmurs mysteriously, breathing the depth of tenderness. Birds and beasts of the forest bear the imprint of Thy love. Blessed art thou, mother earth, in thy fleeting loveliness, which wakens our yearning for happiness that will last for ever, in the land where, amid beauty that grows not old, the cry rings out: Alleluia!

Ikos 2

Thou hast brought me into life as into an enchanted paradise. We have seen the sky like a chalice of deepest blue, where in the azure heights the birds are singing. We have listened to the soothing murmur of the forest and the melodious music of the streams. We have tasted fruit of fine flavour and the sweet-scented honey. We can live very well on Thine earth. It is a pleasure to be Thy guest.
Glory to Thee for the Feast Day of life
Glory to Thee for the perfume of lilies and roses
Glory to Thee for each different taste of berry and fruit
Glory to Thee for the sparkling silver of early morning dew
Glory to Thee for the joy of dawn’s awakening
Glory to Thee for the new life each day brings
Glory to Thee, O God, from age to age

Kontakion 3

It is the Holy Spirit who makes us find joy in each flower, the exquisite scent, the delicate colour, the beauty of the Most High in the tiniest of things. Glory and honour to the Spirit, the Giver of Life, who covers the fields with their carpet of flowers, crowns the harvest with gold, and gives to us the joy of gazing at it with our eyes. O be joyful and sing to Him: Alleluia!

Ikos 3

How glorious art Thou in the springtime, when every creature awakes to new life and joyfully sings Thy praises with a thousand tongues. Thou art the Source of Life, the Destroyer of Death. By the light of the moon, nightingales sing, and the valleys and hills lie like wedding garments, white as snow. All the earth is Thy promised bride awaiting her spotless husband. If the grass of the field is like this, how gloriously shall we be transfigured in the Second Coming after the Resurrection! How splendid our bodies, how spotless our souls!
Glory to Thee, bringing from the depth of the earth an endless variety of colours, tastes and scents
Glory to Thee for the warmth and tenderness of the world of nature
Glory to Thee for the numberless creatures around us
Glory to Thee for the depths of Thy wisdom, the whole world a living sign of it
Glory to Thee; on my knees, I kiss the traces of Thine unseen hand
Glory to Thee, enlightening us with the clearness of eternal life
Glory to Thee for the hope of the unutterable, imperishable beauty of immortality
Glory to Thee, O God, from age to age

Kontakion 4

How filled with sweetness are those whose thoughts dwell on Thee; how life-giving Thy holy Word. To speak with Thee is more soothing than anointing with oil; sweeter than the honeycomb. To pray to Thee lifts the spirit, refreshes the soul. Where Thou art not, there is only emptiness; hearts are smitten with sadness; nature, and life itself, become sorrowful; where Thou art, the soul is filled with abundance, and its song resounds like a torrent of life: Alleluia!

Ikos 4

When the sun is setting, when quietness falls like the peace of eternal sleep, and the silence of the spent day reigns, then in the splendour of its declining rays, filtering through the clouds, I see Thy dwelling-place: fiery and purple, gold and blue, they speak prophet-like of the ineffable beauty of Thy presence, and call to us in their majesty. We turn to the Father.
Glory to Thee at the hushed hour of nightfall
Glory to Thee, covering the earth with peace
Glory to Thee for the last ray of the sun as it sets
Glory to Thee for sleep’s repose that restores us
Glory to Thee for Thy goodness even in the time of darkness
When all the world is hidden from our eyes
Glory to Thee for the prayers offered by a trembling soul
Glory to Thee for the pledge of our reawakening
On that glorious last day, that day which has no evening
Glory to Thee, O God, from age to age

Kontakion 5

The dark storm clouds of life bring no terror to those in whose hearts Thy fire is burning brightly. Outside is the darkness of the whirlwind, the terror and howling of the storm, but in the heart, in the presence of Christ, there is light and peace, silence: Alleluia!

Ikos 5

I see Thine heavens resplendent with stars. How glorious art Thou radiant with light! Eternity watches me by the rays of the distant stars. I am small, insignificant, but the Lord is at my side. Thy right arm guides me wherever I go.
Glory to Thee, ceaselessly watching over me
Glory to Thee for the encounters Thou dost arrange for me
Glory to Thee for the love of parents, for the faithfulness of friends
Glory to Thee for the humbleness of the animals which serve me
Glory to Thee for the unforgettable moments of life
Glory to Thee for the heart’s innocent joy
Glory to Thee for the joy of living
Moving and being able to return Thy love
Glory to Thee, O God, from age to age

Kontakion 6

How great and how close art Thou in the powerful track of the storm! How mighty Thy right arm in the blinding flash of the lightning! How awesome Thy majesty! The voice of the Lord fills the fields, it speaks in the rustling of the trees. The voice of the Lord is in the thunder and the downpour. The voice of the Lord is heard above the waters. Praise be to Thee in the roar of mountains ablaze. Thou dost shake the earth like a garment; Thou dost pile up to the sky the waves of the sea. Praise be to Thee, bringing low the pride of man. Thou dost bring from his heart a cry of Penitence: Alleluia!

Ikos 6

When the lightning flash has lit up the camp dining hall, how feeble seems the light from the lamp. Thus dost Thou, like the lightning, unexpectedly light up my heart with flashes of intense joy. After Thy blinding light, how drab, how colourless, how illusory all else seems. My souls clings to Thee.
Glory to Thee, the highest peak of men’s dreaming
Glory to Thee for our unquenchable thirst for communion with God
Glory to Thee, making us dissatisfied with earthly things
Glory to Thee, turning on us Thine healing rays
Glory to Thee, subduing the power of the spirits of darkness
And dooming to death every evil
Glory to Thee for the signs of Thy presence
For the joy of hearing Thy voice and living in Thy love
Glory to Thee, O God, from age to age

Kontakion 7

In the wondrous blending of sounds it is Thy call we hear; in the harmony of many voices, in the sublime beauty of music, in the glory of the works of great composers: Thou leadest us to the threshold of paradise to come, and to the choirs of angels. All true beauty has the power to draw the soul towards Thee, and to make it sing in ecstasy: Alleluia!

Ikos 7

The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Glory to Thee, showing Thine unsurpassable power in the laws of the universe
Glory to Thee, for all nature is filled with Thy laws
Glory to Thee for what Thou hast revealed to us in Thy mercy
Glory to Thee for what Thou hast hidden from us in Thy wisdom
Glory to Thee for the inventiveness of the human mind
Glory to Thee for the dignity of man’s labour
Glory to Thee for the tongues of fire that bring inspiration
Glory to Thee, O God, from age to age

Kontakion 8

How near Thou art in the day of sickness. Thou Thyself visitest the sick; Thou Thyself bendest over the sufferer’s bed. His heart speaks to Thee. In the throes of sorrow and suffering Thou bringest peace and unexpected consolation. Thou art the comforter. Thou art the love which watches over and heals us. To Thee we sing the song: Alleluia!

Ikos 8

When in childhood I called upon Thee consciously for the first time, Thou didst hear my prayer, and Thou didst fill my heart with the blessing of peace. At that moment I knew Thy goodness and knew how blessed are those who turn to Thee. I started to call upon Thee night and day; and now even now I call upon Thy name.
Glory to Thee, satisfying my desires with good things
Glory to Thee, watching over me day and night
Glory to Thee, curing affliction and emptiness with the healing flow of time
Glory to Thee, no loss is irreparable in Thee, Giver of eternal life to all
Glory to Thee, making immortal all that is lofty and good
Glory to Thee, promising us the longed-for meeting with our loved ones who have died
Glory to Thee, O God, from age to age

Kontakion 9

Why is it that on a Feast Day the whole of nature mysteriously smiles? Why is it that then a heavenly gladness fills our hearts; a gladness far beyond that of earth and the very air in church and in the altar becomes luminous? It is the breath of Thy gracious love. It is the reflection of the glory of Mount Tabor. Then do heaven and earth sing Thy praise: Alleluia!

Ikos 9

When Thou didst call me to serve my brothers and filled my soul with humility, one of Thy deep, piercing rays shone into my heart; it became luminous, full of light like iron glowing in the furnace. I have seen Thy face, face of mystery and of unapproachable glory.
Glory to Thee, transfiguring our lives with deeds of love
Glory to Thee, making wonderfully Sweet the keeping of Thy commandments
Glory to Thee, making Thyself known where man shows mercy on his neighbour
Glory to Thee, sending us failure and misfortune that we may understand the sorrows of others
Glory to Thee, rewarding us so well for the good we do
Glory to Thee, welcoming the impulse of our heart’s love
Glory to Thee, raising to the heights of heaven every act of love in earth and sky
Glory to Thee, O God, from age to age

Kontakion 10

No one can put together what has crumbled into dust, but Thou canst restore a conscience turned to ashes. Thou canst restore to its former beauty a soul lost and without hope. With Thee, there is nothing that cannot be redeemed. Thou art love; Thou art Creator and Redeemer. We praise Thee, singing: Alleluia!

Ikos 10

Remember, my God, the fall of Lucifer full of pride, keep me safe with the power of Thy Grace; save me from falling away from Thee. Save me from doubt. Incline my heart to hear Thy mysterious voice every moment of my life. Incline my heart to call upon Thee, present in everything.
Glory to Thee for every happening
Every condition Thy providence has put me in
Glory to Thee for what Thou speakest to me in my heart
Glory to Thee for what Thou revealest to me, asleep or awake
Glory to Thee for scattering our vain imaginations
Glory to Thee for raising us from the slough of our passions through suffering
Glory to Thee for curing our pride of heart by humiliation
Glory to Thee, O God, from age to age

Kontakion 11

Across the cold chains of the centuries, I feel the warmth of Thy breath, I feel Thy blood pulsing in my veins. Part of time has already gone, but now Thou art the present. I stand by Thy Cross; I was the cause of it. I cast myself down in the dust before it. Here is the triumph of love, the victory of salvation. Here the centuries themselves cannot remain silent, singing Thy praises: Alleluia!

Ikos 11

Blessed are they that will share in the King’s Banquet: but already on earth Thou givest me a foretaste of this blessedness. How many times with Thine own hand hast Thou held out to me Thy Body and Thy Blood, and I, though a miserable sinner, have received this Mystery, and have tasted Thy love, so ineffable, so heavenly.
Glory to Thee for the unquenchable fire of Thy Grace
Glory to Thee, building Thy Church, a haven of peace in a tortured world
Glory to Thee for the life-giving water of Baptism in which we find new birth
Glory to Thee, restoring to the penitent purity white as the lily
Glory to Thee for the cup of salvation and the bread of eternal joy
Glory to Thee for exalting us to the highest heaven
Glory to Thee, O God, from age to age

Kontakion 12

How often have I seen the reflection of Thy glory in the faces of the dead. How resplendent they were, with beauty and heavenly joy. How ethereal, how translucent their faces. How triumphant over suffering and death, their felicity and peace. Even in the silence they were calling upon Thee. In the hour of my death, enlighten my soul, too, that it may cry out to Thee: Alleluia!

Ikos 12

What sort of praise can I give Thee? I have never heard the song of the Cherubim, a joy reserved for the spirits above. But I know the praises that nature sings to Thee. In winter, I have beheld how silently in the moonlight the whole earth offers Thee prayer, clad in its white mantle of snow, sparkling like diamonds. I have seen how the rising sun rejoices in Thee, how the song of the birds is a chorus of praise to Thee. I have heard the mysterious mutterings of the forests about Thee, and the winds singing Thy praise as they stir the waters. I have understood how the choirs of stars proclaim Thy glory as they move forever in the depths of infinite space. What is my poor worship! All nature obeys Thee, I do not. Yet while I live, I see Thy love, I long to thank Thee, and call upon Thy name.
Glory to Thee, giving us light
Glory to Thee, loving us with love so deep, divine and infinite
Glory to Thee, blessing us with light, and with the host of angels and saints
Glory to Thee, Father all-holy, promising us a share in Thy Kingdom
Glory to Thee, Holy Spirit, life-giving Sun of the world to come
Glory to Thee for all things, Holy and most merciful Trinity
Glory to Thee, O God, from age to age

Kontakion 13

Life-giving and merciful Trinity, receive my thanksgiving for all Thy goodness. Make us worthy of Thy blessings, so that, when we have brought to fruit the talents Thou hast entrusted to us, we may enter into the joy of our Lord, forever exulting in the shout of victory: Alleluia!
(repeat Kontakion 13 and Alleluia three times)

Ikos 1

Kontakion 1

Everlasting King, Thy will for our salvation is full of power. Thy right arm controls the whole course of human life. We give Thee thanks for all Thy mercies, seen and unseen. For eternal life, for the heavenly Joys of the Kingdom which is to be. Grant mercy to us who sing Thy praise, both now and in the time to come. Glory to Thee, O God, from age to age.

Wednesday, November 20, 2019

A Prayer

Heavenly Father, by the Holy Spirit, through the Precious Blood of your Son, I pray. Thank you for the gentle, knowing, even sweet treatment of the police and jailers who were forced by politicians to arrest me for daring to expose a group of young people to the actual empirical evidence of modern science.

How could we have ever guessed that the assault on knowledge would grow so severe that to merely state secular non-religious empirical evidence would become a crime? Of course, it is not actually a crime, but having offered the evidence they made up false charges against me. In that, I joined the rank of Saint Paul who on more than one occasion faced false charges, because they did not like the TRUTH he taught.

The world has grown so dark that it was not the LOGOS, that is, the Truth of the Gospel for which false charges were leveled against me, but merely the "actual empirical evidence of modern science."

Modern Cosmology has CRASHED AND ALONG WITH IT MODERN PHYSICS. There is not one wit of evidence that sustains it. It has been proved total fancy and mythology and the "gatekeepers" of the secular culture are suddenly without foundation and like the Idol Makers of Ephesus their livelihood is threatened and they wish to kill anyone who exposes them. Saint Paul was beaten and left for dead, and I am so ashamed, I was arrested by two very nice gentlemen, guys I would be proud to call my son and grandson. And although the 52-year-old groused and tried to say we were the same age (he wanted to flex his experience) I am old enough to be his father, in fact, my oldest child is OLDER than him. They were confused by the lies, but in the end, were so gentle and genteel, the goodness of their spirit showed through.

Saint Paul was a young man, a teacher, an apostle, and ultimately a martyr; I am just an old man, a teacher, an old retired prison chaplain. Saint Paul taught the Eternal Logos and I just hinted at the philosophical Logos, the Greek word variously meaning "ground", "word", "speech", "account", "reason", "proportion", and "discourse". It became a technical term in Western philosophy beginning with Heraclitus, who used the term for a principle of order and knowledge. I was targeted and arrested, accused of false crimes, not for preaching the Gospel, the Good News of the LOGOS, but merely for broaching the subject of the philosophical logos, that is the state of "actual empirical evidence of modern science."

Thank you, Lord, for the officers who arrested me and the jailers who were such fun and entertainment, bless them and give them all spiritual discernment. Have mercy on those who created and spoke the lies against me, that caused my arrest. - Amen.

Monday, November 11, 2019

Discernment or Scaffolding?

fatherjohn.blogspot.com

Aristotle Papanikolaou has just had two articles posted on the misnamed "Public Orthodoxy" website. If you had any remaining doubts that they really intend to push for the full acceptance of sodomy by the Church, these articles should remove them. I will respond to the second one in a separate article. This article is in response to ""Orthodox Morality" On Sex or an Ethics of Sex?"

Misusing the Writings of the Fathers

Papanikolaou begins his piece with this anecdote:

"Perhaps my point is best illustrated through a story: During the fall 1999 semester, I taught at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Brookline, MA, a course on Ethics. We were discussing St. Maximus the Confessor on virtues and how the development of virtues enables relations, and in so doing, makes space for the presence of God. I then asked the students that if two people (I did not mention gender) were living together in friendship for fifty years and manifesting the virtues, would this be an example of communion and participation in God. They all said yes. I then asked whether the fact that they had sex would negate the good resulting from their virtuous friendship: half said it would, while the other half got the point that I will try to articulate in this short, two-part essay.

As this story illustrates, ecclesial ethics on sexuality have been primarily about sex and the criteria for establishing a morally right sex act."

It seems almost every article recently published by "Public Orthodoxy" makes some reference to St. Maximus the Confessor. One would almost get the impression that St. Maximus was some pot smoking hippie, who advocated free love, and sodomy. However, in a recent Twitter exchange on the subject, Papanikolaou acknowledged that in fact St. Maximus believed that any sex that was not for the purpose of procreation, and within lawful marriage, was sinful. That would obviously preclude homosexual sex, and yet these people continue to disingenuously appeal to his authority as if he supported in the slightest their agenda. Why do they do this? Because St. Maximus was a very deep thinker, and many of his writings sound very obscure to the casual reader... and so they use this obscurity as a smoke screen, since they cannot honestly cite either Scripture or the Fathers in support of their renovationist and homosexualist agenda. More on this when we deal with the second article by Papanikolaou.

"From the start, someone might argue that there is nothing to talk about, as the Church’s teaching on sex has been clear and succinct from the beginning. It must be admitted that the overwhelming body of shared authoritative sources of the Orthodox Tradition—Scripture, Councils, Writings/Sayings of Saints, Canons, Liturgy—does limit sexual activity to marriage, with some even restricting the performance of the sexual act for procreation. This raises the question of what can or cannot be talked about in the Church; it is a question of how we should interpret these shared authoritative sources."

For starters, as we decide how to interpret these shared authoritative sources, the "overwhelming body" of which teach that sex outside of lawful heterosexual marriage is sinful -- which of them do not teach that? The verdict is not just "overwhelming," it is unanimous. They have literally nothing to support their position, and so they can only try to use specious arguments which appeal to obscure texts, while ignoring all we know about the Fathers who wrote them.

"Recently, the phrase “Orthodox morality” has been invoked to name a definitive and unchangeable body of teaching on moral rules, but one cannot find such an expression in any of the languages—Greek, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian—used for the texts that have been constitutive for the Orthodox Tradition."

"Morality" is certainly not a new concept in the Church. The only reason why one would perhaps not have needed to use the term "Orthodox" to modify "morality" in the past is because in the history of the Church, even among heretics, few have ever challenged what everyone has always understood as Christian morality -- and within the Church, this was unheard of. Now, however, we have people who claim to be Christian and even claim to be Orthodox who would have us believe that it is acceptable for a Christian man to have sex with another man, not repent of that, and still receive communion. So now, what is Orthodox morality is a matter in dispute, at least by some.

The Nicolaitans and Moral Heresy

"Some even argue that the word “heresy” was used for moral infractions and bring up as proof the Nicolaitans. The Apostle makes passing reference to the Nicolaitans for both their works and teaching (Rev. 2.6, 15), after which they are mentioned only rarely and linked to Gnosticism (St. Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, 3.11). They came to be included in the lists of “heretics” as a result of this affinity with Gnosticism and not for the acts of eating food sacrificed to idols or sexual immorality."

Here Papanikolaou is referencing exchanges he and I have had on this subject, but he is misrepresenting what I have said. I never said that moral infractions (i.e. the actual sins) are heresies. I said teaching that a sin is not really a sin is a heresy. I in fact have repeatedly clarified that this is what I was saying, and so to continue to misrepresent what I have said is simply dishonest.
The Nicolaitans were not heretics because they struggled with certain sins -- they were heretics because they taught that one need not struggle with certain sins, namely with regard to sexual immorality. Papanikolaou claims that they were condemned because they were Gnostics, and not because of their teachings on sexual immorality, but he cannot cite a single Father who would support his claim. The Fathers consistently taught that the Nicolaitans were indeed heretics, because of their teachings on sexual immorality and eating meat sacrificed to idols. Not a single Father gives any description of their teachings as involving any other specific heresy. So Papanikolaou is simply making things up here, because he does not want to have to deal with the implications of a clear example of a moral heresy.
He references St. Irenaeus, but what does St. Ireneaus say about the Nicolaitans when he actually describes why they are heretics, and what they taught?

"The Nicolaitans are the followers of that Nicolas who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles. They lead lives of unrestrained indulgence. The character of these men is very plainly pointed out in the Apocalypse of John, [when they are represented] as teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practise adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to idols. Wherefore the Word has also spoken of them thus: “But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate" (Irenaeus. Against Heresies, 1:26:3).

It is also interesting that he claims "The Apostle" makes reference to the Nicolaitans in Revelation 2:6,14-15, when in fact if you look up the text, in a red-letter edition of the Bible, you will see that these words are indeed in red. Christ Himself condemned this heresy, and not just in passing, but rather quite directly.
In Revelation 2:14, the Lord speaks of them thus:

"...thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication."

The Fathers consistently describe the heresy of the Nicolaitans in precisely these terms.

"For the Church, actions were never labeled with the adjectives of “Orthodox” or “heretical,” only beliefs centered around the Trinity or the person of Christ (the dogma on the icon is an extension of the debate on the person of Christ). As St. Basil argues in his “Letter to Amphilochius, Concerning the Canons,” “by heresies they meant those who were altogether broken off and alienated in matters relating to the actual faith” (Letter 188). The dogmatic proclamations of the Council were always separate from the canonical proclamations. Morality was codified in the canons of the Church. Yes—there must be a consistency between theology and ethics, between dogma and canons, but while dogmas are non-negotiable, canons are part of the ongoing discernment of the Church."

It is not the actions of the Nicolaitans that made them heretics, but their teachings about sexual immorality. Teachings are not actions, and teachings can be heretical, and teaching that a sin is not a sin is heretical. That the Nicolaitans were heretics is repeated throughout the Fathers. The nature of the heresy is only described in terms of their teachings on sexual immorality and eating meat sacrificed to idols. Therefore, continuing to claim that there is no such thing a heresy when it comes to teachings on morality is false.
For more information on this subject, see: Moral Heresy?

Red-herrings

"While the Church has always condemned both beliefs and actions, moral infractions are dealt with through penances: a sanction is imposed for breaking moral rules, whereas rejection of the divinity of Christ qualifies for “heresy.” This also explains why, as is readily evident, there are ample examples of once morally forbidden actions that the Church now allows. One of the clearest examples is usury, but the Church has also revised its guidance on divorce, slavery, consulting Jewish physicians, and other canonical matters."

These are red-herrings, but let me address them briefly:

Usury: It is certainly true that as times and circumstances change, how the Church applies unchanging principles to different situations will vary... but that does not mean that the principles are up for grabs. In the case of charging interest, the Church was opposed to charging interest... in the context of a society that had currencies that did not inflate in value (being based on things like gold, silver, and copper that tended to either retain their value or increase in value over time), and in which individuals lent money to people without regulation, usually at exorbitant interest (i.e. actual usury), and in a context in which debtors who could not pay their debts ended up in prison or being sold into slavery (and quite likely their wives and children along with them). In our current context, in which the value of our money decreases with inflation, money is lent in a regulated fashion, in a context in which people who cannot pay their debts can walk away not only without paying the debt but in many cases without losing all that they have purchased with the money they borrowed, and without any fear of jail or slavery, things are just a wee bit different. In the former context, to lend money to the average person with interest was exploitative, and could lead to their complete and utter ruin. In our current context, when a bank refuses to lend to someone because the bank doubts their ability to repay the debt, this is considered to be an injustice. Anyone lending money at no interest today will not only not have the use of their money in the mean time, but will be repaid with money that is worth less than it was when it was lent in the first place. And of course they also run the risk of not being paid back at all, and without that risk having any potential benefit to themselves. To argue that the fact that the Church does not treat these very different circumstances in the same way therefore means that gay sex may not really be a sin is not an argument made by a person who desires to illuminate the truth -- it is the argument of one who willfully obscures the truth.

Divorce: Has the Church "revised" its stance on divorce? Christ taught that one should not divorce except for cases of infidelity (Matthew 19:1-10). St. Paul speaks of one further reason for divorce, and that is abandonment, in which case he says "A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases" (1 Corinthians 7:10-15). All the legitimate reasons for divorce are extrapolations from these two teachings. For example, if a husband beats the snot out of his wife or abuses their children, this is taken to be a form of abandonment, even though the husband may not desire to leave the home, because his actions force the wife to leave the home, if he cannot otherwise be made to change his behavior. Divorce is in fact provided for in the canons, and even for those who are the guilty party in a divorce, there is a path to restoration in the Church. Divorce is always a sin on the part of at least one of the spouses. It is not an unpardonable sin.
Now are there bishops who are too lax when it comes to dealing with divorce? Probably so, but that actually is a pastoral matter, not a matter of a change in principle. In other words, you don't hear bishops or clergy teaching that divorce is no longer a sin. Likewise, when it comes to dealing with homosexuals, there are some clergy who may be too strict, and some who may be too lax, but so long as they all treat it as a sin, this is a matter of pastoral discretion. However, if a clergyman tells people that this sin is not really a sin, he is guilty of teaching error, as well as pastoral malpractice, because he is deluding his flock and giving them a bum steer on the path of salvation.
I am not David Bentley Harts biggest fan, but he actually does make some good points on this subject in his recent essay "Divorce, Annulment & Communion." See also "Divorce."

Slavery: I have addressed this previously in "What about Slavery in the Bible?" But in short, the Church has not reversed any principle here. No one was ever commanded to own slaves, and slavery was never seen as a good thing. Circumstances have changed. We still have some forms of involuntary servitude that are allowable by law (as a punishment for a crime, and in the form of the military draft). In the future, perhaps these will no longer be permissible by law. And perhaps in the future, society may decide that paying someone to flip hamburgers for only $7.25 an hour is immoral too. None of this changes the principles of Scripture or the canons.

Jewish Physicians: In the ancient world, there was no such thing as secular medicine as we know it today. At the time of the canon in question, Non-Christian Jewish doctors mixed their beliefs with their practice of medicine and so it was a religious issue for a Christian to go to such a doctor. Going to see a modern secular physician is an entirely different matter. If one went to a Jewish doctor who mixed faith healing into his practice, then this canon would apply, but I don't know of any modern examples of such things.
Unlike these red herrings, there is nothing about sodomy that has changed since the times the Scriptures and canons of the Church were written. Only if you don't really believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures, or the guidance of the Holy Spirit over the Church would you think that we might need to revise the teachings of the Church on an issue about which the Church has been so clear.

Biblical Morality
Papanikolaou argues that speaking of "biblical morality" muddies the water, but then proceeds to muddy the water himself by trying to conflate Old Testament ceremonial law, and the moral law:

"How can we be sure that our ongoing discernment within the Church is faithful to the Tradition? Some might define this faithfulness in terms of “biblical morality” or in terms of length of time the Church has proclaimed a particular moral principle, moral rule, or canonical prohibition. Phrases like “biblical morality” muddy the waters as it gives the impression that morality is reducible to literal interpretation of injunctions from the Bible. One look at Leviticus would dispel such a way of interpreting the Tradition of our Church, not to mention the New Testament prohibitions that the Church today does not follow to the letter (Mk 10:11-12 [depending on how one interprets this obscure passage]; 1 Cor 11:6, 14:34). Orthodox Christianity is a religion of the person, not of the book, and the Scriptures, which are foundational, authoritative, and sacred, point to the person of Christ who becomes the hermeneutical key for how to read Scripture."

He brings up Leviticus, and obviously is referencing the many ceremonial laws that we in the Church do not observe. The Fathers make a distinction between the moral law of the Old Testament, ceremonial laws, and purely civil laws. Even in the Old Testament, you never hear of a Prophet condemning non-Israelites for things like eating shrimp, or having garments made from different kinds of cloth. I have addressed this question in more detail in "Shrimp and Homosexuality" and "The Continuing Validity of the Moral Law of the Old Testament."
He then again brings up slavery, and laws and canons that regulate it. I have already addressed the question of whether such things constitute an endorsement of slavery in "Laws about Slavery." If there were laws and canons that required one own slaves, and then the Church later reversed them, or if there were laws and canons which prohibited slavery, but then the Church later reversed them, Papanikolaou would have an argument. But this is not the case.

Scaffolding

"Some might argue that to say that ethical norms and practices are subject to discussion is a form of relativism and a result of being influenced by secular, modern, liberal discourse that is diametrically opposed to Orthodoxy. First, discernment is part of the Tradition of the Church and it does not involve relativism since there is a clear telos in sight for this process of discernment—theosis. Second, “diametrical opposition” is itself a form of dualism that is theologically problematic, since the Holy Spirit is “every present and fills all things.” In fact, all heresies are a form of dualism, and the dogmatic Tradition around the person of Christ resisted this absolute dualism between the created and the Uncreated. Moreover, the Fathers and Mothers of our Tradition have always identified what is good in Greek pagan philosophy. Is recognizing what was right in Platonism a capitulation to Greek pagan thought? The very structure of the soul used by St. Maximus (see part 2) to make sense of a life in theosis is itself an appropriation from Greek pagan philosophy. Does that invalidate the theological anthropology of St. Maximus? Finally, why is discerning ethical norms in light of new information a surrender to a diametrically opposed form of discourse? Could not the absolute rejection of modern, liberal discourse itself be a form of defining Orthodoxy in light of this self-opposition? And if the opposition itself is what is defining Orthodoxy, is this distorted apophaticism—we are what we are not—really being faithful to the Orthodoxy that in the end is about our ascent toward union with God?"

So we have a moral issue that Papanikolaou admits the Scripture and Fathers "overwhelmingly" address in a very clear manner. In other words, God has spoken. And yet Papanikolaou says we nevertheless need to use "discernment" on this issue. So he wishes to put a question mark where God has placed a period, if not an exclamation point. This, he wishes to argue, is how the Church "does theology." This is in fact not how the Church has ever done theology, but it is how the devil does it.

"Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:1-5).

Papanikolaou and his fellow travelers say "We're just asking questions." The devil was just asking questions too. "Did God really say that?" And then after "just asking questions" the devil went on to undermine what God had said, in order to persuade Eve that it was actually OK to do precisely the opposite of what God in fact did say. This call for "dialogue" and "discernment" is not being called for because these folks aren't sure where the "dialogue" will lead. This "dialogue" is just the scaffolding necessary to construct the edifice they already have designed.
We have seen this movie before, and we know how it ends. No thank you.

For more information, see:
Unitarian Morality With a Little "Theosis" Sprinkled on Top
The Living Church 2.0
Cultural Marxism and Public Orthodoxy
The Bible the Church and Homosexuality: Obscurantegesis vs the Truth
Sister Vassa on Homosexuality

Saturday, November 9, 2019

Eric CIAramella

Parody BS Warning
Russian FSB-GRU Profile of:

Eric Ciaramella Wiki, Age, Wife, Biography (CIA) Family & More, Deep State Rumor Blower and blower of other things.

4-5 minutes

Eric Ciaramella (born in 1986) is American CIA Anal-ist from Prospect, (Connecticut, United States). He worked with both Obama and the Trump administration on the intelligence officer position, we are not sure which intelligence offer this was.

Furthermore, he was the former National Council Security Staffer that . . . worked on the intelligence officer position

He feigns concerned about the discussions between the Presidents of Ukraine and the United States. In addition to this, an investigation report of the Real Clear Investigations came into light on October 30, 2019.

His information disclosed the political experts and websites like The Federalist and Washington Examiner. Matt Gaetz (Republican Congressman) shared the article link on the Twitter account. RCI cleared that Eric left the Security Council in mid-2017. He posted at the White House West Wing.

However, he affected due to the negative news in the media. He came back to the CIA headquarters Langley, Virginia. As per the Federal Reports, he was at the Obama office as the one certified democrat.

Profile, Early Life & Parents

CIA Analyst, Eric Ciaramella was born in 1986 in the Prospect (age 33 years old, as in 2019). Still, no information recovered about his dad and mom responsible for his CIA FAKE NAME, from the internet sources. Both of them involved in their respective jobs in the government sectors. CIA FAMILY = MAFIA FAMILY.
He has two siblings in his family. Furthermore, he completed initial studies at the Woodland Regional High School, Beacon Hills. He passed out from Chase Collegiate School, Waterbury.
On the other hand, he majored in Russian and East European Studies at Yale University. He went to Harvard University and focused on Central Asia, Eastern Europe, and Russia.

Wiki/Bio
Real Full Birth Name	Eric Ciaramella.
Nick name	Eric.
Profession	CIA Analyst.
Famous for	His reports about President of USA and Ukraine meeting.
Age (As of 2019)	33 years old.
Date of Birth (DOB), Birthday	1986.
Birthplace/Hometown	Prospect, (Connecticut, United States).
Nationality	American.
Sexuality (Gay or Lesbian)	Straight front bent back.
Gender	Male.
Ethnicity	White Caucasian Race.
Religion	Christianish.
Sun Sign (Zodiac Sign)	Rat
House In	Virginia, USA.
Physical Statistics
Height (Tall)	Feet & Inches: 5' 8". Centimeters: 173 cm. Meters: 1.73 m.
Weight	Kilograms: 65 Kg. Pounds: 143 lbs.
Shoe Size (UK)	8.
Eye Color	Brown.
Hair Color	Dark Brown.
Family
Parents	Father: Name not available. Mother: Will Update Soon.
Siblings	Unknown.
Personal Life Relationship
Marital Status	Unmarried Orientation
Education
Highest Qualification	Majored in Russian and East European Studies from Yale University.
School	Woodland Regional High School, Beacon Hills.
Alma Mater.	1. Chase Collegiate School. 2. Yale University. 3. Harvard University.
Wealth
Net worth (approx.)	$100K-$110K USD.
Salary, Income & Earnings	$50K-$65K.

Some Lesser Known Facts about Eric Ciaramella

He has former ties with the associates of Obama.
National Security Council staffer, Eric accused of leaking their information in the media.
He placed in the World Bank after college.
A report about Russia’s rephrasing economy published in 2011.
In addition to this, he added his name to the great contributors’ list.
He designated as the Consultant in Poverty Reduction/Economic Management in the financial institution.
On the other hand, he listed as the guest in the 2016s lunch party with Italy’s Prime Minister.

He observed his duties closely with Vice President Joe Biden.
Moreover, he has secure connections with Alexander Chalupa (Researcher, Democratic National Committee).
Eric Ciaramella receives a monthly salary cheque of $50K-$60K US Dollars.
He researched on the EU and the Italian rural residents.
Additionally, he protested against the Professor of Arabic Department at Yale University.
He can quickly speak multiple languages like Ukrainian, Arabic, and Russian.

Friday, November 1, 2019

Pope as Luciferian

Kathy said: I believe this so-called pope is full-fledged Luciferian!

Bond Robin: <smile> are you bucking for the Captain Obvious award. I would correct you in calling him a so-called Pope. He IS the Pope of the Western Roman Catholic Church, an actual POPE, not an anti-pope, not a usurper, and by apostolic succession the successor of Saint Peter - these are FACTS, he is also a Pagan, a Heretic, An Apostate, a Marxist and Globalist Luciferian; these things are also facts. No Roman Catholic should be relieved of this reality or this burden for which there is no excuse. For the last 150 years, Vaticanist Heretical Theology has become so truncated it was centered entirely on Roman Supremacy, the Roman Pope and his "Infallibility" to the point that a living IDOL was created, and a succession of Popes occupying the seat of antichrist; the failure of the Papacy has now been exposed to the world through the Pagan expressions of Vatican II culminating in the abomination of the Amazonian Synod in Rome where pagan Idols were treated as IKONS, and Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, Priest, laymen and women, paid homage to them: in that exposure the whole house of cards exposed as FALLEN.

Since, in Roman Catholic Papal Supremacy belief, the Pope holds the Keys of the Kingdom, were the Pope, Papal Supremacy and Papal infallibility TRUE and Rome Truly Church and the Seat of Christ's Church, it would mean that Hell HAS Prevailed and THE Body of Christ is fallen to Lucifer who now holds the Keys to the Kingdom of God. We know such a proposition is a demonic lie and lunacy for clearly Rome has fallen but the Church-the Body of Christ, has not.

Now in fact, what will happen with Roman Catholics is that many will be crushed and simply abandon any search for Christ, the deceived will follow their Idol, the Luciferian Pope, and his coming Luciferian successors, some knowingly loving the chaos and fake peace of Satan, others will simply follow in ignorance; those not deceived will discover the heresies and lies of the Roman Magisterium, have to reassess their theology and ecclesiology and move on. It is my goal in this video and reference material to help that process of reassessment of ecclesiology, in fact, it is the goal of this entire series, "Christ vs Politics and the Chaos of Cults."

+++
Bond Robin - Writing in December of 2014:

Roman Catholic Heresy vis a vis the Pope:

“The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth. By divine right, the Pope has supreme and full power in faith and morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true Vicar of Christ, the Head of the entire Church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils, the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God Himself on earth.” - Roman Catholic New York Catechism – and pure heresy by many means.

“The Catholic Church teaches that our Lord conferred on St. Peter the first place of honor and jurisdiction in the government of His whole Church and that the same spiritual supremacy has always resided in the Popes or Bishops of Rome being the successors of Saint Peter, Consequently to be true followers of Christ all Christians, both among the clergy and laity, must be in communion with the See of Rome where Peter rules in the person of his successors.”
Cardinal Gibbons – from “The Faith of Our Fathers”

If anyone says that the blessed Apostle Peter was not constituted by Christ our Lord prince of all the apostles and visible head of all the church militant or that he, Peter, directly and immediately received from our Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of favor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction, let him be anathema. - Vatican I Council.

“We declare, affirm, define and pronounce it to be necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff. “ - Unum Sanctum, Bull of Boniface VIII – lying heresy, a heresy Rome now denies.

“I alone, despite my unworthiness am the successor of the apostles, the Vicar of Jesus Christ. I alone have the mission to guide and direct the barc of Peter. I am the way, the truth and the life. They who are with me are with the Church. They who are not with me are out of the Church.” Pope Pius IX – This is beyond heresy, this is Blasphemy. It must be perfect and inerrant Blasphemy.

“We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed, the Roman Pontiff, when he speak ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held by the Universal Church by the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrines regarding faith and morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff of themselves, and not by virtue of the consent of the Church, are irreformable.” Vatican Council I - Here is the heresy where it is claimed that all “catholicity” rests in the person of the Pope ALONE. A Gross Innovation upon the faith and heresy.

Peter had no say in Saint Paul's appointment. Paul's writings come down to us in 2023 verses, compared to Peter's 166. Paul was never “approved” by Peter, nor was Paul or the other Apostles and their successors of “Petron succession.” The most Peter is reported saying about Paul's writings is that he wrote many things hard to understand. Paul mentioned Peter, but never with any special title of honor, such as Vicar or Pope, or as being above any of the other apostles. It is obvious that the first council of the Church, held when Paul visited Jerusalem was presided over by James, who Tradition teaches was head of the Church in Jerusalem. Paul, as an apostle, claimed authority over the Roman Church itself (during Peter's life) in Romans 1:5-6 and 16:17. Paul claimed for himself that “he was behind the chiefest apostles in NOTHING.” II Corinthians 12. Was Paul a member of the Church? Was he in submission to the Roman Pontiff? Further Paul REBUKES Peter without any mention of Peter's supremacy on a matter of faith and morals. Galatians 2 - So Paul must be lost for all eternity according to the heresy of modern Popes.

“We're built upon the foundation of the apostles (PLURAL), Jesus Christ, the chief cornerstone.” Ephesian 2:20.
Where is the mention that the “house” is solely contained in the office of Roman Pontiff?

“Well, venerable brethren, history raises its voice to assure us that Popes have erred. You may protest against it or deny it as you please, I'll prove it. Pope Victor in 192 first approved of Montanism and then condemned it. Pope Marcellinus was an idolator; he entered the Temple of Vesta and offered incense to the goddess. You'll say that it was an act of weakness, but I answer a Vicar of Jesus Christ dies rather than become an apostate. Pope Liberius consented to the condemnation of Saint Athanasius and made a profession of Arianism that he might be recalled from his exile and reinstated in the Holy See. Pope Honorius adhered to monothelitism. Fr. Gratry has proved that to demonstration. Pope Gregory I calls anyone 'anti-Christ' who take the name of Universal Bishop (Supreme Pontiff – same concept), and Pope Boniface III made the patricide Emperor of Phocus confer the title upon him. Popes Paschal II and Eugenius III authorized dueling (isn't that a moral matter of “morals). Popes Julius II and Pius IV forbade dueling. Oops. Pope Eugenius IV approved the Council of Basel and the reinstitution of the chalice of the Church of Bohemia, Pope Pius II revoked the concession. Pope Hadriah II declared civil marriages to be valid, Pope Pius VII condemned them. Pope Sixtus V published an edition of the Bible and by a Bull recommended it to be read. Pope Pius VII condemned the reading of it. Pope Clement XIV abolished the order of Jesuits. - This from the debate of Vatican I ( you thought it was a protestant screed didn't you.)
Pope Vigilius purchased the papacy from Bilesarius, Lieutenant to the Emperor Justinian. Pope Eugenius III imitated Vigilius. Saint Benard the bright star of the Reformation says, 'Can you show me in the great city of Rome anyone who would receive you as Pope that they had not received gold or silver for it?' You know the history of Formosus too well for me to add to it. But you will tell me these are fables, not history, fables! Go Monsignori to the Vatican library and read Plantina, the historian of the papacy and the annals of Baronius. These are facts which for the honor of the Holy See we would wish to ignore. Cardinal Baronius speaking of the papal court said, “What did the Roman Church appear in those days? How infamous! Only all-powerful courtesans governing in Rome! It was they who gave exchanged and took bishoprics; and horrible to relate, got their lovers, the false Popes, put on the thrones of Saint Peter!” - Again from the Vatican I debate record.

I've heard Roman Theologians, in fact that Priest (the New Age One) that does the "Catholic" Series on EWTN, make a great deal of the fact that very early in the Church's history, it could have been as early as 95AD, the orthodox faction of the Church of Corinth, which had experienced upheaval and removal by political factions, called on the Bishop of Rome, Clement to settle the dispute. They claim that call is "absolute proof" of the place of authority of the Roman Pontiff. They have to twist history, Tradition and fail to read the actual Letter of Clement to make this claim. Of course the church founded by Paul as recorded in the New Testament would reach to Paul's successor, who was in Rome for advice, which was given in the form of a pastoral letter. No "decree", No "ruling" just pastoral ADVICE. And in that Letter Peter in named ONCE and in a bad light, and Paul named in a good light, four times.

The Revised Language PASSED by the Bishops of the Extraordinary Synod on the Family in Rome, did LITTLE to change or cover its radical Homosexual Agenda. It RETAINED the language stating that homosexual "orientation" should be valued by Catholics. Should orientation toward adultery, which is shared by most heterosexual males also be "valued"? The day a church tells me that I'm supposed to value buggery is the day I denounce that church.

+++
From the Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 525. What do you mean by the authority of the Church?
A. By the authority of the Church I mean the right and power which the Pope and the Bishops, as the successors of the Apostles, have to teach and to govern the faithful.
Q. 526. What do you mean by the infallibility of the Church?
A. By the infallibility of the Church I mean that the Church can not err when it teaches a doctrine of faith or morals.
Q. 527. What do we mean by a "doctrine of faith or morals"?
A. By a doctrine of faith or morals we mean the revealed teaching that refers to whatever we must believe and do in order to be saved.
Q. 528. How do you know that the Church can not err?
A. I know that the Church can not err because Christ promised that the Holy Ghost would remain with it forever and save it from error. If, therefore, the Church has erred, the Holy Ghost must have abandoned it and Christ has failed to keep His promise, which is a thing impossible.
Q. 529. Since the Church can not err, could it ever be reformed in its teaching of faith or morals?
A. Since the Church can not err, it could never be reformed in its teaching of faith or morals. Those who say the Church needed reformation in faith or morals accuse Our Lord of falsehood and deception.
Q. 530. When does the Church teach infallibly?
A. The Church teaches infallibly when it speaks through the Pope and Bishops united in general council, or through the Pope alone when he proclaims to all the faithful a doctrine of faith or morals.
Q. 531. What is necessary that the Pope may speak infallibly or ex-cathedra?
A. That the Pope may speak infallibly, or ex-cathedra:
   1. He must speak on a subject of faith or morals;
   2. He must speak as the Vicar of Christ and to the whole Church;
   3. He must indicate by certain words, such as, we define, we proclaim, etc., that he intends to speak infallibly.
Q. 532. Is the Pope infallible in everything he says and does?
A. The Pope is not infallible in everything he says and does, because the Holy Ghost was not promised to make him infallible in everything, but only in matters of faith and morals for the whole Church. Nevertheless, the Pope's opinion on any subject deserves our greatest respect on account of his learning, experience and dignity.

+++

It is not enough to say the Orthodox Catholic Church teaches x, y, or z. That is a failure to understand the context of what is being said. As it is not enough to say that the Eastern Orthodox Church is opposed to the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal supremacy, which is the usual tact when dealing with the heterodox (heretical now Apostate) reality of Modern Roman Catholicism. It is far more accurate to say that ALL of Roman Catholicism, both East and West opposed such heresy, and for the most part knew nothing of it, for the first thousand years of the Church's history. While not denying that some form of "primacy of honor" could exist for the Bishop of Rome, both History and Tradition clearly indicate that the tradition of Rome's primacy in the early Church was not equivalent to the current doctrine of supremacy.

Orthodox understanding of Catholicity

The test of authentic catholicity is adherence to the authority of the Church's Holy Tradition, and then to the witness of Sacred "Scripture", which is itself a product of the Church's aforementioned Holy Tradition. It is not defined by adherence to any particular See. It is the position of the Orthodox Church that it has never accepted the pope as de jure leader of the entire church. All bishops are equal "as Peter", therefore every church under every bishop (consecrated in apostolic succession) is fully complete (the original meaning of catholic).
Referring to Ignatius of Antioch,^[1] Carlton says

Contrary to popular opinion, the word catholic does not mean "universal"; it means "whole, complete, lacking nothing." ... Thus, to confess the Church to be catholic is to say that She possesses the fullness of the Christian faith. To say, however, that Orthodox and Rome constitute two lungs of the same Church is to deny that either Church separately is catholic in any meaningful sense of the term. This is not only contrary to the teaching of Orthodoxy, it is flatly contrary to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, which considered itself truly catholic.^[2]

The church is in the image of the Trinity^[3] and reflects the reality of the incarnation.

The body of Christ must always be equal with itself … The local church which manifests the body of Christ cannot be subsumed into any larger organisation or collectivity which makes it more catholic and more in unity, for the simple reason that the principle of total catholicity and total unity is already intrinsic to it.^[4]

Any changes to the understanding of the church would reflect a change in the understanding of the Trinity.

Ancient Orthodox Roman Catholic rebuttal of Modern Roman Catholic arguments and errors.
(Orthodox rebuttal of Catholic arguments)

It is the position of Orthodox Christianity that Roman Catholic arguments in support of the teaching have relied on proofs from Fathers that have either been misinterpreted or so taken out of context as to misrepresent their true intent. It is the position of Orthodox Christianity that a closer examination of those supposed supports would have the effect of either not supporting the argument or have the opposite effect of supporting the counter-argument.

Apostolic Throne

Athanasius is used as a witness for papal primacy on numerous Catholic apologist sites.

Rome is called the Apostolic throne.^[5]^[6]

Whelton, however, says that Athanasius does not use the definite article (the) in the text.^[7]

Thus from the first they spared not even Liberius, Bishop of Rome, but extended their fury even to those parts; they respected not his bishopric, because it was an Apostolical throne ...^[8]

Rome is an Apostolic throne, not the Apostolic throne. Augustine too is misquoted on the same point of grammar ...

Pope Leo XIII

And for a like reason St. Augustine publicly attests that "the primacy of the Apostolic chair always existed in the Roman Church" (Ep. xliii., n. 7)^[9]

Augustine

...because he saw himself united by letters of communion both to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished.^[10]

Whelton goes on to say that for Augustine there is not one Apostolic See, but many:

You cannot deny that you see what we call heresies and schisms, that is, many cut off from the root of the Christian society, which by means of the Apostolic Sees, and the successions of bishops, is spread abroad in an indisputably world-wide diffusion ...^[11]

Ignatius of Antioch

For Ignatius each church under a bishop is complete – the original meaning of "catholic". For Ignatius the church is a world-wide unity of many communities. Each has at its center a bishop "who draws together the local community in the Eucharistic celebration."^[12] This then is the unity of the church – each church united to its bishop – each of these churches united to each other. There is no evidence of him accepting a single supreme bishop-of-bishops as the bishops authority is localised to a particular church.^[13] C. Carlton sums up Ignatius's view of the bishop's role in the Church this way:

Just as the Father is the principal of unity within the Holy Trinity, so the bishop is the center of the visible unity of the Church on earth.^[14]

Ignatius sets out what he believes consists of the church in an epistle to the Trallians:

In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church.^[15]

There is no reference to another tier above bishop. For Ignatius, the bishop is supreme, not the bishop because he is in communion with the bishop in Rome.^[16]^[17]^[18]^[19]^[20]
Thus when he writes to Polycarp the bishop of Smyrna he states that God is Polycarp’s bishop, implying that there is no intermediary between the local bishop and God.^[21]
John Chrysostom referred to Ignatius of Antioch as a "teacher equivalent to Peter".^[22]

Letter to the Romans

Ignatius' Epistle to the Romans is used by Catholic apologists to suggest Roman primacy.^[23] In particular his opening remarks:

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, [I wish] abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.^[24]

J.H. Srawley concedes that the Roman church presides but argues that it is unclear as to what area the act of presiding ("presides in the place of the region of the Romans" and "presides over love") refers to. He argues that the act of presiding may be simply of those churches in the region of the Romans, that is, those in Italy.^[25]

Tome of Leo

Often cited as a proof of Papal Supremacy^[26]^[27]^[28]^[29] is the Tome of Leo which is a letter sent by Pope Leo to the Fourth Ecumenical Council, Chalcedon in 451. It in part seems to suggest that Leo speaks with the authority of Peter. It is the position of Orthodox Christianity that the approval of the Tome is simply to state a unity of faith, not only of the pope but other churchmen as well. Before the Tome of Leo was presented to the Council, it was submitted to a committee headed by Patriarch St. Anatolius of Constantinople for study. The committee compared the Tome of Leo to the 12 Anathemas of St. Cyril of Alexandria against Nestorius and declared the Tome orthodox. It was then presented to the council for approval.

After reading of the foregoing epistle (Pope Leo's), the most reverend bishops cried out: "This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe.”^[30]

However it is not just Leo's teaching that is the teaching of the Apostle, but Cyril's teaching as well. Both teach as Peter. The same language was used following the reading of Cyril's letter at the council.^[31] The language of the council is simply to reinforce that all believe.^[32] At the Third Ecumenical Council Pope Celestine and Cyril were compared to Paul.^[33]

John Chrysostom

Another apparent witness for supremacy claims is John Chrysostom. This evidence is supposed to be based on an incident when he faced exile and he appealed to the pope for help. When he was to be exiled he appealed to the pope for help, as well as two other western prelates; Venerius of Milan and Chromatius of Aquileia. He appealed to all three in the same terms rather than viewing the pope as leader.^[34]
In 2007 Pope Benedict XVI also spoke of this:

How well known and highly esteemed Chromatius was in the Church of his time we can deduce from an episode in the life of St John Chrysostom. When the Bishop of Constantinople was exiled from his See, he wrote three letters to those he considered the most important Bishops of the West seeking to obtain their support with the Emperors: he wrote one letter to the Bishop of Rome, the second to the Bishop of Milan and the third to the Bishop of Aquileia, precisely, Chromatius (Ep. CLV: PG LII, 702).^[35]

Historian J. N. D Kelly wrote:

While confined to his palace, John took a step of great importance. At some date between Easter and Pentecost ... he wrote for support to the pope, Innocent I, and, in identical terms, to the two other leading patriarchs in the west, Venerius of Milan and Chromatius of Aquileia ... His move in no way implied that he recognized the holy see as the supreme court of appeal in the church ... Such an idea, absent from his sermons and other writings, is ruled out by his simultaneous approach to the two other western patriarchs.^[36]

The pope took up the cause of John Chrysostom, convoking a western synod to investigate the matter.^[37] They found in favor of John Chrysostom and sent delegates to Constantinople but these were ignored and sent back after only three months.^[38] The pope's findings in support of John Chrysostom were not viewed as serious enough to annul John Chrysostom's exile.
It must also be remembered that he took his vows from Meletius (whom we noted earlier was not in communion with Rome). He accepted as an authority men not in communion with Rome. After Meletius died John Chrysostom accepted Flavian as his bishop^[39] - another person not in communion with Rome.^[40] John Chrysostom spent much of his life not in communion with Rome.
Other texts are used to allege he supported Roman primacy. John Chrysostom sometimes ascribes to Peter greatness.

For he who then did not dare to question Jesus, but committed the office to another, was even entrusted with the chief authority over the brethren.^[41]

This would seem to indicate that Chrysostom taught that Peter was the supreme ruler over the "brethren". He goes on to ascribe Peter as the "teacher of the world".^[42]
However, according to Abbé Guettée on other occasions John Chrysostom ascribes the same titles to others:^[43]

"The merciful God is wont to give this honor to his servants, that by their grace others may acquire salvation; as was agreed by the blessed Paul, that teacher of the world who emitted the rays of his teaching everywhere."^[44]

Denny also notes that John Chrysostom goes on to speak of Paul as being on an equal footing with Peter.^[45]^[46] Further, the Catholic encyclopedia offers this frank admission of his writings:

... that there is no clear and any direct passage in favour of the primacy of the pope.^[47]

Basil the Great

Basil the Great also supported Meletius against Rome's candidate.^[48] Writing to Count Terentius Basil said

But a further rumour has reached me that you are in Antioch, and are transacting the business in hand with the chief authorities. And, besides this, I have heard that the brethren who are of the party of Paulinus are entering on some discussion with your excellency on the subject of union with us; and by "us" I mean those who are supporters of the blessed man of God, Meletius. I hear, moreover, that the Paulinians are carrying about a letter of the Westerns assigning to them the episcopate of the Church in Antioch, but speaking under a false impression of Meletius, the admirable bishop of the true Church of God. I am not astonished at this ... But I shall never be able to persuade myself on these grounds to ignore Meletius, or to forget the Church which is under him, or to treat as small, and of little importance to the true religion, the questions which originated the division. I shall never consent to give in, merely because somebody is very much elated at receiving a letter from men.^[49]

From his letters it appears that Basil did not hold the popes in high esteem. When Basil wrote to the west for help (in combating Arianism) he addressed his letters to the whole western church.^[50] He didn't especially write to Rome for help and did not even list it first.

To his brethren truly God-beloved and very dear, and fellow ministers of like mind, the bishops of Gaul and Italy, Basil, bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia.^[51]

Damasus was the leader of a group supporting the heretic Marcellus

If the anger of the Lord lasts on, what help can come to us from the frown of the West? Men who do not know the truth, and do not wish to learn it, but are prejudiced by false suspicions, are doing now as they did in the case of Marcellus when they quarrelled with men who told them the truth, and by their own action strengthened the cause of heresy.^[52]

Of the pope, St Basil wrote

... but what possible good could accrue to the cause by communication between a man proud and exalted, and therefore quite unable to hear those who preach the truth to him from a lower standpoint, and a man like my brother, to whom anything like mean servility is unknown?^[53]

Coryphæus

Coryphæus means the head of the choir. Catholic apologists note that John Chrysostom uses the term to describe Peter.^[54] However he also uses this term in relation to others:

He took the coryphaei (plural) and led them up into a high mountain apart ... Why does He take these three alone? Because they excelled the others. Peter showed his excellence by his great love of Him, John by being greatly loved, James by the answer ... "We are able to drink the chalice."^[55]

The coryphaei, Peter the foundation of the Church, Paul the vessel of election.^[56]

It is argued by Catholics that John Chrysostom only uses the singular Coryphæus in relation to Peter. This is true, but others do not restrict the use of the singular to Peter.
Basil also uses the term Coryphæus. He refers to Athanasius as "Coryphæus of all."^[57]
He refers to Pope Damasus as Coryphæus, but as the leader of the westerners, not of the whole church.

Apart from the common document, I should like to have written to their Coryphæus.^[58]

Hesychius of Jerusalem uses the term Coryphæus to refer to James.^[59]

Maximus the Confessor

Pope Leo XIII has already been shown to have misquoted Athanasius. Whelton states that (in his encyclical Satis cognitum) he misquotes Maximus the Confessor.^[60] In Defloratio ex Epistola ad Petrum illustrem Maximus (also rendered Maximos) is alleged to have said:

Therefore if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man ... but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See.^[61]

Edward Denny giving his own translation and using that of Vincenzi^[62] shows that the words of Maximus give Rome a power conferred upon it by Holy Synods. This is in contrast with Catholic teaching and also would suggest that if a Synod can confer power, it can also take it away. Denny states that Vincenzi is "compelled by the facts to admit that these very authorities to which St Maximus refers, as they have been handed down to us, are witness against the Papal Monarchy."^[63]

Formula of Pope Hormisdas

Under the emperor Anastasius I, the churches of Constantinople and Rome were in schism. However with the ascendency of the orthodox emperor Justin I, the two churches could be reconciled again. Justin ordered negotiations begin.
Pope Hormisdas issued a formula of orthodox catholic faith which the Patriarch John II could sign if he wished reunion of the two churches.

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church" [Matthew 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied. From this hope and faith we by no means desire to be separated and, following the doctrine of the Fathers, we declare anathema all heresies, and, especially, the heretic Nestorius, former bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned by the Council of Ephesus, by Blessed Celestine, bishop of Rome, and by the venerable Cyril, bishop of Alexandria. We likewise condemn and declare to be anathema Eutyches and Dioscoros of Alexandria, who were condemned in the holy Council of Chalcedon, which we follow and endorse. This Council followed the holy Council of Nicaea and preached the apostolic faith. And we condemn the assassin Timothy, surnamed Aelurus ["the Cat"] and also Peter [Mongos] of Alexandria, his disciple and follower in everything. We also declare anathema their helper and follower, Acacius of Constantinople, a bishop once condemned by the Apostolic See, and all those who remain in contact and company with them. Because this Acacius joined himself to their communion, he deserved to receive a judgment of condemnation similar to theirs. Furthermore, we condemn Peter ["the Fuller"] of Antioch with all his followers together with the followers of all those mentioned above.
Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome."^[64]

Catholic apologists emphasize part of the text bolded above.
Those in agreement with orthodox faith would naturally be in agreement with the church in Rome on this matter – which was stating orthodox faith. For Catholic apologists agreement to this text means an agreement to Rome, because Rome is the leader. For Orthodox agreement to Rome is because it stated the truth.

For the Greeks, the text of the libellus meant a factual recognition that the apostolic Roman church had been consistent in orthodoxy for the past seventy years and, therefore deserved to become a rallying point for the Chalcedonians (those who accepted the Council of Chalcedon) of the East.^[65]

Further evidence seems to point to this. Patriarch John expressed his opinion that Rome (Old Rome) and Constantinople (New Rome) were on the same level.^[66] The Patriarch showed this when he added to the document:

I declare that the see of apostle Peter and the see of this imperial city are one.^[67]

Furthermore despite it being one of the demands in the formula the east continued to disregard papal demands by not condemning Acacius.^[68]
In doing so John was re-affirming Canon XXVIII of the Council of Chalcedon - a canon which the popes were not to affirm for many centuries to come.
The politics of this is demonstrated by the fact that the Emperor Justin ignored the pope's candidate for the vacated see of Alexandria and instead "authorised the consecration of Timothy III, an intransigent Monophysite".^[69]
Theoderic, king in Italy, and an Arian grew suspicious of the new alliance between Rome and Constantinople. John who succeeded as pope was sent to Constantinople to restore Arian churches there. Thus the orthodox Catholic pope was sent to urge the restoration of churches to heretics. This the pope did with limited success.^[70]^[71] Having failed, upon his return the pope was arrested and died in prison.
This then is not the capitulation of the eastern churches to Roman authority. It is not even the capitulation of the church in Constantinople – as other eastern churches ignored the formula completely. The popes did not have authority over the church and in fact were forced to go and plead the case of heretics before the imperial throne.

Opposition arguments from early church history

The church at Rome was founded (or more formally organised) by both Peter and Paul. As no particular charism or primacy attaches to Paul, then it is not from his co-foundation of the church of Rome that the Roman Pontiff claims primacy.
As many Sees are of Peter, Peter serves as an archetype of "Apostle".
While the See of Rome had primacy, it was a position of honour rather than power or magisterial authority.
Rome is an Apostolic throne, not the Apostolic throne.
Each bishop has the right to manage affairs within his local diocese. In the event of a dispute with another bishop, only a general council may rule on the matter.
Church Fathers do not refer to another tier or clerical office above the ordinary episcopate.
Cases which had been decided by Rome were appealed to bishops in other metropolitan areas.
Cases which had been decided by Rome were appealed to synods of bishops in other metropolitan areas.
Peter founded many episcopal sees; all such sees have equal standing.
The Apostles were equal; no authority was withheld from any of them.
The Roman Pontiff is also styled "universal bishop" (Latin: Summus Pontifex Ecclesiae Universalis), but a previous Pope condemned the use of such a title by any bishop.
The post-Constantinian church conferred upon the sees of Old Rome and later New Rome (Constantinople) the same degree of honor.
Eastern Patriarchs have regarded the Bishop of Rome, occupying the only apostolic see in Western Christendom, as the Patriarch of the West (not of the entire church).
Faced with exile, John Chrysostom, the Archbishop of Constantinople, wrote an appeal for help to three Western churchmen. While one of these was the bishop of Rome, had Rome exercised primacy at that time, he would not have written to the other two bishops.

"Keys of the Kingdom"

Orthodox Christians accept that Peter had a certain primacy. In the New Testament, he is first to be given the keys Matthew 16:18. However other texts may be interpreted to imply that the other Apostles also received the keys in Matthew 18:18. Such an interpretation, it is claimed,^[72] has been accepted by many Church Fathers; Tertullian,^[73] Hilary of Poitiers,^[74] John Chrysostom,^[75] Augustine.^[76]^[77]^[78]^[79]

The Council of Jerusalem

The New Testament records (Acts 15) the convening of a council to decide whether gentiles who converted should be required to be circumcised, which according to some interpretations was prescribed by the Mosaic law. (Rabbinic Judaism only prescribes Noahide Laws for gentiles.) Catholic historians note that when Peter spoke, all were silent. However Whelton notes that when Paul and James spoke, all were silent as well.^[80]
Eusebius said that it was James who stated the decision of the Council, not Peter.^[81] John Chrysostom noted James made the decision.^[82]^[83]
The ruling of the Council was expressed as being the decision of all the council, not just Peter. Continuing with this the opening statements of official formulations normally begins with the phrase "Following the Holy Fathers", not "Following the ruling of the Pope."^[84]

Easter controversy

There existed a difference in how some local churches celebrated Easter: in the Roman province of Asia it was celebrated on the 14th of the moon^[85] (Quartodecimanism), not necessarily on Sunday. "Bishop Victor of Rome ordered synods to be held to settle the matter – an interesting early instance of synodality and indeed of popes encouraging synods – and excommunicated Polycrates of Ephesus and the bishops of Asia when their synod refused to adopt the Roman line. Victor was rebuked by Irenaeus for this severity and it seems that he revoked his sentence and that communion was preserved."^[86]
Eusebius wrote:

Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor. Among them was Irenæus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord's day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom.^[87]

The matter will be eventually resolved at the First Ecumenical Council in line with Sunday observance.

Orthodox arguments from Church Councils

Not one Ecumenical Council was called by a pope; all were called by Byzantine emperors. Had the teaching of primacy formed part of Holy Tradition, then such power would have been exercised to resolve the many disputes in the early history of the church.
A general council may overrule decisions of the Roman Pontiff
Decisions taken by popes in cases involving against bishops have often been confirmed by ecumenical councils. This indicates that the papal decision itself is not considered binding.

First Ecumenical Council

Arius and his teachings were condemned by a synod of bishops which the pope summoned in 320. Alexander of Alexandria summoned a local synod in Alexandria in 321 which also condemned Arianism.^[88] Five years after the pope had condemned Arianism, Emperor Constantine I called an ecumenical council to settle the matter. Whelton argues that the pope's decision was not considered an end to the matter because a council in Africa met to examine the issue for itself. Constantine then ordered a larger council to decide on the matter.^[89]
The Fourth Canon of this council confirmed that bishops were to be appointed only locally.^[90] This is in contrast with Catholic canon law that allows the pope (should he wish) to interfere in the appointment of church officers at any level.

Second Ecumenical Council

The Second Ecumenical Council was presided over by Meletius of Antioch, who was not in communion with Rome.^[91]^[92]

Third Ecumenical Council

The Third Ecumenical Council called Nestorius to account for his teachings following his condemnation as a heretic by Pope Celestine I. The council did not consider the papal condemnation as definitive.^[93]^[94] Catholic theologian Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet noted

It was fixed that all was in suspense once the authority of the universal Synod was invoked even though the sentence of the Roman Pontiff about doctrine and about persons accused of heresy had been uttered and promulgated.^[95]

Bishop Maret said

The Pope had pronounced in the affair of Nestorius a canonical judgment clothed with all the authority of his see. He had prescribed its execution. Yet, three months after this sentence and before its execution, all the episcopate is invited to examine afresh and to decide freely the question in dispute.^[96]

St Vincent of Lerins

And that blessed council holding their doctrine, following their counsel, believing their witness, submitting to their judgment without haste, without foregone conclusion, without partiality, gave their determination concerning the Rules of Faith.^[97]

In its condemnation of Nestorius, the language given is of the council ruling, not because the pope said so. Cyril writes that he, and his fellow bishop - the pope - had both condemned Nestorius.^[98]
Catholic apologists Fathers Rumble and Carty stated

The Council of Ephesus in 431, embracing all Bishops and not even held at Rome, decreed, "No one can doubt, indeed it is known to all ages, that Peter, Prince and Head of the Apostles and Foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from Christ our Redeemer, and that to this day and always he lives in his successors exercising judgment."^[99]

It is true that the statement was made at the council. It is however not a "decree". It was a statement by a priest during the deliberations of the council. This priest, Philip, was at the council to represent the pope. It was not a decree or finding made by the council and remains his opinion.^[100]

Fourth Ecumenical Council

The Fourth Ecumenical Council was called against the expressed wishes of the pope.^[101]

Fifth Ecumenical Council

A controversy arose out of the writings known as Three Chapters – written by bishops Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas. Pope Vigilius opposed the condemnation of the Three Chapters. At the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553) the assembled bishops condemned and anathematized Three Chapters. After the council threatened to excommunicate him and remove him from office, Vigilius changed his mind – blaming the devil for misleading him.^[102] Bossuet wrote

These things prove, that in a matter of the utmost importance, disturbing the whole Church, and seeming to belong to the Faith, the decress of sacred council prevail over the decrees of Pontiffs, and the letter of Ibas, though defended by a judgment of the Roman Pontiff could nevertheless be proscribed as heretical.^[103]

German theologian Karl Josef von Hefele notes that the council was called "without the assent of the Pope".^[104]

Sixth Ecumenical Council

At the Sixth Ecumenical Council, both Pope Honorius and Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople were declared heretics.^[105]

The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to our promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal god-protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasis and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul^[106]

The council anathematized them,^[107] declared them tools of the devil,^[108] and cast them out of the church.^[109]^[110]
The popes (from Pope Leo II) themselves adhered to the Council's ruling and added Honorius to their list of heretics, before quietly dropping his name in the eleventh century.^[111] The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

... also in the oath taken by every new pope from the eighth century to the eleventh in the following words: "Together with Honorius, who added fuel to their wicked assertions" (Liber diurnus, ii, 9).^[112]

So too the Seventh Ecumenical Council declared its adhesion to the anathema in its decree of faith. Thus an Ecumenical Council could rule on the faith of a pope and expel him from the church.^[113]

The Council of Trullo

The Council in Trullo considered by Orthodox as a continuation of the sixth.^[114]^[115]
At this council it was confirmed (in Canon 39) that the local church could regulate itself; to have its own special laws and regulations.^[116]

The Council of Sardica

It is claimed by Catholic apologists^[117] that this council offers proof of papal primacy. In particular this reference is used

The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle.

— Council of Sardica, to Pope Julius (AD 342).^[118]^[119]

It is further stated that Athanasius referred to this council as "the Great Council".^[120]
However, this council was not an ecumenical one and not all of it was initially accepted by the east, who in fact refused to attend because of their Arian-leanings and their opposition to Athanasius.^[121] Apart from the fact that the council at Sardica was not accepted by the whole church until at least the Council at Trullo hundreds of years later, Sardica had only given to the bishop of Rome jurisdiction as a court of final appeal.^[122] Pope Zosimus would later misrepresent the Council of Sardica in order to bolster his claims for power over the churches in Africa.^[123]

... the canons were repudiated by the African Church in 418 and 424. But, most important of all, the Byzantine Church never submitted itself to papal scrutiny in the manner prescribed by Sardica.^[124]

Western councils

Filioque

In 809, when Pope Leo III was asked to approve the addition to the Nicene Creed of the Filioque, first included by the Third Council of Toledo (589) and later adopted widely in Spain, the Frankish empire and England, he refused:^[125]^[126]

In 809 a council was held at Aix-la-Chapelle by Charlemagne, and from it three divines were sent to confer with the Pope, Leo III, upon the subject. The Pope opposed the insertion of the Filioque on the express ground that the General Councils had forbidden any addition to be made to their formulary ... So firmly resolved was the Pope that the clause should not be introduced into the creed that he presented two silver shields to the Confessio in St. Peter’s at Rome, on one of which was engraved the creed in Latin and on the other in Greek, without the addition.^[127]

The claim that Pope John VIII also condemned the addition of the Filioque^[128] is disputed.^[129] Philip Schaff says there are different opinions about when the addition was accepted in Rome, whether by Pope Nicholas I (858-867), Pope Sergius III (904-911) or, as is most commonly believed, by Pope Benedict VIII (1014–1015).^[129] When arguing "that so far from the insertion being made by the Pope, it was made in direct opposition to his wishes and command", he expresses himself more decidedly:

It was not till 1014 that for the first time the interpolated creed was used at mass with the sanction of the Pope. In that year Benedict VIII. acceded to the urgent request of Henry II. of Germany and so the papal authority was forced to yield, and the silver shields have disappeared from St. Peter's.^[127]

Council of Frankfurt

The Council of Frankfurt was held in 794. "Two papal legates were present, Theophylact and Stephen."^[130] Despite the presence of papal representatives it still repudiated the terms of the Seventh Ecumenical Council – despite the fact that the Seventh was accepted by the pope.^[131]

Rome's supposed primacy

The first pope

The Catholic church states that Rome's supremacy rests on the pope being given power handed down from the first pope – Peter.^[132]
However there is evidence that Peter was not the first bishop, and that the church in Rome was founded (or organized)^[133] by Peter and Paul together.^[134]

"The blessed apostles having founded and established the church, entrusted the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul speaks of this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy.^[135]

That is Linus is entrusted by the Apostles (plural). It is suggested that this evidence means that Linus was pope whilst Peter was still alive.^[136]^[137] Rome's church could be said to be founded (or organised) on both Peter and Paul.

Primacy based on Peter and Paul

Rome had primacy, but it was one of honor, rather than power. The reasons for this are varied. One being that it was a See founded by both Peter and Paul. This honor was given not because of the 'primacy' of Peter (which is Catholic teaching), but on the position of both Peter and Paul. This was the accepted position, even in the west.

Pope Leo the Great

"I. Rome Owes Its High Position to These Apostles.
The whole world, dearly-beloved, does indeed take part in all holy anniversaries, and loyalty to the one Faith demands that whatever is recorded as done for all men's salvation should be everywhere celebrated with common rejoicings. But, besides that reverence which to-day's festival has gained from all the world, it is to be honored with special and peculiar exultation in our city, that there may be a predominance of gladness on the day of their martyrdom in the place where the chief of the Apostles met their glorious end. For these are the men, through whom the light of Christ's gospel shone on thee, O Rome, and through whom thou, who wast the teacher of error, was made the disciple of Truth. These are thy holy Fathers and true shepherds, who gave thee claims to be numbered among the heavenly kingdoms, and built thee under much better and happier auspices than they, by whose zeal the first foundations of thy walls were laid: and of whom the one that gave thee thy name defiled thee with his brother's blood. These are they who promoted thee to such glory, that being made a holy nation, a chosen people, a priestly and royal state, and the head of the world through the blessed Peter's holy See thou didst attain a wider sway. by the worship of God than by earthly government. For although thou weft increased by many victories, and didst extend thy rule on land and sea, yet what thy toils in war subdued is less than what the peace of Christ has conquered.

VII. No Distinction Must Be Drawn Between the Merits of the Two.
And over this band, dearly-beloved, whom God has set forth for our example in patience and for our confirmation in the Faith, there must be rejoicing everywhere in the commemoration of all the saints, but of these two Fathers' excellence we must rightly make our boast in louder joy, for God's Grace has raised them to so high a place among the members of the Church, that He has set them like the twin light of the eyes in the body, whose Head is Christ. About their merits and virtues, which pass all power of speech, we must not make distinctions, because they were equal in their election, alike in their toils, undivided in their death. But as we have proved for Ourselves, and our forefathers maintained, we believe, and are sure that, amid all the toils of this life, we must always be assisted in obtaining God's Mercy by the prayers of special interceders, that we may be raised by the Apostles' merits in proportion as we are weighed down by our own sins. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, &c.^[138]

Augustine^[139] and Theodoret^[140] also wrote on the greatness of Rome – but for being the largest city, and its foundation on Peter and Paul. Rome's degree of 'primacy' was affirmed by one hundred and fifty bishops meeting at the Council of Chalcedon.^[141] For this council Rome's primacy rested on the fact it was once the imperial capital.

Canon XXVIII of the Council of Chalcedon

This canon above comes up in numerous discussions on Papal Supremacy. For Orthodox it demonstrates a fluidity to the placing of honors – it shows Constantinople's place of honor moving up higher than older Sees such as Jerusalem, Alexandria and, Antioch.
Pope Leo I protested against the inclusion of this canon and refused to sign agreement to it. The Catholic encyclopaedia says

"In reply Pope Leo protested most energetically against canon xxviii and declared it null and void as being against the prerogatives of Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, and against the decrees of the Council of Nicaea. Like protests were contained in the letters written 22 May, 452, to Emperor Marcian, Empress Pulcheria, and Anatolius of Constantinople. Otherwise the pope ratified the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, but only inasmuch as they referred to matters of faith."^[142]

The pope protested on behalf of two other Sees' privileges, not on a matter of his own power. However despite his energetic protests the canon remained adhered to by the eastern churches. It was confirmed in the east at the Council of Trullo in 692, where the four major eastern patriarchs attended; Paul of Constantinople, Peter of Alexandria, Anastasius of Jerusalem, George of Antioch. Thus despite the wishes of the pope the eastern churches ignored his protests.
Eventually it was accepted in the West. In 1215 at the Fourth Council of the Lateran the Roman church accepted Constantinople's position – albeit when Constantinople was in western hands following the Fourth Crusade. Subsequently at the Council of Florence this was confirmed to the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople.

"... and so the opposition of Rome gave way after seven centuries and a half, and the Nicene Canon which Leo declared to be “inspired by the Holy Ghost” and “valid to the end of time”^[143]

Rome as an archetype church

The church in Rome is occasionally singled out.
Tertullian

Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally. Achaia is very near you, (in which) you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; (and there too) you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! Where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's! Where Paul wins his crown in a death like John's where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile!^[144]

With no special charism associated with Paul, he is quietly ignored by Catholic apologists as a founder of the See of Rome. Or his part is acknowledged but merely in passing because the theory of the pope's authority has no place for Paul's role in the foundation of the Roman church.
Rome serves as an example, but so do the other apostolic churches. Again, reflecting Ignatius' thoughts on catholic it is noted that the many churches each are 'one'.
Cyprian

"And this unity we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the Church, that we may. Let no one deceive the brotherhood by a falsehood: let no one corrupt the truth of the faith by perfidious prevarication. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole."^[145]

Equality of the Apostles

Peter and Paul taught the same as each other. All the Apostles were the foundation (rock) of the church. Nothing was withheld from any of the Apostles. When they preached they did so with equal knowledge. Peter preached to the Jews as Paul preached to the Gentiles^[146] Galatians 2:7.

Tertullian

"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called "the rock on which the church should be built," who also obtained "the keys of the kingdom of heaven," with the power of "loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?" Was anything, again, concealed from John, the Lord's most beloved disciple, who used to lean on His breast to whom alone the Lord pointed Judas out as the traitor, whom He commended to Mary as a son in His own stead?"^[147]

John Chrysostomon

"As a king sending forth governors, gives power to cast into prison and to deliver from it, so in sending these forth, Christ investeth them with the same power.^[148]

Cyril of Alexandria

"One therefore is Christ both Son and Lord, not as if a man had attained only such a conjunction with God as consists in a unity of dignity alone or of authority. For it is not equality of honour which unites natures; for then Peter and John, who were of equal honour with each other, being both Apostles and holy disciples."^[149]

"Rock"

Orthodox Christians believe all people can share in God. In a process called Theosis. We are all called to be rock. That is to share in the same nature. Thus from the earliest times the foundation of the church can be said to be; the faith; Jesus; the Apostles, not just Peter.

The Shepherd of Hermas

"First of all, sir," I said, "explain this to me: What is the meaning of the rock and the gate?" "This rock", he answered, "and this gate are the Son of God."^[150]

The Divine Liturgy of James the Apostle and brother of God

For the strengthening of your holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which you founded on the rock of the faith, so that the gates of Hell might not prevail against it, delivering it from every heresy and from the scandals caused by those who work iniquity, and from the enemies who arise and attack it, until the consummation of the age.^[151]

Peter is referred to as rock but other Christian writers use the term in describing others; Hippolytus of Rome;^[152] Victorinus of Pettau;^[153] Gregory of Nyssa;^[154] Hilary of Poitiers;^[155] Jerome;^[156]Basil the Great;^[157] Gregory Thaumaturgus;^[158] Ambrosiaster;^[159] Aphraates;^[160] Athanasius;^[161] Origen;^[162] John Cassian^[163]
The Orthodox Christian position is that all members of the church are called to be 'rock'; just as the church is built on the foundation of all the Apostles (Ephesians 2:20), all are called to be stones (1Peter 2:4-9). Protestant Matthew Henry's bible commentary notes this too when he states

"The church is built upon the foundation of the apostles. The first stones of that building were laid in and by their ministry; hence their names are said to be written in the foundationsof the new Jerusalem."^[164]

Peter described himself as a fellow elder 1Peter 5:1, placing himself on equal footing with the other disciples.^[165]

For these early writers, Peter's leading position does not carry a special status that places him in a class different from all the other disciples of Jesus, nor do they imply that Peter's personal privileges and authority are transmitted to his successors in any particular church."^[166]

Peter as "Prince of the Apostles"

Peter is often called the Prince of the Apostles. If such a special title meant that he held a special charism it was not exclusively Rome's. Other Sees had been founded by Peter. Pope Gregory the Great recognised these Sees were all equally as Sees of Peter. There is no difference between the Sees of Peter.^[167]

Pope Gregory

"Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors ...

Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one ...

He himself established (sic) the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. "^[168]

Theodoret also refers to other Sees being thrones of Peter.^[169]

Peter as the Archetype

As all are called to be rock, and as many Sees are of Peter, Peter serves as an archetype of Apostle. When he receives the keys he represents all of the Apostles.^[170]^[171] This is found in the writings of Augustine^[172] and Cyprian.^[173]

Gregory the Great

The pope now holds the title of universal bishop. However such titles once raised the ire of popes.^[174]
Pope Gregory the Great heard that Patriarch John the Faster had accepted the title ecumenical patriarch. This simply meant patriarch to the emperor, not 'universal' patriarch.^[175]
The pope wrote to the emperor to protest that any one bishop should be accorded the title universal bishop.
Gregory first accords Peter the title prince of the Apostles.

"For to all who know the Gospel it is apparent that by the Lord’s voice the care of the whole Church was committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of all the Apostles, Peter.^[176]

Gregory notes that honor was bestowed upon Peter and the church in Rome – given it by an ecumenical council, but that no one person used the title.^[177] It was an honor for all priests.^[178] Gregory emphatically says no one person should have such a title.^[179]

Pelagianism

During the controversies surrounding Pelagius' heresies a council in Mileve (in Numidia) found against Pelagianism. They then wrote to the pope seeking his help. They gave him much praise

"We write this from the council of Numidia, imitating our colleagues of the church and province of Carthage, who we understand have written on this matter to the apostolic see, which your blessedness adorns."^[180]

Catholic apologists may make the most of such praise. However in the context of history one must also note that this praise was conditional. The next pope Zosimus did not out-rightly condemn the heresy Pelagianism and was himself condemned by the rest of the church for back-pedalling.^[181]
Thus the same church (in Africa) could lavish praise upon the church in Rome but could equally condemn them, depending on the teachings Rome upheld.
Zosimus eventually reconfirmed the decision of Innocent, Pelagius went to the churches in Palestine where a synod was called to hear his case.^[182] Augustine says that the churches in Palestine were deceived by Pelagius. What is important though is that even after two popes had condemned him Pelagius could still seek judgment by another region's synod. Evidently the Palestinian churches did not see the condemnation of the church in Rome and the church in Africa as binding.
It would take an ecumenical council to bring the churches to agreement on this matter.

Cyprian

In the encyclical Satis cognitum Pope Leo XIII misquotes Cyprian.

"To be in communion with (pope) Cornelius is to be in communion with the Catholic Church"^[183]

The quotation is taken from Cyrpian's letter to Antonianus who was questioning whether he should be loyal to Cornelius or another claimant to the pontificate Novation. Cornelius selection as bishop of Rome was backed by sixteen bishops. Cyprian stated that Novation

"... strives by bribery to be made an adulterous and extraneous bishop by the hands of deserters; and although there is one Church, divided by Christ throughout the whole world into many members, and also one episcopate diffused through a harmonious multitude of many bishops^[184]

Therefore to adhere to a heretic (Novation) is to separate oneself from the Catholic Church. Furthermore Cyprian confirms here that the one church is divided into many bishoprics throughout the world. He goes on to say in the same letter

" While the bond of concord remains, and the undivided sacrament of the Catholic Church endures, every bishop disposes and directs his own acts, and will have to give an account of his purposes to the Lord^[185]

Cyprian is used several times in Catholic apologetics.^[186]

"And although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles yet He founded a single Chair, thus establishing by His own authority the source and hallmark of the [Church's] oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is [thus] made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, even if they are all shepherds, we are shown but one flock which is to be fed by all the Apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?"^[187]

The Jesuit scholar Bévnot notes…

"A primacy is give to Peter primatus Petro datur ... To translate primatus by 'the primacy' is to contradict the context which speaks of the Apostles as being equal in power, equally shepherds."^[188]

Cyprian and Augustine

Background - Donatism

During the persecutions of the early church some Christians, in order to avoid persecution renounced their faith. A question then rose of how to accept these people back into the church. Some argued that they should just be allowed back into the church. Others, “Donatists” argued that re-baptism was required. Cyprian of Carthage was one who argued that the lapsed needed to be baptised again. Augustine would argue against rebaptism. Augustine’s position was one that was accepted as orthodox.

The local church decides for itself

Cyprian stated the position that each local church to decide upon matters.^[189]

Cyprian was adamant that the popes had no power over him.^[190] Cyprian in his dispute believed he was following the teachings of the Apostles. He appealed to what he believed was always taught and this was the faith as maintained by all the Apostles. He addressed Pope Stephen not as his master, but as his equal.^[191]

"For we find also, in the Acts of the Apostles, that this is maintained by the apostles, and kept in the truth of the saving faith, so that when, in the house of Cornelius the centurion, the Holy Ghost had descended upon the Gentiles who were there, fervent in the warmth of their faith, and believing in the Lord with their whole heart; and when, filled with the Spirit, they blessed God in divers tongues, still none the less the blessed Apostle Peter, mindful of the divine precept and the Gospel, commanded that those same men should be baptized who had already been filled with the Holy Spirit, that nothing might seem to be neglected to the observance by the apostolic instruction in all things of the law of the divine precept and Gospel"^[192]

Augustine supports Cyprian

Thus Cyprian's stance does not evidence Papal Supremacy. The pope had condemned this position but one local church continued on with its own matters in the manner it decided. Importantly Augustine, who disagrees with Cyprian's stance on dogma does not condemn Cyprian's manner.^[193]

Augustine agreed with Cyprian's right to decide within his local church ... As Michael Whelton observed "He does not condemn Cyprian for refusing to submit to the Bishop of Rome"^[194]
Despite the fact that the pope had condemned Cyprian’s position, a general council had not yet ruled on the matter. Augustine recognises this fact.^[195]
Augustine is of the belief that Cyprian might have changed his mind if a general (ecumenical) council had been called.^[196] He states that a council would have the ultimate say in removing all doubt.^[197] Augustine had elsewhere argued that a council could over-rule a local church - even the church in Rome.^[198]
Adherence to the Bishop of Rome was not "necessary" for unity.^[199]
This is the orthodox understanding – bishops can be in error, including the bishop of Rome. Individual churches could disagree with each other, and still remain Catholic short of a general council deciding; it could be called in which all churches gathered and proclaimed a unity of faith.
The African Church was steadfast in its belief, despite any papal pronouncements. In 258 at the Council of Iconium, presided over by St. Firmilian of Neo-Caesarea, and attended by Fathers from Cappadocia, Lycea, Galatia and other parts of Asia. It rejected the teaching of Pope Stephen of Rome, and confirmed the decrees of Carthage in regards to the rebaptism and re-ordination of converts baptized or ordained by heretics.
Around 419 at the Council of Carthage, presided over by Pope Aurelius of Carthage, and attended by 217 bishops all together it condemned Pelagianism (those who deny original sin and grace) and Donatism (who reject the ordination of those who had lapsed during the persecution), and denied the jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome in the African Church. Further it enumerated canon of Holy Scriptures (Old and New Testaments), and prohibited the rebaptism or re-ordination of those baptized or ordained by Donatists. (which of course depends on whether they were rightly ordained/baptised in the first place).
Eventually, following an Ecumenical Council the orthodox position as supported by both the pope and Augustine was accepted in Africa. But, as shown they did not accept it simply because the pope had stated it was so. They recognised he could be in error, and that they had, for the time being ruled on their own affairs themselves. Augustine supported Cyprian's right to decide as he did.

St Vincent of Lérins

As Augustine argues that Cyprian would have rejoined orthodox belief following a general council, Vincent of Lérins wrote on what he considered constituted the teachings of the Catholic Church. His opening "General Rule" mentions no adhesion to the Bishop of Rome, rather what is taught by all the church. Hasler sums this up as

"... a teaching can only be defined if it has been held to be revealed at all times, everywhere, and by all believers. "^[200]

This same rule would be used also to argue against Papal infallibility.

The Reunion Council

For Orthodox, the acceptance of a council relies on two points, it must not only state the faith as always taught, but also be accepted by the whole church. A council can rule and still be rejected by the faithful. Some Catholic historians maintain that the Second Council of Lyon of 1272 shows the churches of the east submitting to Roman authority. It was at this council that the Roman (Byzantine) Emperor Michael endeavored to re-unite the churches (split apart at the Great Schism in 1054).
The delegation who attended from the east however did not represent the churches in the east, but the Emperor himself. They were his personal emissaries.^[201]
Historian Steven Runciman notes;

"But on the whole it was only amongst the laymen of the Court that any supporters of a union could be found; and they were moved by political rather than religious considerations."^[202]

Michael had genuinely wished re-union. His primary fear was not an attack from the Turks, but the fear of a renewed effort by the Latin west against the Empire – one must remember that this is not long after Michael had recaptured Constantinople from the Latin west – which had held it since the Fourth Crusade in 1204. With the failure of this attempt at union through a political solution, Michaels fears were realised when the pope concluded an alliance with Charles of Anjou in 1281. The empire and the dynasty were saved from military intervention only by the Sicilian Vespers, (a rebellion that broke out in Palermo).^[203] This council then, having been rejected by the whole church is not accepted in the east as a valid council, despite the pope accepting it as such.

Conclusion of Orthodox rebuttal

The Catholic position is that Rome's bishop stands out from the others because he has a special charism handed down from Peter. As shown above Rome's greatness was found in the two apostles Peter and Paul; that there was no difference between them. The Church Fathers state that the keys are held by others; John the Evangelist, for example, and the church as a whole. The Church Fathers also say that rock refers not just to Peter, but to the church, to Jesus, and to the Christian faith. Further there was no difference between one of Peter's Sees from another. Orthodox maintain that all bishops are equal. All are called to be rock.
As a reflection of the Trinity the church is united by love, not a formal adherence to one particular bishop in one particular location. For Orthodox, each individual to truly be a person must also be engaged in this unity of love with other persons.^[204] The Trinity too is joined by a union of love - with each member of the Trinity fully God. Each church is fully catholic united by love. To change the structure of the church would change how we perceive God, and also how we must interact with each other.

Citations

Epistle to the Smyrnaeans - Chapter VIII.-Let Nothing Be Done Without the Bishop.

Carlton, C., (1999).The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should know about the Orthodox Church, p. 22. Regina Orthodox Press; Salisbury, MA.

Lossky, V., (2002) The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, (St Vladimirs Seminary Press; Crestwood, NY), p.176

Sherrard, P., (1978) Church, Papacy and Schism: A Theological Enquiry. (Denise Harvey Publisher; Limni, Greece), p15

Quote list

"Papal Primacy - Patristic Thoughts". Archived from the original on 27 March 2012. Retrieved 10 January 2012.

Whelton, M., (2006) Popes and Patriarchs: An Orthodox Perspective on Roman Catholic Claims, (Concillar Press; Ben Lomond, CA), pp63-4.

History of the Arians Part V. Persecution and Lapse of Liberius.35

Satis cognitum - Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII On the Unity of the Church Abridged from sections 10 through 15.

Letter XLIII. To Glorius, Eleusius, the Two Felixes, Grammaticus, and All Others to Whom This May Be Acceptable, My Lords Most Beloved and Worthy of Praise, Augustin Sends Greeting

Letter CCXXXII To the People of Madaura, My Lords Worthy of Praise, and Brethren Most Beloved, Augustin Sends Greeting, in Reply to the Letter Received by the Hands of Brother Florentinus.

Empie, P. C., & Murphy, T. A., (1974) Papal Primacy and the Universal Church: Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue V (Augsburg Publishing House; Minneapolis, MN) p47.

Srawley, J. H., (1910) The epistles of St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, Volume 1, (Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; London), p34

Carlton, C., (1997) The Faith: Understanding Orthodox Christianity, (Regina Orthodox Press; Salisbury, MA), p. 169.

Epistle to the Trallians. Chapter III.—Honour the deacons, etc.

"It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would look upon the Lord Himself." Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians - Chapter VI - Have respect to the bishop as to Christ Himself.

"He who honors the bishop has been honored by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil." Ignatius Epistle to the Smyrneans - Chapter IX.—Honour the bishop.

"As therefore the Lord does nothing without the Father, for says He, "I can of mine own self do nothing," so do ye, neither presbyter, nor deacon, nor layman, do anything without the bishop" Ignatius Epistle to the Magnesians - Chapter VII —Do nothing without the bishop and presbyters.

"For your justly-renowned presbytery, being worthy of God, is fitted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp." IgnatiusEpistle to the Ephesians – Chapter IV – the same continued.

"And do ye also reverence your bishop as Christ Himself, according as the blessed apostles have enjoined you. He that is within the altar is pure, wherefore also he is obedient to the bishop and presbyters: but he that is without is one that does anything apart from the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons. Such a person is defiled in his conscience, and is worse than an infidel. For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ of God?" Ignatius Epistle to the Trallians. Chapter VII.— The same continued.

Epistle to Polycarp. "Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to Polycarp, Bishop of the Church of the Smyrnæans, or rather, who has, as his own bishop, God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ: [wishes] abundance of happiness"

Homilies on S. Ignatius and S. Babylas – Eulogy "... when Peter was about to depart from here, the grace of the Spirit introduced another teacher equivalent to Peter ..." Eulogy quoted in Abbé Guettée (1866).The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches, (Minos Publishing Co; NY), p165.

Ray, S. K., (1999) Upon this rock: St. Peter and the primacy of Rome in scripture and the early church, (Ignatius Press; San Francisco), p. 72

Epistle to the Romans

Srawley, J. H., (1919), The Epistles of St Ignatius (The Macmillan Company; NY), p70

Ray, S. K., (1999) Upon this rock: St. Peter and the primacy of Rome in scripture and the early church, (Ignatius Press; San Francisco) p 235

The Authority of the Pope: Part II at Catholic Answers

IS THE ORTHODOX CHURCH APOSTOLIC ? Archived 28 March 2012 at the Wayback Machine Catholic Apologetics

"Popes, Councils, and Orthodoxy". Archived from the original on 12 September 2011. Retrieved 10 January 2012.

Extracts from the Acts. Session II. (Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 368.)

"And when these letters had been read, the most reverend bishops cried out: We all so believe: Pope Leo thus believes: anathema to him who divides and to him who confounds: this is the faith of Archbishop Leo: Leo thus believes: Leo and Anatolius so believe: we all thus believe. As Cyril so believe we, all of us: eternal be the memory of Cyril: as the epistles of Cyril teach such is our mind, such has been our faith: such is our faith: this is the mind of Archbishop Leo, so he believes, so he has written. Extracts from the Acts. Session II. (Continued). (L. and C., Conc., Tom. IV., col. 343.)

Whelton, M., (2006) Popes and Patriarchs: An Orthodox Perspective on Roman Catholic Claims, (Concillar Press; Ben Lomond, CA). pp. 85ff

"And all the most reverend bishops at the same time cried out. This is a just judgment. To Cœlestine, a new Paul! To Cyril a new Paul! To Cœlestine the guardian of the faith! To Cœlestine of one mind with the synod! To Cœlestine the whole Synod offers its thanks! One Cœlestine! One Cyril! One faith of the Synod! One faith of the world!"Extracts from the Acts. Session II.(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. III., col. 617.)

Stephens, W. R. W., (2005)Saint Chrysostom: His Life and Times, (Elibron Classics), pp. 349-50

GENERAL AUDIENCE Paul VI Audience Hall - Wednesday, 5 December 2007

Kelly, J. N. D., (1995) Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom, (Cornell University Press), p. 246.

Palladius, (1985) Dialogue on the Life of John Chrysostom (Newman Press; NY) p.24

Ibid. pp. 29-30.

Socrates Scholasticus The Ecclesiastical History Book V.9

Puller, F. W., (1893),The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome, (Longmans, Green & Co; NY), p266

Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 88.1-2

"And if any should say 'How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?' I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher not of the chair, but of the world ... And this He did to withdraw them (Peter and John) from their unseasonable sympathy for each other; for since they were about to receive the charge of the world, it was necessary that they should no longer be closely associated together." John Chrysostom Ibid.

Abbé Guettée (1866). The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches, (Minos Publishing Co; NY), pp. 156ff.

Homily 24 On Genesis

Denny, E., (1912) Papalism: A Treatise on the Claims on the Papacy as set forth in the Encyclical Satis cognitum, (Rivingtons; London), pp. 84ff

"Where the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying, there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as chief and leader of the choir of the saints, and shall enjoy his generous love ... I love Rome even for this, although indeed one has other grounds for praising it ... Not so bright is the heaven, when the sun sends forth his rays, as is the city of Rome, sending out these two lights into all parts of the world. From thence will Paul be caught up, thence Peter. Just bethink you, and shudder, at the thought of what a sight Rome will see, when Paul ariseth suddenly from that deposit, together with Peter, and is lifted up to meet the Lord. What a rose will Rome send up to Christ! ... what two crowns will the city have about it! what golden chains will she be girded with! what fountains possess! Therefore I admire the city, not for the much gold, nor for the columns, not for the other display there, but for these pillars of the Church (1 Cor. 15:38 )."- John Chrysostom Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans, Homily 32, Ver. 24 quoted in Abbé Guettée (1866). The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches, (Minos Publishing Co.; NY), p157.

St. John Chrysostom Archived 11 January 2012 at the Wayback Machine at New Advent

Whelton, M., (2006)Popes and Patriarchs: An Orthodox Perspective on Roman Catholic Claims, (Concillar Press; Ben Lomond, CA), p120

Letter CCXIV - To Count Terentius.

Letter XC -To the holy brethren the bishops of the West

Letter CCXLIII - To the bishops of Italy and Gaul concerning the condition and confusion of the Churches.

Ibid.

Letter CCXV - To the Presbyter Dorotheus

Ray, S. K., (1999) Upon this rock: St. Peter and the primacy of Rome in scripture and the early Church, (Ignatius Press; San Francisco), pp. 219-220

Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily 56.2

Contra ludos et theatra 1, PG VI, 265. Cited by Chapman, Studies on the Early Papacy (London: Sheed & Ward, 1928 ), p. 76

Letter LXIX in Denny, E., (1912) Papalism: A Treatise on the Claims on the Papacy as set forth in the Encyclical Satis cognitum, (Rivingtons; London), p. 335

Letter CCXXXIX - To Eusebius, bishop of Samosata

Denny, E., (1912)Papalism: A Treatise on the Claims on the Papacy as set forth in the Encyclical Satis cognitum, (Rivingtons; London), p. 85

Whelton, M., (2006) Popes and Patriarchs: An Orthodox Perspective on Roman Catholic Claims, (Concillar Press; Ben Lomond, CA)., p125

Satis cognitum

Vincenzi, L, (1875) De Hebraeorum et Christianorum Sacra Monarchia

Denny, E., (1912)Papalism: A Treatise on the Claims on the Papacy as set forth in the Encyclical Satis cognitum, (Rivingtons; London), p327

Dom Chapman, J., (1923) Studies on the Early Papacy, (Sheed & Ward; London.), pp213-214

Meyendorff, J., (1989) Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions: The Church AD450-680 (St Valdimir's Seminary Press; Crestwood, NY) p214.

Dvornik, F., (1966) Byzantium and the Roman Primacy, (Fordham University Press, NY), p.61.

Ibid.

Meyendorff, J., (1989) Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions: The Church AD450-680. (St Valdimir's Seminary Press; Crestwood, NY) p215.

Davis, L. D., (1990), The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787) Their History and Theology(Liturgical Press, Minnesota), p 223

Ibid., p 224

Meyendorff, J., (1989) Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions: The Church AD450-680 (St Valdimir's Seminary Press; Crestwood, NY) p220.

[1] Webster, W. (1995), The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, (The Banner of Truth Trust; Edinburgh), pp43ff

"What, now, (has this to do) with the Church, and) your (church), indeed, Psychic? For, in accordance with the person of Peter, it is to spiritual men that this power will correspondently appertain, either to an apostle or else to a prophet." On Modesty. Book VII. Chapter XXI

"This faith it is which is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever this faith shall have loosed or bound on earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven. This faith is the Father's gift by revelation; even the knowledge that we must not imagine a false Christ, a creature made out of nothing, but must confess Him the Son of God, truly possessed of the Divine nature."On the Trinity. Book VI.37

"For (John) the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now"Homilies on the Gospel of John. Preface to Homily 1.1

"He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be, loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church. For he who does not believe that his sins can be pardoned, falls into despair, and becomes worse as if no greater good remained for him than to be evil, when he has ceased to have faith in the results of his own repentance."On Christian Doctrine Book I. Chapter 18.17 The Keys Given to the Church.

"... Peter, the first of the apostles, receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven for the binding and loosing of sins; and for the same congregation of saints, in reference to the perfect repose in the bosom of that mysterious life to come did the evangelist John recline on the breast of Christ. For it is not the former alone but the whole Church, that bindeth and looseth sins; nor did the latter alone drink at the fountain of the Lord's breast, to emit again in preaching, of the Word in the beginning, God with God, and those other sublime truths regarding the divinity of Christ, and the Trinity and Unity of the whole Godhead."On the Gospel of John. Tractate CXXIV.7 Abbé Guettée (1866). The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches, (Minos Publishing; NY), p.175

"... the keys that were given to the Church ..." A Treatise Concerning the Correction of the Donatists. Chapter 10.45

"How the Church? Why, to her it was said, "To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven."Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John. Homily X.10 cited in Whelton, M., (1998) Two Paths: Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition, (Regina Orthodox Press; Salisbury, MA), p28

Whelton, M., (1998) Two Paths: Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition, (Regina Orthodox Press; Salisbury, MA), p.36

Eusebius. The History of the Church – Book II Chapter I. This James, whom the early Christians surnamed the Righteous because of his outstanding virtue, was the first, as the records tell us, to be elected to the Episcopal throne of the Jerusalem church. Clement, in Outlines Book VI, puts it thus: "Peter, James, and John, after the Ascension of the Saviour, did not claim pre-eminence because the Saviour had especially honored them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem. quoted in Whelton, M (1998). Two Paths: Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition. Salisbury, MA: Regina Orthodox Press. pp. 38–39.

"This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last ... There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part." John ChrysostomHomilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily 33 quoted in Whelton, M., (1998) Two Paths: Papal Monarchy -Collegial Tradition, (Regina Orthodox Press; Salisbury, MA), p.38.

"But observe how Peter does everything with the common consent; nothing imperiously." John Chrysostom Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles Homily III on Acts 1:12 quoted in Whelton, M., (1998) Two Paths: Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition, (Regina Orthodox Press; Salisbury, MA), p.33

Chrestou, P. K., (2005) Greek Orthodox Patrology - An introduction to the Study of the Church Fathers, (Orthodox Research Institute), p14.

Eusebius, Church History, V, xxiii

Joint Coordinating Committee for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church (Aghios Nikolaos, Crete, Greece, 27 September - 4 October 2008), "The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium"

Eusebius, The History of the Church – Book V, xxiv quoted in Whelton, M., (1998) Two Paths: Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition, (Regina Orthodox Press; Salisbury, MD), p.46.

Protopresbyter George Dion. Dragas, (2005), Saint Athanasius of Alexandria: Original Research and New Perspectives, (Orthodox Research Institute; Rollinsford, NH), p195

Whelton, M., (2006) Popes and Patriarchs: An Orthodox Perspective on Roman Catholic Claims, (Concillar Press; Ben Lomond, CA), pp83ff

"It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent [bishops] also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan."Canon IV. of the First Ecumenical Council at CCEL

Empie, P. C., & Murphy, T. A., (1974) Papal Primacy and the Universal Church: Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue V(Augsburg Publishing House; Minneapolis, MN), p82.

Davis, L. D. (1990). The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787) Their History and Theology. Minnesota: Liturgical Press. pp. 128–129. Because of the schism at Antioch its first president, Meletius, was not in communion with Rome and Alexandria. Its second president, Gregory of Nazianzus, was not in western eyes the legitimate bishop of Constantinople.

Ibid., p153.

Whelton, M., (1998) Two Paths: Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition, (Regina Orthodox Press; Salisbury, MA), p.59.

Bossuet, Jacques-Bénigne, Defensio Cleri Gallicani., Lib. viij., cap. ix. Abridged. Translation by Allies. cited in Whelton, M (2006)Popes and Patriarchs: An Orthodox Perspective on Roman Catholic Claims, (Concillar Press; Ben Lomond, CA), p71.

[2] Bishop Maret Du Concile General, vol.i p.183

The Commonitory of St Vincent of Lerins Chapter Thirty - The Council of Ephesus (Translated by Rev. C. A. Heurtley)

Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius with the XII Anathematisms

Fathers Rumble and Carty (1943) True Church Quizzes (Radio Replies Press, St. Paul 1, Minnesota, U.S.A)

quoted in Whelton, M., (1998) Two Paths: Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition, (Regina Orthodox Press; Salisbury, MA), pp56-7.

quoted in Whelton, M., (1998) Two Paths: Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition, (Regina Orthodox Press; Salisbury, MA), p.50.

Whelton, M., (1998) Two Paths: Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition, (Regina Orthodox Press; Salisbury, MA), pp68ff.

Bossuet, Jacques-Bénigne, Defensio Cleri Gallicani., Lib. vii., cap. xix. Abridged. Translation by Allies.

Hefele, Karl Joseph von, History of the Councils, Vol. IV., p. 289

Whelton, M., (1998) Two Paths: Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition, (Regina Orthodox Press; Salisbury, MA), p.72.

Sixth Ecumenical Council - Session XIII. The Sentence Against the Monothelites. (L. and C., Concilia, Tom. VI., col. 943.)

Session XVI. (Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VI., col. 1010.)

The Definition of Faith. (Found in the Acts, Session XVIII., L. and C., Concilia, Tom. VI., col. 1019.)

The Prosphoneticus to the Emperor. (Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VI., col. 1047 et seqq.)

Whelton, M., (1998) Two Paths: Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition, (Regina Orthodox Press; Salisbury, MA), p.73

Whelton, M., (1998) Two Paths: Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition, (Regina Orthodox Press; Salisbury, MA), pp74ff.

"Pope Honorius". Archived from the original on 7 October 2012. Retrieved 3 August 2012.

Even kings could sit in judgment of popes, such as recorded in the chronicles Annales Romani record the events thus: "Henry, most victorious king by the grace of God ... When he arrived at the city of Sutri, he called the Roman clergy along with Pope Gregory to meet with him. He ordered a special synod to be held in the holy church of Sutri and there, lawfully and canonically, he sat in judgment upon Bishop John of Sabina, called Silvester; the archpriest John, called Gregory; and the aforementioned Pope Benedict." See Annales Romani–Description of the Synod of Sutri - in Miller, M. C., (2005) Power and the Holy in the Age of the Investiture Conflict, Bedord/StMartins (New York), p64.

The Ecumenical Councils of the Orthodox Church Archived 22 July 2012 at the Wayback Machine at OrthodoxChristianInfo

Runciman, S., (1977). The Byzantine Theocracy, p. 61. Cambridge University Press.

Patsavos, L. J., (2003). Spiritual Dimensions of the Holy Canons, p. 6. Holy Cross Orthodox Press (Brookline, MA).

Ray, S. K., (1999). Upon this rock: St. Peter and the primacy of Rome in scripture and the early church, p196. Ignatius Press (San Francisco).

"Explaining the Catholic Faith - The Papacy and the Primacy of Peter". Archived from the original on 18 April 2012. Retrieved 3 August 2012.

Scripture Catholic

Against the Arians 1

"When at last they were convened at Sardica, the Eastern prelates refused either to meet or to enter into any conference with those of the West."Socrates Scholasticus Ecclesiastical History Book II. Chapter XX.—Of the Council at Sardica

Puller, F. W., (1893) The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome, pp152ff

Pennington, A. R. (1881) Epochs of the Papacy, from Its Rise to the Death of Pope Pius IX. in 1878 (G. Bell and sons; London) p7.

[3] M. Anastos, (2001),Aspects of the Mind of Byzantium (Political Theory, Theology, and Ecclesiastical Relations with the See of Rome, Ashgate Publications, Variorum Collected Studies Series.

Sergeĭ Nikolaevich Bulgakov, The Comforter (Eerdmans 2004 ISBN 978-0-8028-2112-6), p. 92

Andrew Louth, Greek East and Latin West (St Vladimir's Seminary Press 2007 ISBN 978-0-88141-320-5), p. 142

Phillip Schaff - Historical Excursus on the Introduction into the Creed of the Words "and the Son."

Romanides, J., (2004) An Outline of Orthodox Patristic Dogmatics (Orthodox Research Institute; Rollinsford, NH), p33.

Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 5, part 1, "The Enlargement of the Nicene Creed", footnote 590

The Council of Frankfort Archived 5 October 2012 at the Wayback Machine at the Catholic Encyclopaedia

Whelton, M., (1998) ‘‘Two Paths: Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition’’, (Regina Orthodox Press; Salisbury, MD), p.78.

Catholic Catechism - 882: The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."

There were already Christians in Rome when Peter and Paul arrived therefore it is suggested that they organized the existing community of believers, rather thanfounding the community – See Neill, S., (1984) A History of Christian Missions, (Penguin History; London), p.22

"Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; and Clemens (Clement), after Linus' death, the second, ordained by me Peter." Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions, Book 7, Chapter XLVI – Who Were They that the Holy Apostles Sent and Ordained?

Eusebius The History of the Church - Book V Chapter VI. Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome.

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church."Irenaus, Against Heresies, Book III.1.1 See also Ibid., Book III.3.2-3

"You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time" Letter to Pope Soter [A.D. 170], in Eusebius, History of the Church Book II Chapter XXV:8

“Sermon LXXXII”. (On the Feast Of the Apostles Peter and Paul (June 29).)

"For Rome, in a specially honorable and solemn manner, commends the merits of Peter and of Paul, for this reason among others, namely, that they suffered [martyrdom] on the same day." Augustine "The Harmony of the Gospels". Book I. Chapter X.—Of Some Who are Mad Enough to Suppose that the Books Were Inscribed with the Names of Peter and Paul

"But on your city the great Provider has bestowed an abundance of good gifts. She is the largest, the most splendid, the most illustrious of the world, and overflows with the multitude of her inhabitants. Besides all this, she has achieved her present sovereignty, and has given her name to her subjects. She is moreover specially adorned by her faith, in due testimony whereof the divine Apostle exclaims “your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. And if even after receiving the seeds of the message of salvation her boughs were straightway heavy with these admirable fruits, what words can fitly praise the piety now practised in her? In her keeping too are the tombs that give light to the souls of the faithful, those of our common fathers and teachers of the truth, Peter and Paul This thrice blessed and divine pair arose in the region of sunrise, and spread their rays in all directions. Now from the region of sunset, where they willingly welcomed the setting of this life, they illuminate the world. They have rendered your see most glorious; this is the crown and completionof your good things; but in these days their God has adorned their throne." TheodoretLetter CXIII. To Leo, Bishop of Rome

"Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, - Canon XXVIII The Fourth Ecumenical Council. The Council of Chalcedon.

"New Advent". Archived from the original on 12 January 2012. Retrieved 10 January 2012.

Phillip Schaff - Excursus on the Later History of Canon XXVIII at CCEL

The Prescription Against Heretics - Chapter XXXVI.-The Apostolic Churches the Voice of the Apostles. Let the Heretics Examine Their Apostolic Claims, in Each Case, Indisputable. The Church of Rome Doubly Apostolic; Its Early Eminence and Excellence Heresy, as Perverting the Truth, is Connected Therewith

On the Unity of the Catholic Church - 5

[4] Abbe Guetée The Papacy, p11

The Prescription Against Heretics Chapter XXII.-Attempt to Invalidate This Rule of Faith Rebutted. The Apostles Safe Transmitters of the Truth. Sufficiently Taught at First, and Faithful in the Transmission.

Homily LXXXVI On the Gospel of John John xx. 10, 11

Third epistle to Nestorius, including the twelve anathemas Written by Cyril of Alexandria Approved by the Council of Ephesus, AD 431.

The Shepherd of HermasChapter XII

Divine Liturgy of St James at CCEL

The Extant Works and Fragments of Hippolytus, Part I

Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John, From the Twenty-First and Twenty-Second Chapters

Panegyric on St. Stephen, M.P.G., Vol. 46, Col. 733

On The Trinity, Book VI.33

6th Book on Matthew

De Spiritu Sancto, Chapter VIII

Part II."Dubious or Spurious Writings, A Sectional Confession of Faith", Chapter XXII

Commentary on Ephesians, M.P.L., Vol. 17, Col. 380

The 'Demonstrations' of Aphrahat

Letters of Athanasius, Letter 29

Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew Book XII.11 -The Promise Given to Peter Not Restricted to Him, But Applicable to All Disciples Like Him - cited by Denny, E., (1912)Papalism: A Treatise on the Claims on the Papacy as set forth in the Encyclical Satis cognitum, (Rivingtons; London), pp.60-61

On the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius Book III. Chapter XIV "How the confession of the blessed Peter is the faith of the whole Church."

Bible Commentary

Schaeffer, F., (1994)Dancing Alone: The Quest for Orthodox Faith in the Age of False Religion (Holy Cross Orthodox Press; Brookline, MA), p179.

Meyendorff, J., (1992), The Primacy of Peter: essays in ecclesiology and the early church (St Vladimir's Seminary Press; Crestwood, NY), p66.

Braaten, C. E.(2001) Church unity and the papal office: an ecumenical dialogue on John Paul II's Encyclical Ut Unum Sint, (Wm B Eerdmans Publishing Co; Grand Rapids, MI) p48.

To Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria Book VII, Epistle XL

"Dioscorus, however, refuses to abide by these decisions; he is turning the See of the blessed Mark upside down; and these things he does though he perfectly well knows that the Antiochene (of Antioch) metropolis possesses the throne of the great Peter, who was teacher of the blessed Mark, and first and coryphæus (head of the choir) of the chorus of the apostles." Theodoret - Letter LXXXVI - To Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople.

Abbé Guettée (1866).The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches, (Minos Publishing; NY), p176

Morrison, J. H., (1872) Disquisitions and notes on the Gospels, (American Unitarian Association; Boston), p291.

Thou art Peter." For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and that in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. “Therefore,” he saith, "Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock" which thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which thou hast acknowledged, saying, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;" that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, "will I build My Church." I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon thee. 2. For men who wished to be built upon men, said, "I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas," who is Peter. But others who did not wish to be built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, "But I am of Christ." And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, "Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter ... He was able to do what the Lord was doing, not in himself, but in the Lord. "For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord." What no one can do in Paul, no one in Peter, no one in any other of the Apostles, this can he do in the Lord. Therefore well said Paul by a wholesome despising of himself, and commending of Him; "Was Paul crucified for you, or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" ... So then, ye are not in me, but together with me; not under me, but under Him. 6. Therefore Peter walked on the water by the bidding of the Lord, knowing that he could not have this power of himself ... 8. So Peter also said, “Bid me come unto Thee on the water." I who dare this am but a man, but it is no man whom I beseech. Let the God-man bid, that man may be able to do what man cannot do. "Come," said He. And He went down, and began to walk on the water; and Peter was able, because the Rock had bidden him. Augustine Homilies on the Gospels Sermon XXVI. [LXXVI. Ben.] Again on Matt. xiv. 25: Of the Lord walking on the waves of the sea, and of Peter tottering.

"Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: “I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled. Since this, then, is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church; when the Church is established in the bishop and the clergy, and all who stand fast in the faith - Cyprian Epistle XXVI Cyprian to the Lapsed.

M'Gavin, Wm., (1823) The protestant: Volume II. No. II. A series of essays on the principal points of controversy between the Church of Rome and the Reformed, (6th ed.) (Waugh & Innes; Edinburgh), pp426-7.

Universal bishop

Epistle XX. To Mauricius Augustus. - Gregory to Mauricius, &c.

"Certainly, in honour of Peter, Prince of the apostles, it was offered by the venerable synod of Chalcedon to the Roman pontif. But none of them has ever consented to use this name of singularity, lest, by something being given peculiarly to one, priests in general should be deprived of the honour due to them. How is it then that we do not seek the glory of this title even when offered, and another presumes to seize it for himself though not offered? Ibid.

"But far from Christian hearts be that name of blasphemy, in which the honour of all priests is taken away, while it is madly arrogated to himself by one. 'Ibid.

"He, then, is rather to be bent by the mandate of our most pious Lords, who scorns to render obedience to canonical injunctions. He is to be coerced, who does wrong to the holy Universal Church, who swells in heart, who covets rejoicing in a name of singularity, who also puts himself above the dignity of your Empire through a title peculiar to himself. Behold, we all suffer offence for this thing. Let then the author of the offence be brought back to a right way of life; and all quarrels of priests will cease. For I for my part am the servant of all priests, so long as they live as becomes priests. For whosoever, through the swelling of vain glory, lifts up his neck against Almighty God and against the statutes of the Fathers, I trust in Almighty God that he will not bend my neck to himself, not even with swords.Ibid.

[5] Council of Mileve, 416 A.D., To Innocent I

Hinson, E. G., (1995) The church triumphant: a history of Christianity up to 1300, (Mercer University Press; Macon, GA), p264

Augustine On Original Sin - Chapter 15 [XIV.]—Pelagius by His Mendacity and Deception Stole His Acquittal from the Synod in Palestine

Satis cognitum

Cyprian - Epistle LI (Oxford ed.: Ep. lv. a.d. 252.) - To Antonianus About Cornelius and Novatian - Argument.—When Antonianus, Having Received Letters from Novatian, Had Begun to Be Disposed in His Mind Towards His Party, Cyprian Confirms Him in His Former Opinion, Namely, that of Continuing to Hold Communion with His Bishop and So with the Catholic Church. He Excuses Himself for His Own Change of Opinion in Respect of the Lapsed, and at the End He Explains Wherein Consists the Novatian Heresy.

Ibid.

Ray, S. K., (1999) Upon this rock: St. Peter and the primacy of Rome in scripture and the early church, (Ignatius Press; San Francisco), pp296-7

St. Cyprian "On the Unity of the Catholic Church - 4", quoted in Carlton, C., (1999) "The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know about the Orthodox Church", (Regina Orthodox Press), pp123-4

St Cyprian, (1956), The Lapsed. The Unity of the Catholic Church (The Newman Press; New York), translated by Bévnot, M - translator’s note 28, p103

"It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there." The Seventh Council of Carthage; The Synod held at Carthage over which presided the Great and Holy Martyr Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage.

"For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose, when Paul disputed with him afterwards about the circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything, so as to say that he held primacy, and that he ought to be obeyed to novices and those lately come." Epistle LXX concerning the baptism of Heretics - quoted in Whelton, M., (1998) Two Paths: Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition, (Regina Orthodox Press; Salisbury, MD), p.34

Denny, E., (1912) Papalism: A Treatise on the Claims on the Papacy as set forth in the Encyclical Satis cognitum, (Rivingtons; London), p281

Epistle LXXI.1 To Stephen, Concerning a Council - quoted in Whelton, M., (1998) Two Paths: Papal Monarchy -Collegial Tradition, (Regina Orthodox Press; Salisbury, MD), p.34

"Here is a passage in which Cyprian records what we also learn in holy Scripture, that the Apostle Peter, in whom the primacy of the apostles shines with such exceeding grace, was corrected by the later Apostle Paul, when he adopted a custom in the matter of circumcision at variance with the demands of truth. If it was therefore possible for Peter in some point to walk not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, so as to compel the Gentiles to judaize, as Paul writes in that epistle in which he calls God to witness that he does not lie; for he says, "Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not;" Augustine On Baptism, Against the Donatists Book II.2

Whelton, M., (1998) Two Paths: Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition, (Regina Orthodox Press; Salisbury, MA), p30

"There are great proofs of this existing on the part of the blessed martyr Cyprian, in his letters,-to come at last to him of whose authority they carnally flatter themselves they are possessed, whilst by his love they are spiritually overthrown. For at that time, before the consent of the whole Church had declared authoritatively, by the decree of a plenary Council, what practice should be followed in this matter, it seemed to him, in common with about eighty of his fellow bishops of the African churches, that every man who had been baptized outside the communion of the Catholic Church should, on joining the Church, be baptized anew." Augustine On Baptism, Against the Donatists Book I.18.28

"I do not doubt that if he had had the opportunity of discussing this question, which has been so long and so much disputed in the Church, with the pious and learned men to whom we owe it that subsequently that ancient custom was confirmed by the authority of a plenary Council, he would have shown, without hesitation, not only how learned he was in those things which he had grasped with all the security of truth, but also how ready he was to receive instruction in what he had failed to perceive." Augustine On Baptism, Against the Donatists Book IV.5.8

"For, in the next place, that I may not seem to rest on mere human arguments,—since there is so much obscurity in this question, that in earlier ages of the Church, before the schism of Donatus, it has caused men of great weight, and even our fathers, the bishops, whose hearts were full of charity, so to dispute and doubt among themselves, saving always the peace of the Church, that the several statutes of their Councils in their different districts long varied from each other, till at length the most wholesome opinion was established, to the removal of all doubts, by a plenary Council of the whole world." Augustine On Baptism, Against the Donatists. Book I.7

"Well, let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defence; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed." Augustine Letter 43 - To Glorius, Eleusius, the Two Felixes, Grammaticus, and All Others to Whom This May Be Acceptable, My Lords Most Beloved and Worthy of Praise, Augustine Sends Greeting. Chapter. VII.19

Benson, E. W., (1897), Cyprian– His Life – Hist Times – His Work, (Macmillan & Co; NY), p196

Hasler, A. B., (1981) How the Pope Became Infallible: Pius IX and the Politics of Persuasion (Doubleday; Garden City, NY), p153.

Papadakis, A., (1994) The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy, (St Vladimir’s Seminary Press; Crestwood, NY), p222

Runciman, S., (1977), The Byzantine Theocracy, (Cambridge University Press), p,147 See also Herrin, J., (2007), Byzantium: The surprising life of a Medieval Empire, (Princeton University Press), p299ff.

Papadakis, A., (1997) Crisis in Byzantium: The Filioque Controversy and the Patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus (1283-1289), (St Vladimir’s Seminary Press; Crestwood, NY), p26.

Fitzgerald, K. K., (2006)Persons in Communion – A Theology of Authentic Relationships, (InterOrthodox Press; Berkeley, CA), p58.

Sources

Abbé Guettée (1866). The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches (Minos Publishing Co; New York).
M. Anastos, (2001), Aspects of the Mind of Byzantium (Political Theory, Theology, and Ecclesiastical Relations with the See of Rome, Ashgate Publications, Variorum Collected Studies Series).
Annales Romani – Description of the Synod of Sutri - in Miller, M. C., (2005) Power and the Holy in the Age of the Investiture Conflict, (Bedord/StMartins; New York).
Benson, E. W., (1897), Cyprian – His Life – Hist Times – His Work, (Macmillan & Co; NY)
Braaten, C. E.(2001) Church unity and the papal office: an ecumenical dialogue on John Paul II's Encyclical Ut Unum Sint, (Wm B Eerdmans Publishing Co; Grand Rapids, MI).
Carlton, C., (1997) The Faith: Understanding Orthodox Christianity, (Regina Orthodox Press; Salisbury, MA).
Carlton, C., (1999) The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know about the Orthodox Church, (Regina Orthodox Press; Salisbury, MA).
Chrestou, P. K., (2005) Greek Orthodox Patrology - An introduction to the Study of the Church Fathers, (Orthodox Research Institute).
Congar, Y. (1959), After Nine Hundred Years – The Background of the Schism between the Eastern and Western Churches, (Fordham University Press, NY).
Congar. Y., (1982) Diversity and Communion (Mystic: Twenty–Third).
d'Aubigné, J. H. M, (1857) History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, Book 1, (Robert Carter & Brothers; NY).
Denny, E., (1912) Papalism: A Treatise on the Claims on the Papacy as set forth in the Encyclical Satis cognitum, (Rivingtons; London).
Dom Chapman, J., (1923) Studies on the Early Papacy, (Sheed & Ward; London).
Davis, L. D., (1990), The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787) Their History and Theology(Liturgical Press, Minnesota).
Dvornik, F., (1966) Byzantium and the Roman Primacy, (Fordham University Press, NY).
Empie, P. C., & Murphy, T. A., (1974) Papal Primacy and the Universal Church: Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue V (Augsburg Publishing House; Minneapolis, MN).
Fitzgerald, K. K., (2006) Persons in Communion – A Theology of Authentic Relationships, (InterOrthodox Press; Berkeley, CA).
Hasler, A. B., (1981) How the Pope Became Infallible: Pius IX and the Politics of Persuasion(Doubleday; Garden City, NY)
Herrin, J., (2007), Byzantium: The surprising life of a Medieval Empire, (Princeton University Press).
Hinson, E. G., (1995) The church triumphant: a history of Christianity up to 1300, (Mercer University Press; Macon, GA).
Kelly, J. N. D., (1995) Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom, (Cornell University Press).
Lossky, V., (2002) The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, (St Vladimirs Seminary Press; Crestwood, NY).
Meyendorff, John (1989). Imperial unity and Christian divisions: The Church 450-680 A.D. The Church in history. 2. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press. ISBN 978-0-88-141056-3.
Meyendorff, J., (1992), The Primacy of Peter: essays in ecclesiology and the early church (St Vladimir's Seminary Press; Crestwood, NY).
Morrison, J. H., (1872) Disquisitions and notes on the Gospels, (American Unitarian Association; Boston).
Neill, S., (1984) A History of Christian Missions, (Penguin History; London).
Palladius, (1985) Dialogue on the Life of John Chrysostom (Newman Press; NY).
Papadakis, Aristeides (1997) [1983]. Crisis in Byzantium: The Filioque Controversy in the Patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus (1283-1289) (Rev. ed.). Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press.
Papadakis, A., (1994) The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy', (St Vladimir’s Seminary Press; Crestwood, NY).
Patsavos, L. J., (2003)Spiritual Dimensions of the Holy Canons, (Holy Cross Orthodox Press; Brookline, MA).
Pennington, A. R. (1881) Epochs of the Papacy, from Its Rise to the Death of Pope Pius IX. in 1878 (G. Bell and sons; London)
Puller, F. W., (1893), The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome, (Longmans, Green & Co; NY).
Ray, S. K., (1999) Upon this rock: St. Peter and the primacy of Rome in scripture and the early church, (Ignatius Press; San Francisco).
Romanides, J., (2004) An Outline of Orthodox Patristic Dogmatics (Orthodox Research Institute; Rollinsford, NH).
Runciman, S., (1977), The Byzantine Theocracy, (Cambridge University Press).
Schaeffer, F., (1994) Dancing Alone: The Quest for Orthodox Faith in the Age of False Religion(Holy Cross Orthodox Press; Brookline, MA)
Schatz, Klaus (1996). Papal Primacy. Liturgical Press. ISBN 0-8146-5522-X.
Schimmelpfennig, Bernhard (1992). The Papacy. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-07515-2.
Sherrard, P., (1978) Church, Papacy and Schism: A Theological Enquiry. (Denise Harvey Publisher; Limni, Greece).
Srawley, J. H., (1919), The Epistles of St Ignatius (The Macmillan Company; NY).
Stephens, W. R. W., (2005) Saint Chrysostom: His Life and Times, (Elibron Classics).
Vasileios of Stavronikita (1998), Hymn of Entry: Liturgy and Life in the Orthodox Church (St Vladimir's Seminary Press; Crestwood, NY), pp52–3
Webster, W. (1995), The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, (The Banner of Truth Trust; Edinburgh).
Whelton, M., (2006) Popes and Patriarchs: An Orthodox Perspective on Roman Catholic Claims, (Concillar Press; Ben Lomond, CA).
Whelton, M., (1998) Two Paths: Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition, (Regina Orthod

Wednesday, December 25, 2019

Why Christmas is not Pagan

The date of December 25

The myth of the snow-filled fields

The use of Christmas trees

The star on the Christmas tree

Why presents are exchanged

What the Shepherds saw

Isaiah’s prophecy

Learn more

About this article

Friday, November 29, 2019

The Akathist of Thanksgiving: “Glory to God for All Things”

Kontakion 1

Ikos 1

Kontakion 2

Ikos 2

Kontakion 3

Ikos 3

Kontakion 4

Ikos 4

Kontakion 5

Ikos 5

Kontakion 6

Ikos 6

Kontakion 7

Ikos 7

Kontakion 8

Ikos 8

Kontakion 9

Ikos 9

Kontakion 10

Ikos 10

Kontakion 11

Ikos 11

Kontakion 12

Ikos 12

Kontakion 13

Ikos 1

Kontakion 1

Wednesday, November 20, 2019

Monday, November 11, 2019

Discernment or Scaffolding?+++

+++

Saturday, November 9, 2019

Parody BS Warning Russian FSB-GRU Profile of:Eric Ciaramella Wiki, Age, Wife, Biography (CIA) Family & More, Deep State Rumor Blower and blower of other things.

Profile, Early Life & Parents

Some Lesser Known Facts about Eric Ciaramella

Friday, November 1, 2019

Contents

Orthodox understanding of Catholicity

Ancient Orthodox Roman Catholic rebuttal of Modern Roman Catholic arguments and errors. (Orthodox rebuttal of Catholic arguments)

Apostolic Throne

Pope Leo XIII

Augustine

Ignatius of Antioch

Letter to the Romans

Tome of Leo

John Chrysostom

Basil the Great

Coryphæus

Maximus the Confessor

Formula of Pope Hormisdas

Opposition arguments from early church history

"Keys of the Kingdom"

The Council of Jerusalem

Easter controversy

Orthodox arguments from Church Councils

First Ecumenical Council

Second Ecumenical Council

Third Ecumenical Council

Fourth Ecumenical Council

Fifth Ecumenical Council

Sixth Ecumenical Council

The Council of Trullo

The Council of Sardica

Western councils

Filioque

Council of Frankfurt

Rome's supposed primacy

Discernment or Scaffolding?
+++

Parody BS Warning
Russian FSB-GRU Profile of:

Eric Ciaramella Wiki, Age, Wife, Biography (CIA) Family & More, Deep State Rumor Blower and blower of other things.

Ancient Orthodox Roman Catholic rebuttal of Modern Roman Catholic arguments and errors.
(Orthodox rebuttal of Catholic arguments)