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

See also: 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

Main article: 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.


    1. 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


    at No comments:

    Wednesday, October 23, 2019

    The Church is ONE

    It is not a "spiritual" association of people holding radical individual beliefs, or some apostolic reality that has defused into the culture and/or secular history over time and devolved into self-invented, self-satisfied theologies, sects, cults, spiritualities, philosophies, etc, holding more kinship with Luciferianism than with Christ.  The Church is of HIS flesh and blood; it has real visible presence, it is KNOWABLE, it has unbroken apostolic roots, it is BOTH earthy and heavenly; it exists VISIBLY in time because HE said it would STAND in TIME and withstand the Gates of Hell and the closer we come to those Gates, the greater the contrast between the shifting sands of error and The Rock, Who is Christ Jesus, together with the Structure, of which HE ALONE is the chief Cornerstone. 

     American Christian religionism, where forty years ago 90% of the American population claimed to BE Christian, created a pagan, hedonistic culture of death. Those people . . . we people had a lot of help, wealth and guidance from the Judeo-Luciferian Media and Academic Systems, suppression by the Government and all the rest. But it was CHRISTIANS who took the bait.

    That American Christianism, in fact, Globalist WORLD Christianism, in the future will continue to create chaos (as is rising now) more and more anti-Christs, more false teaching and false peace, (that is law and order at the expense of liberty and life, unjust-authority dispossessing LIFE and Truth); we see this happening in China in a most dramatic way, that Christianism has NEVER and will never produced Christ's Body, The Church. Those Red Chinese Bishops are no more a part of Christ's church than is Lucifer himself. You cannot become a bishop by killing a bishop and this is not the first time in history that such blood-soaked methods have been employed.

    In this confusion, confusion that the Roman Pope has bragged about playing his part to create, most    every group holds innovative theologies, removed from Apostolic roots, most denying the physical reality of The Church, making of it some confused and heretical mystical body - reflecting what is of the great chaos and blindness, form-fitted to the culture in general, rather than what is sacred and salvitic, what is HOLY and HEALING.

      Cultural Christianity is one thing, The Church is another. And we can rightly say, "The Church is ONE" but what is the nature of this oneness?

    One has only to look at the     massive heretical and apostate confusion generated by most of the members of the World Council of Churches to see that their means of uniting, by the simple confession,"Jesus is Lord and Savior" FAILED. Such a confession, though true, is not the flesh, blood, skeleton, sinew, spirit, mind, and Divinity of the Body of Christ and reflects merely "schools of religion" which by this time do not even hold the reality of that simple confession that Jesus is Lord and Savior. Nor can one look at the Radical Ecumenical Movement displayed in Roman Catholicism since Vatican II, where priests and prelates are joining again and again with Pagans in pagan worship and ritual to the denial of the Divinity and unique Place and Power of Christ, the Eternal Logos, the creator and fashioner of all that is. Heretical Ecumenism as a ground of fellowship it is an "islamization" of the Faith, for only a unitarian poverty of religionism such as Islam could function on such a simple proclamation as, "Allah is One and Mohamed is his prophet." Just as only the Luciferian societies of the New Age, and the so-called mystery religions unite on the maxim, "As long as you believe in a higher power, even if that power is merely your higher self." Or the fundamentalist, "Me and Jesus", or "Me, God and the Bible" or the Roman fundamentalism of the Latin Mass, Roman Supremacy and Papal infallibility . . .  All these are truncations, diminutions, devolutions, and destructions. They do not reflect the Real and Present Body of Christ, they are NOT The Church.

    Abbot Damian and the Monks at the Russian Orthodox Monastery of the Glorious Ascension, after fasting and prayer, shed light on this subject, now decades ago. I have held their words closely these same years. They wrote: 

    God in his mercy has shown us. He has led us to see that any separate part of the Church may be wrong - and must be wrong when it sets itself up against all the rest of God's Holy Church. Also, that any individual person in the Church may be right, even though all the rest, patriarchs and bishops, emperors and kings, may be against him, if only he has the Spirit of Christ. Saint Maximos the Confessor testifies to that. Jesus is Lord, and the Church is One in His Holy Spirit. We cannot lay it out and anatomize it on a table. We can only follow obediently where the Lord Jesus and His Holy Spirit lead us.

    “The great heresy of our age seems clearly to be Ecumenism. It would no doubt be nice and convenient if Ecumenism were only true, just that thing that Pope and Patriarch and prudent statesmen of every sort have been looking for these many years, and many now think they have found. But how could that be true and Christianity not be wrong? If Ecumenism is right, then it alone is the one great overarching Truth that stands above everything, not Buddha, not Muhammad, not Jesus, but something higher than any of these individual teachers. Such is not the doctrine of Jesus Christ, Who taught that He Himself is Truth, that He is the Way. He never said that He had found the Truth; he said that He is Truth and that He and the Father are One. Ecumenism is necessarily a Unitarian religion THIS is true, even when Ecumenism begins as ostensibly Christian. If a Christian cannot be Ecumenical, what then can a person do? Obviously, we must follow Christ. But where does Christ lead us, except to Himself? Nowhere, of course; but we must remember that while He is doing this, He also leads His flock through this life, in which He has an individual vocation for each one of us. The Lord has not revealed to us exactly when the world will end, or what He means for each one of us to be doing until then. The only way we can discover that is by following His gracious leading. We know that we are not all to go by the same worldly way because He has told us that, and Saint Paul repeats that doctrine with more variations in so far as it applies to Church functions. For the rest, Saint Paul just says that if a man will not work, let him not eat. (II Thessalonias 3:10)

    “A great deal of our task in the world is shown to us in "On-the-Job training”, so to speak, while we are working and eating. We start by doing what we can do, what we are told to do, what we have to do, and what we have been doing. We learn what we ought to do by doing these things prayerfully, through which we may sometimes see what we could be doing instead - or the Lord may simply want us to keep on doing exactly what we are doing, whether we like it or not. If everyone on earth tried to live a richly gratifying and exciting life, the world might not long endure. And the patient endurance of dullness, on the other hand, may be a very useful virtue to learn.

    “In addition to patience, we must learn not to judge. People are seldom as good at that as they think, and not always anxious to learn better. But the Lord may have something worldly He wants us to do, and we should always be ready to learn that or to tolerate it in others. These things cannot be explained; we must just take them as He sends them. Life is not meaningless just because we do not understand it. And our Orthodox Faith is not confused just because our reason cannot hold it together for us.


    The Church is One
    by Alexei Khomiakov 
    (1804-1860)

    Unity of the Church

    THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH follows of necessity from the unity of God; for the Church is not a multitude of persons in their separate individuality, but a unity of the grace of God, living in a multitude of rational creatures, submitting themselves willingly to grace. Grace, indeed, is also given to those who resist it, and to those who do not make use of it (who hide their talent in the earth), but these are not in the Church. In fact, the unity of the Church is not imaginary or allegorical, but a true and substantial unity, such as is the unity of many members in a living body.

    The Church is one, notwithstanding her division as it appears to a man who is still alive on earth. It is only in relation to man that it is possible to recognize a division of the Church into visible and invisible; her unity is, in reality, true and absolute. Those who are alive on earth, those who have finished their earthly course, those who, like the angels, were not created for a life on earth, those in future generations who have not yet begun their earthly course, are all united together in one Church, in one and the same grace of God; for the creation of God which has not yet been manifested is manifest to Him; and God hears the prayers and knows the faith of those whom He has not yet called out of non-existence into existence. Indeed the Church, the Body of Christ, is manifesting forth and fulfilling herself in time, without changing her essential unity or inward life of grace. And therefore, when we speak of "the Church visible and invisible," we so speak only in relation to man.

    The Visible and Invisible Church

    THE CHURCH VISIBLE, or upon earth, lives in complete communion and unity with the whole body of the Church, of which Christ is the Head. She has abiding within her Christ and the grace of the Holy Spirit in all their living fullness, but not in the fullness of their manifestation, for she acts and knows not fully, but only so far as it pleases God.
    Inasmuch as the earthly and visible Church is not the fullness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord has appointed to appear at the final judgment of all creation, she acts and knows only within her own limits; and (according to the words of Paul the Apostle, to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 5. 12) does not judge the rest of mankind, and only looks upon those as excluded, that is to say, not belonging to her, who exclude themselves. The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgment of the great day. The Church on earth judges for herself only, according to the grace of the Spirit, and the freedom granted her through Christ, inviting also the rest of mankind to the unity and adoption of God in Christ; but upon those who do not hear her appeal she pronounces no sentence, knowing the command of her Saviour and Head, "not to judge another man's servant" (Rom. 14. 4).

    (Someone asked me the other day, "how do you know the Church is Catholic and that Jesus and the Apostles created it." They were quite shocked when I began to describe the ancient church and how God has been creating it from the day Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden. The Church changed certainly at the time of the Apostles, but retained her continuity from the start. It is not a different Christ in whom Abraham has his salvation, but the ONE whose Body is the Church.- Archpriest Symeon Elias)

    The Church on Earth

    FROM THE CREATION of the world the earthly Church has continued uninterruptedly upon the earth, and will continue until the accomplishment of all the works of God, according to the promise given her by God Himself. And her signs are: inward holiness, which does not allow for any admixture of error, for the spirit of truth and outward unchangeableness lives within her as Christ, her Preserver and Head does not change. 

     All the signs of the Church, whether inward or outward, are recognized only by herself, and by those whom grace calls to be members of her. To those, indeed, who are alien from her, and are not called to her, they are unintelligible; for to such as these, outward change of rite appears to be a change of the Spirit itself, which is glorified in the rite (as, for instance, in the transition from the Church of the Old Testament to that of the New, or in the change of ecclesiastical rites and ordinances since Apostolic times).

    (Men of secular history see the worldly changeableness of the Church as a sign of her weakness, being accomplished by national strife, wars between nations, the reality of economic fortunes - riches and poverty, ambitions and greed of men, invasions of and wars with barbarians, natural disasters, plagues of diseases, famines, migrations of peoples, disturbances of philosophies, the cunning of those who plot against her. Those in the Church holding the Holy Spirit in Sacred Theology see Christ's work by the Holy Spirit using her for his purpose in history, acting for the purpose of that final day when all will be wrapped up in HIM. - Archbishop Demitri of Dallas.)

    The Church and her members know, by the inward knowledge of faith, the unity and unchangeableness of her spirit, which is the spirit of God. But those who are outside and not called to belong to her, behold and know the changes in the external rite by an external knowledge, which does not comprehend the inward [knowledge], just as also the unchangeableness of God appears to them to be changeable in the changes of His creations.
    Wherefore the Church has not been, nor could she be, changed or obscured, nor could she have fallen away, for then she would have been deprived of the spirit of truth. It is impossible that there should have been a time when she could have received error into her bosom, or when the laity, presbyters, and bishops had submitted to instructions or teaching inconsistent with the teaching and spirit of Christ.

    (You see, it is a simple equation. Where such things happen, that has ceased to BE Church. This should be great comfort for those who witnessed the outrages and blasphemy of the Amazonian Synod. This knowledge should be liberating knowing that you were not watching Christ's Church Apostatize, since the Spirit of Christ vacated those who were pressing heresy, long before These Luciferian Theatrical Weeks.  - Archpriest Symeon Elias)
    The man who should say that such a weakening of the spirit of Christ could possibly come to pass within her knows nothing of the Church, and is altogether alien to her. Moreover, a partial revolt against false doctrines, together with the retention or acceptance of other false doctrines, neither is, nor could be, the work of the Church; for within her, according to her very essence, there must always have been preachers and teachers and martyrs confessing, not partial truth with an admixture of error, but the full and unadulterated truth. The Church knows nothing of partial truth and partial error, but only the whole truth without admixture of error. And the man who is living within the Church does not submit to false teaching or receive the Sacraments from a false teacher; he will not, knowing him to be false, follow his false rites. And the Church herself does not err, for she is the truth, she is incapable of cunning or cowardice, for she is holy. And of course, the Church, by her very unchangeableness, does not acknowledge that to be error, which she has at any previous time acknowledged as truth; and having proclaimed by a General Council and common consent, that it is possible for any private individual, or any bishop or patriarch, to err in his teaching, she cannot acknowledge that such or such private individual, or bishop, or patriarch, or successor of theirs, is incapable of falling into error in teaching; or that they are preserved from going astray by any special grace. By what would the earth be sanctified, if the Church were to lose her sanctity? And where would there be truth, if her judgments of to-day were contrary to those of yesterday? Within the Church, that is to say, within her members, false doctrines may be engendered, but then the infected members fall away, constituting a heresy or schism, and no longer defile the sanctity of the Church.

    (Understand, the pagan show rubbed in the faces of Roman Catholics these weeks with this Amazonian Synod, WAS NOT CHRUCH, it was not Christ's Body, it was a Luciferian theatrical mockery of the Church, a show of pride by Anti-Christ who holds no more economy with Christ's Body than does a wax figure's likeness to a famous politician, King, Queen, or ax murderer. It may be grand illusion, but it is not LIFE. Jesus never said, "I am the obstacle, the lie, death and dead end." No rather Jesus said, "I am the Truth, the LIFE and the Way" and any place that Truth, that LIFE and that Way have become obscured and obliterated is NOT Him and cannot be His Body, The Church - Archpriest Symeon Elias)

    One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic

    THE CHURCH is called One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic; because she is one, and holy; because she belongs to the whole world, and not to any particular locality; because by her all mankind and all the earth, and not any particular nation or country, are sanctified; because her very essence consists in the agreement and unity of the spirit and life of all the members who acknowledge her, throughout the world; lastly, because in the writings and doctrines of the Apostles is contained all the fullness of her faith, her hope, and her love. From this it follows that when any society is called the Church of Christ, with the addition of a local name, such as the Greek, Russian, or Syrian Church, this appellation signifies nothing more than the congregation of members of the Church living in that particular locality, that is, Greece, Russia, or Syria; and does not involve any such idea as that any single community of Christians is able to formulate the doctrine of the Church, or to give a dogmatic interpretation to the teaching of the Church without the concurrence therewith of the other communities;(in face, of the whole Church) still less is it implied that any one particular community, or the pastor thereof, can prescribe its own interpretation to the others. The grace of faith is not to be separated from holiness of life, nor can any single community or any single pastor be acknowledged to be the custodian of the whole faith of the Church, any more than any single community or any single pastor can be looked upon as the representative of the whole of her sanctity. Nevertheless, every Christian community, without assuming to itself the right of dogmatic explanation or teaching, has a full right to change its forms and ceremonies, and to introduce new ones, so long as it does not cause offense to the other communities. Rather than do this, it ought to abandon its own opinion, and submit to that of the others, lest that which to one might seem harmless or even praiseworthy should seem blameworthy to another; or that brother should lead brother into the sin of doubt and discord. Every Christian ought to set a high value upon unity in the rites of the Church: for thereby is manifested, even for the unenlightened, unity of spirit and doctrine, while for the enlightened man it becomes a source of lively Christian joy. Love is the crown and glory of the Church.

    Scripture and Tradition
    THE SPIRIT OF GOD, who lives in the Church, ruling her and making her wise, manifests Himself within her in divers manners; in Scripture, in Tradition, and in Works; for the Church, which does the works of God, is the same Church, which preserves tradition and which has written the Scriptures. Neither individuals, nor a multitude of individuals within the Church, preserve tradition or write the Scriptures; but the Spirit of God, which lives in the whole body of the Church. Therefore it is neither right nor possible to look for the grounds of tradition in the Scripture, nor for the proof of Scripture in tradition, nor for the warrant of Scripture or tradition in works. To a man living outside the Church neither her scripture nor her tradition nor her works are comprehensible. But to the man who lives within the Church and is united to the spirit of the Church, their unity is manifest by the grace which lives within her. Do not works precede Scripture and tradition? Does not tradition precede Scripture? Were not the works of Noah, Abraham, the forefathers and representatives of the Church of the Old Testament, pleasing to God? And did not tradition exist amongst the patriarchs, beginning with Adam, the forefathers of all? Did not Christ give liberty to men and teaching by word of mouth, before the Apostles by their writings bore witness to the work of redemption and the law of liberty? Wherefore, between tradition, works, and scripture there is no contradiction, but, on the contrary, complete agreement. A man understands the Scriptures, so far as he preserves tradition, and does works agreeable to the wisdom that lives within him. But the wisdom that lives within him is not given to him individually, but as a member of the Church, and it is given to him in part, without altogether annulling his individual error; but to the Church it is given in the fullness of truth and without any admixture of error. Wherefore he must not judge the Church, but submit to her, that wisdom be not taken from him. Every one that seeks for proof of the truth of the Church, by that very act either shows his doubt, and excludes himself from the Church, or assumes the appearance of one who doubts and at the same time preserves a hope of proving the truth, and arriving at it by his own power of reason: but the powers of reason do not attain to the truth of God, and the weakness of man is made manifest by the weakness of his proofs. The man who takes Scripture only, and founds the Church on it alone, is in reality rejecting the Church, and is hoping to found her afresh by his own powers: the man who takes tradition and works only, and depreciates the importance of Scripture, is likewise in reality rejecting the Church, and constituting himself a judge of the Spirit of God, who spoke by the Scripture. For Christian knowledge is a matter, not of intellectual investigation, but of a living faith, which is a gift of grace. Scripture is external, an outward thing, and tradition is external, and works are external: that which is inward in them is the one Spirit of God. From tradition taken alone, or from scripture or from works, a man can but derive an external and incomplete knowledge, which may indeed in itself contain truth, for it starts from truth, but at the same time must of necessity be erroneous, inasmuch as it is incomplete. A believer knows the Truth, but an unbeliever does not know it, or at least only knows it with an external and imperfect knowledge. The Church does not prove herself either as Scripture or as tradition or as works, but bears witness to herself, just as the Spirit of God, dwelling in her, bears witness to Himself in the Scriptures. The Church does not ask: Which Scripture is true, which tradition is true, which Council is true, or what works are pleasing to God: for Christ knows His own inheritance, and the Church in which He lives knows by inward knowledge, and cannot help knowing, her own manifestations. The collection of Old and New Testament books, which the Church acknowledges as hers, are called by the name of Holy Scripture. But there are no limits to Scripture; for every writing which the Church acknowledges as hers is Holy Scripture. Such pre-eminently are the Creeds of the General Councils, (every psalm, every verse, every prayer, every praise, every proclaimation) and especially the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Wherefore, the writing of Holy Scripture has gone on up to our day, and, if God pleases, yet more will be written. But in the Church there has not been, nor ever will be, any contradictions, either in Scripture, or in tradition, or in works; for in all three is Christ, one and unchangeable.

    Confession, Prayer and Deeds

    EVERY ACTION OF THE CHURCH, directed by the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of life and truth, sets forth the full completeness of all His gifts of faith, hope, and love: or in Scripture not faith only, but also the hope of the Church, is made manifest, and the love of God; and in works well pleasing to God there is made manifest not only love, but likewise faith and hope and grace; and in the living tradition of the Church which awaits from God her crown and consummation in Christ, not hope only, but also faith and love are manifested. The gifts of the Holy Spirit are inseparably united in one holy and living unity; but as works well pleasing to God belong more especially to love, and prayer well pleasing to God belongs more especially to hope, so a Creed well pleasing to God belongs more especially to faith, and the Church's creed is rightly called the Confession or Symbol of the Faith.
    Wherefore it must be understood that Creeds and prayers and works are nothing of themselves, but are only an external manifestation of the inward spirit. Whereupon it also follows that neither he who prays nor he who does works nor he who confesses the Creed of the Church is pleasing to God, but only he who acts, confesses, and prays according to the spirit of Christ living within him. All men have not the same faith or the same hope or the same love; for a man may love the flesh, fix his hope on the world, and confess his belief in a lie; he may also love and hope and believe not fully, but only in part; and the Church calls his faith, faith, and his hope, hope, and his love, love; for he calls them so, and she will not dispute with him concerning words; but what she herself calls faith, hope, and love are the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and she knows that they are true and perfect.

    The Creed

    THE HOLY CHURCH CONFESSES her faith by her whole life; by her doctrine, which is inspired by the Holy Ghost; by her Sacraments in which the Holy Ghost works; and by her rites, which He directs. And the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Symbol is pre-eminently called her Confession of Faith.

    In the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Symbol is comprised the confession of the Church's doctrine; but, in order that it might be known that the hope of the Church is inseparable from her doctrine, it likewise confesses her hope; for it is said: 'we look for,' and not merely, 'we believe in,' that which is to come.

    The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Symbol, the full and complete Confession of the Church, from which she allows nothing to be omitted and to which she permits nothing to be added, is as follows :."I believe in one God, Father, Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all things visible and invisible: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages; Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, through Whom all things were made: Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from Heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became Man: And was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried: And He rose on the third day according to the Scriptures: And ascended into Heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father: And He is coming again with glory to judge the living and the dead: And His Kingdom will have no end: And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son is equally worshipped and glorified, Who spoke by the Prophets: And in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the Resurrection of Dead and the Life of the Age to come. Amen."

    This confession, just as also the whole life of the Spirit, is comprehensible only to one who believes and is a member of the Church. It contains within itself mysteries inaccessible to the inquiring intellect, and manifest only to God Himself, and to those to whom He makes them manifest for an inward and living, not a dead and outward, knowledge. It contains within itself the mystery of the existence of God not only in relation to His outward action upon creation, but also to His inward eternal being. Therefore the pride of reason and of illegal domination, which appropriated to itself, in opposition to the decree of the whole Church (pronounced at the Council of Ephesus), the right to add its private explanations and human hypotheses to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Symbol, is in itself an infraction of the sanctity and inviolability of the Church. Just as the very pride of the separate Churches, which dared to change the Symbol of the whole Church without the consent of their brethren, was inspired by a spirit not of love, and was a crime against God and the Church, so also their blind wisdom, which did not comprehend the mysteries of God, was a distortion of the faith; for faith is not preserved where love has grown weak. Wherefore the addition of the words filioque contains a sort of imaginary dogma, unknown to any one of the writers well pleasing to God, or of the Bishops or successors of the Apostles in the first ages of the Church, and not spoken by Christ our Saviour. As Christ spoke clearly, so did and does the Church clearly confess that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father; for not only the outward, but also the inward, mysteries of God were revealed by Christ, and by the Spirit of Faith, to the holy Apostles and to the holy Church. When Theodoret called all who confessed the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son blasphemers, the Church, while detecting his many errors, in this case approved his judgment by an eloquent silence. The Church does not deny that the Holy Spirit is sent not only by the Father, but also by the Son; the Church does not deny that the Holy Ghost is communicated to all rational creatures not only from the Father but also through the Son; but what she does reject is that the Holy Ghost had the principle of His procession in the Godhead itself, not merely from the Father, but also from the Son. He who has renounced the spirit of love and divested himself of the gifts of grace cannot any longer possess inward knowledge that is faith, but limits himself to mere outward knowledge; wherefore he can only know what is external, and not the inner mysteries of God. Communities of Christians which had broken away from the Holy Church could no longer confess (inasmuch as they now could not comprehend with the Spirit) the procession of the Holy Ghost, in the Godhead itself, from the Father only; but from that time they were obliged to confess only the external mission of the Spirit into all creation, a mission which comes to pass, not only from the Father, but also through the Son. They preserved the external form of the faith, but they lost the inner meaning and the grace of God; as in their confession, so also in their life.

    The Church and Its Mysteries

    HAVING CONFESSED her faith in the Tri-hypostatic Deity, the Church confesses her faith in herself, because she acknowledges herself to be the instrument and vessel of divine grace, and acknowledges her works as the works of God, not as the works of the individuals of whom, in her visible manifestation [upon earth], she is composed. In this confession she shows that knowledge concerning her essence and being is likewise a gift of grace, granted from above, and accessible to faith alone and not to reason.

    For what would be the need for me to say, "I believe," if I already knew? Is not faith the evidence of things not seen? But the visible Church is not the visible society of Christians, but the Spirit of God and the grace of the Sacraments living in this society. Wherefore even the visible Church is visible only to the believer; for to the unbeliever a sacrament is only a rite, and the Church merely a Society. The believer, while with the eyes of the body and of reason he sees the Church in her outward manifestations only, by the Spirit takes knowledge of her in her sacraments and prayers and works well pleasing to God. Wherefore he does not confuse her with the society which bears the name of Christians, for not every one that saith, "Lord, Lord," really belongs to the chosen race and to the seed of Abraham. But the true Christian knows by faith that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church will never disappear from the face of the earth until the last judgment of all creation, that she will remain on earth invisible to fleshly eyes, or to the understanding which is wise according to the flesh, among the visible society of Christians, exactly in the same way as she remains visible to the eye of faith in the Church beyond the grave, but invisible to the bodily eyes. But the Christian also knows, by means of the faith, that the Church upon earth, although it is invisible, is always clothed in a visible form; that there neither was, nor could have been, nor ever will be a time in which the sacraments will be mutilated, holiness will be dried up, or doctrine will be corrupted; and that he is no Christian who cannot say where, from the time of the Apostles themselves, the holy Sacraments have been and are being administered, where doctrine was and is preserved, where prayers were and are being sent up to the throne of grace. The Holy Church confesses and believes that the sheep have never been deprived of their Divine Pastor, and that the Church never could either err for want of understanding—for the understanding of God dwells within her—or submit to false doctrines for want of courage—for within her dwells the might of the Spirit of God.

    Believing in the word of God's promise, which has named all the followers of Christ's doctrine the friends of Christ and His brethren, and in Him the adopted sons of God, the Holy Church confesses the paths by which it pleases God to lead fallen and dead humanity to reunion in the spirit of grace and life. Wherefore, having made mention of the prophets, the representatives of the age of the Old Testament, she confesses Sacraments, through which, in the Church of the New Testament, God sends down His grace upon men, and more especially she confesses the Sacrament of Baptism for the remission of sins, as containing within itself the principle of all the others; for through Baptism alone does a man enter into the unity of the Church, which is the custodian of all the rest of the Sacraments.

    Confessing one Baptism for the remission of sins, as a Sacrament ordained by Christ Himself for entrance into the Church of the New Testament, the Church does not judge those who have not entered into communion with her through Baptism, for she knows and judges herself only. God alone knows the hardness of the heart, and He judges the weaknesses of reason according to truth and mercy. Many have been saved and have received inheritance without having received the Sacrament of Baptism with water; for it was instituted only for the Church of the New Testament. He who rejects it rejects the whole Church and the Spirit of God which lives within her; but it was not ordained for man from the beginning, neither was it prescribed to the Church of the Old Testament. For if any one should say that circumcision was the Baptism of the Old Testament, he rejects Baptism for women, for whom there was no circumcision; and what will he say about the Patriarchs from Adam to Abraham, who did not receive the seal of circumcision? And in any case does not he acknowledge that outside the Church of the New Testament the Sacrament of Baptism was not of obligation? If he will say that it was on behalf of the Church of the Old Testament that Christ received Baptism, who will place a limit to the loving-kindness of God, who took upon Himself the sins of the world? Baptism is indeed of obligation; for it alone is the door into the Church of the New Testament, and in Baptism alone does man testify his assent to the redeeming action of grace. Wherefore also in Baptism alone is he saved.

    Moreover, we know that in confessing one Baptism, as the beginning of all Sacraments, we do not reject the others; for, believing in the Church, we, together with her, confess Seven Sacraments, namely, Baptism, the Eucharist, Laying on of Hands, Confirmation with Chrism, Marriage, Penance, and Unction of the Sick. There are also many other Sacraments; for every work which is done in faith, love, and hope, is suggested to man by the Spirit of God, and invokes the unseen Grace of God. But the Seven Sacraments are in reality not accomplished by any single individual who is worthy of the mercy of God, but by the whole Church in the person of an individual, even though he be unworthy.
    Concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist (Communion) the Holy Church teaches that in it the change of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is verily accomplished. She does not reject the word 'Transubstantiation'; but she does not assign to it that material meaning which is assigned to it by the teachers of the Churches which have fallen away. The change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is accomplished in the Church and for the Church. If a man receive the consecrated Gifts, or worship them, or think on them with faith, he verily receives, adores, and thinks on the Body and Blood of Christ. If he receive unworthily he verily rejects the Body and Blood of Christ; in any case, in faith or in unbelief, he is sanctified or condemned by the Body and Blood of Christ. But this Sacrament is in the Church and not for the outside world, not for fire, not for irrational creatures, not for corruption, and not for the man who has not heard the law of Christ in the Church itself (we are speaking of the visible Church), to the elect and to the reprobate the Holy Eucharist is not a mere commemoration concerning the mystery of redemption, it is not a presence of spiritual gifts within the bread and wine, it is not merely a spiritual reception of the Body and Blood of Christ, but is His true Body and Blood. Not in spirit alone was Christ pleased to unite Himself with the faithful, but also in Body and in Blood; in order that that union might be complete, and not only spiritual but also corporal. Both nonsensical explanations concerning the relations of the holy Sacrament to elements and irrational creatures (when the Sacrament was instituted for the Church alone), and that spiritual pride which despises body and blood and rejects the corporal union with Christ, are equally opposed to the Church. We shall not rise again without the body, and no spirit, except the Spirit of God, can be said to be entirely incorporeal. He that despises the body sins through pride of spirit.
    Of the Sacrament of Ordination the Holy Church teaches that through it the grace which brings the Sacraments into effect is handed on in succession from the Apostles and from Christ Himself: not as if no Sacrament could be brought to effect otherwise than through Ordination (for every Christian is able through Baptism to open the door of the Church to an infant or a Jew or a heathen), but that Ordination contains within itself all the fullness of grace given by Christ to His Church. And the Church herself, in Communicating to her members the Fullness of spiritual gifts, in the strength of the freedom given her by God, has appointed differences in the grades of Ordination. The Presbyter who performs all the Sacraments except Ordination has one gift, the Bishop who performs Ordination has another; and higher than the gift of the Episcopate there is nothing. The Sacrament gives to him who receives it this great significance that, even if he be unworthy, yet in performing his Sacramental service his action necessarily proceeds not from himself, but from the whole Church, that is from Christ living within her. If Ordination ceased, all the Sacraments except Baptism would also cease; and the human race would be torn away from grace: for the Church herself would then bear witness that Christ had departed from her.

    Concerning the Sacrament of Confirmation with Chrism, the Church teaches that in it the gifts of the Holy Ghost are conferred upon the Christian, confirming his faith and inward holiness: and this Sacrament is by the will of the Holy Church performed not by Bishops only, but also by Presbyters, although the Chrism itself can only be blessed by a Bishop.

    Of the Sacrament of Marriage the Holy Church teaches that the grace of God, which blesses the succession of generations in the temporal existence of the human race and the holy union of man and woman for the organization of the family, is a sacramental gift imposing upon those who receive it a high obligation of mutual love and spiritual holiness, through which that which otherwise is sinful and material is endued with righteousness and purity. Wherefore the great teachers of the Church, the Apostles, recognize the Sacrament of marriage even amongst the heathen: for while they forbid concubinage, they confirm marriage between Christians and heathens; saying that the man is sanctified by the believing wife, and the wife by the believing husband (1 Cor. 7. 14). These words of the Apostle do not mean that; an unbeliever could be saved by his or her union with a believer, but that the marriage is sanctified: for it is not the person, but the husband or wife, who is sanctified. One person is not saved through another, but the husband or the wife is sanctified in relation to the marriage itself. And thus marriage is not unclean, even amongst idolaters; but they themselves know not of the grace of God given unto them. The Holy Church through her ordained ministers acknowledges and blesses the union, blessed by God, of husband and wife. Wherefore marriage is not a mere rite but a true Sacrament. And it receives its accomplishment in the Holy Church, for in her alone is every holy thing accomplished in its fullness.

    Concerning the Sacrament of Penance the Holy Church teaches that without it the spirit of man cannot be cleansed from the bondage of sin and of sinful pride: that he himself cannot remit his own sins (for we have only the power to condemn, not to justify ourselves), and that the Church alone has the power of justifying, for within her lives the fullness of the Spirit of Christ. We know that the first one who entered the Kingdom of Heaven after the Savior was the one who condemned himself and repented (thief) saying on the cross: "We receive the due reward of our deeds" (Luke 23:41). Because of this repentance he received absolution from Him who alone can absolve, and who gave this authority to His Church (John 20:23).

    Of the Sacrament of Anointing with consecrated oil [Unction of the Sick] the Holy Church teaches, that in it is perfected the blessing of the whole fight (1 Tim. 4:7) which has been endured by a man in his life upon earth, of all the journey which has been gone through by him in faith and humility, and that in Unction of the Sick the divine verdict itself is pronounced upon man's earthly frame, healing it, when all medicinal means are of no avail, or else permitting death to destroy the corruptible body, which is no longer required for the Church on earth or the mysterious ways of God.

    Faith and Life in Church Unity

    THE CHURCH, even upon earth, lives, not an earthly human life, but a life of grace which is divine. Wherefore not only each of her members, but she herself as a whole, solemnly calls herself "Holy." Her visible manifestation is contained in the Sacraments, but her inward life in the gifts of the Holy Spirit, in faith, hope, and love. Oppressed and persecuted by enemies without, at times agitated and lacerated within by the evil passions of her children, she has been and ever will be preserved without wavering or change wherever the Sacraments and spiritual holiness are preserved. Never is she either disfigured or in need of reformation. She lives not under a law of bondage, but under a law of liberty. She neither acknowledges any authority over her, except her own, nor any tribunal, but the tribunal of faith (for reason does not comprehend her), and she expresses her love, her faith, and her hope in her prayers and rites, suggested to her by the Spirit of truth and by the grace of Christ. Wherefore her rites themselves, even if they are not unchangeable (for they are composed by the spirit of liberty and may be changed according to the judgment of the Church) can never, in any case, contain any, even the smallest, admixture of error or false doctrine. And the rites (of the Church) while they are unchanged are of obligation to the members of the Church; for in their observance is the joy of holy unity.

    External unity is the unity manifested in the communion of Sacraments; while internal unity is unity of spirit. Many (as for instance some of the martyrs) have been saved without having been made partakers of so much as one of the Sacraments of the Church (not even of Baptism) but no one is saved without partaking of the inward holiness of the Church, of her faith, hope, and love: for it is not works which save, but faith. And faith, that is to say, true and living faith, is not twofold, but single. Wherefore both those who say that faith alone does not save, but that works also are necessary, and those who say that faith saves without works, are void of understanding; for if there are no works, then faith is shown to be dead; and, if it be dead, it is also untrue; for in true faith there is Christ the truth and the life; but, if it be not true, then it is false, that is to say, mere external knowledge. But can that which is false save a man? But if it be true, then it is also a living faith, that is to say, one which does works; but if it does works, what works are still required?
    The divinely inspired Apostle saith: "Show me the faith of which thou boastest thyself by thy works, even as I show my faith by my works." Does he acknowledge two faiths? No, but exposes a senseless boast. "Thou believest in God, but the devils also believe." Does he acknowledge that there is faith in devils? No, but he detects the falsehood which boasts itself of a quality which even devils possess. "As the body," saith he, "without the soul is dead, so faith without works is dead also." Does he compare faith to the body and works to the Spirit? No, for such a simile would be untrue; but the meaning of his words is clear. Just as a body without a soul is no longer a man, and cannot properly be called a man, but a corpse, so faith also that does no works cannot be called true faith, but false; that is to say, an external knowledge, fruitless, and attainable even by devils. That which is written simply ought also to be read simply. Wherefore those who rely upon the Apostle James for a proof that there is a dead faith and a living faith, and as it were two faiths, do not comprehend the words of the Apostle; for the Apostle bears witness not for them, but against them. Likewise when the Great Apostle of the Gentiles says, 'What is the use of faith without love, even of such a faith as would remove mountains?" (1 Cor. 13:2) he does not maintain the possibility of such faith without love: but assuming its possibility he shows that it would be useless. Holy Scripture ought not to be read in the spirit of worldly wisdom, which wrangles over words, but in the spirit of the wisdom of God, and of spiritual simplicity. The Apostle, in defining faith, says, "it is the evidence of things unseen, and the confidence of things hoped for" (not merely of things awaited, or things to come), but if we hope, we also desire, and if we desire, we also love; for it is impossible to desire that which a man loves not. Or have the devils also hope? Wherefore there is but one faith, and when we ask, "Can true faith save without works?" we ask a senseless question; or rather no question at all: for true faith is a living faith which does works; it is faith in Christ, and Christ in faith.

    Those who have mistaken a dead faith, that is to say, a false faith, or mere external knowledge, for true faith, have gone so far in their delusion that, without knowing it themselves, they have made of it an eighth Sacrament. The Church has faith, but it is a living faith; for she has also sanctity. But if one man or one bishop is necessarily to have the faith, what are we to say? Has he sanctity? No, for it may be he is notorious for crime and immorality. But the faith is to abide in him even though he be a sinner. So the faith within him is an eighth Sacrament; inasmuch as every Sacrament is the action of the Church in an individual, even though he be unworthy. But through this Sacrament what sort of faith abides in him? A living faith? No, for he is a sinner. But a dead faith, that is to say, external knowledge, is attainable, even by devils. And is this to be an eighth Sacrament? Thus does departure from the truth bring about its own punishment.

    We must understand that neither faith nor hope nor love saves of itself (for will faith in reason, or hope in the world, or love for the flesh save us?). No, it is the object of faith which saves. If a man believes in Christ, he is saved in his faith by Christ; if he believes in the Church, he is saved by the Church; if he believes in Christ's Sacraments, he is saved by them; for Christ our God is in the Church and the Sacraments. The Church of the Old Testament was saved by faith in a Redeemer to come. Abraham was saved by the same Christ as we. He possessed Christ in hope, while we possess Him in joy. Wherefore he who desires Baptism is baptized in will; while he who has received Baptism possesses it in joy. An identical faith in Baptism saves both of them. But a man may say, "if faith in Baptism saves, what is the use of being actually baptized?" If he does not receive Baptism what did he wish for? It is evident that the faith which desires Baptism must be perfected by the reception of Baptism itself, which is its joy. Therefore also the house of Cornelius received the Holy Ghost before he received Baptism, while the eunuch was filled with the same Spirit immediately after Baptism (Acts 10, 44-47, 8. 38, cf. 2. 38). For God can glorify the Sacrament of Baptism just as well before, as after, its administration. Thus the difference between the opus operans and opus operatum disappears. We know that there are many persons who have not christened their children, and many who have not admitted them to Communion in the Holy Mysteries, and many who have not confirmed them: but the Holy Church understands things otherwise, christening infants and confirming them and admitting them to Communion. She has not ordained these things in order to condemn unbaptized children, whose angels do always behold the face of God (Matt. 18:10); but she has ordained this, according to the spirit of love which lives within her, in order that the first thought of a child arriving at years of discretion should be, not only a desire, but also a joy for sacraments which have been already received. And can one know the joy of a child who to all appearances has not yet arrived at discretion? Did not the prophet, even before His birth, exult for joy concerning Christ (St. Luke 1. 41)? Those who have deprived children of Baptism and Confirmation and Communion are they who, having inherited the blind wisdom of blind heathendom, have not comprehended the majesty of God's Sacraments, but have required reasons and uses for everything and, having subjected the doctrine of the Church to scholastic explications, will not even pray unless they see in the prayer some direct goal or advantage. But our law is not a law of bondage or of hireling service, laboring for wages, but a law of the adoption of sons, and of love which is free.

    We know that when any one of us falls he falls alone; but no one is saved alone. He who is saved is saved in the Church, as a member of her, and in unity with all her other members. If any one believes, he is in the communion of faith; if he loves, he is in the communion of love; if he prays, he is in the communion of prayer. Wherefore no one can rest his hope on his own prayers, and everyone who prays asks the whole Church for intercession, not as if he had doubts of the intercession of Christ, the one Advocate, but in the assurance that the whole Church ever prays for all her members. All the angels pray for us, the apostles, martyrs, and patriarchs, and above them all, the Mother of our Lord, and this holy unity is the true life of the Church. But if the Church, visible and invisible, prays without ceasing, why do we ask her for her prayers? Do we not entreat mercy of God and Christ, although His mercy preventeth our prayer? The very reason that we ask the Church for her prayers is that we know that she gives the assistance of her intercession even to him that does not ask for it, and to him that asks she gives it in far greater measure than he asks: for in her is the fullness of the Spirit of God. Thus we glorify all whom God has glorified and is glorifying; for how should we say that Christ is living within us, if we do not make ourselves like unto Christ? Wherefore we glorify the Saints the Angels, and the Prophets, and more than all the most pure Mother of the Lord Jesus, not acknowledging her either to have been conceived without sin, or to have been perfect (for Christ alone is without sin and perfect), but remembering that the pre-eminence, passing all understanding, which she has above all God's creatures was borne witness to by the Angel and by Elizabeth and, above all, by the Saviour Himself when He appointed John, His great Apostle and seer of mysteries, to fulfill the duties of a son and to serve her.

    Just as each of us requires prayers from all, so each person owes his prayers on behalf of all, the living and the dead, and even those who are as yet unborn, for in praying, as we do with all the Church, that the world may come to the knowledge of God, we pray not only for the present generation, but for those whom God will hereafter call into life. We pray for the living that the grace of God may be upon them, and for the dead that they may become worthy of the vision of God's face. We know nothing of an intermediate state of souls, which have neither been received into the kingdom of God, nor condemned to torture, for of such a state we have received no teaching either from the Apostles or from Christ; we do not acknowledge Purgatory, that is, the purification of souls by sufferings from which they may be redeemed by their own works or those of others: for the Church knows nothing of salvation by outward means, nor any sufferings whatever they may be, except those of Christ; nor of bargaining with God, as in the case of a man buying himself off by good works.

    All such heathenism as this remains with the inheritors of the wisdom of the heathen, with those who pride themselves in place, or name, or in territorial dominion, and who have instituted an eighth Sacrament of dead faith. But we pray in the spirit of love, knowing that no one will be saved otherwise than by the prayer of all the Church, in which Christ lives, knowing and trusting that so long as the end of time has not come, all the members of the Church, both living and departed, are being perfected incessantly by mutual prayer. The Saints whom God has glorified are much higher than we, but higher than all is the Holy Church, which comprises within herself all the Saints, and prays for all, as may be seen in the divinely inspired Liturgy. In her prayer our prayer is also heard; however unworthy we may be to be called sons of the Church. If, while worshipping and glorifying the Saints, we pray that God may glorify them, we do not lay ourselves open to the charge of pride; for to us who have received permission to call God "Our Father" leave has also been granted to pray, "Hallowed be Thy Name, Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done." And if we are permitted to pray of God that He will glorify His Name, and accomplish His Will, who will forbid us to pray Him to glorify His Saints, and to give repose to His elect? For those indeed who are not of the elect we do not pray, just as Christ prayed not for the whole world, but for those whom the Lord had given unto Him (St. John 17). Let no one say: "What prayer shall I apportion for the living or the departed, when my prayers are insufficient even for myself?" For if he is not able to pray, of what use would it be to pray even for himself? But in truth the spirit of love prays in him. Likewise let him not say: "What is the good of my prayer for another, when he prays for himself, and Christ Himself intercedes for him?" When a man prays, it is the spirit of love which prays within him. Let him not say: "It is even now impossible to change the judgment of God," for his prayer itself is included in the ways of God, and God foresaw it. If he be a member of the Church his prayer is necessary for all her members. If the hand should say that it did not require blood from the rest of the body, and that it would not give its own blood to it, the hand would wither. So a man is also necessary to the Church, as long as he is in her; and, if he withdraws himself from communion with her, he perishes himself and will cease to be any longer a member of the Church. The Church prays for all, and we pray together for all; but our prayer must be true, and a true expression of love, and not a mere form of words. Not being able to love all men, we pray for those whom we love, and our prayer is not hypocritical; but we pray God that we may be able to love all and pray for all without hypocrisy. Mutual prayer is the blood of the Church, and the glorification of God her breath. We pray in a spirit of love, not of interest, in the spirit of filial freedom, not of the law of the hireling demanding his pay. Every man who asks: "What use is there in prayer?" acknowledges himself to be in bondage. True prayer is true love.

     Love and unity are above everything, but love expresses itself in many ways: by works, by prayer, and by spiritual songs. The Church bestows her blessing upon all these expressions of love. If a man cannot express his love for God by word, but expresses it by a visible representation, that is to say an image (icon), will the Church condemn him? No, but she will condemn the man who condemns him, for he is condemning another's love. We know that without the use of an image men may also be saved and have been saved, and if a man's love does not require an image he will be saved without one; but if the love of his brother requires an image, he, in condemning this brother's love, condemneth himself; if a man being a Christian dare not listen without a feeling of reverence to a prayer or spiritual song composed by his brother, how dare he look without reverence upon the image which his love, and not his art, has produced? The Lord Himself, who knows the secrets of the heart, has designed more than once to glorify a prayer or psalm; will a man forbid Him to glorify an image or the graves of the Saints? One may say: "The Old Testament has forbidden the representation of God;" but does he, who thus thinks he understands better than Holy Church the words which she herself wrote (that is, the Scriptures), not see that it was not a representation of God which the Old Testament forbade (for it allowed the Cherubim, and the brazen serpent, and the writing of the Name of God), but that it forbade a man to make unto himself a god in the similitude of any object in earth or in heaven, visible or even imaginary?
    If a man paints an image to remind him of the invisible and inconceivable God, he is not making to himself an idol. If he imagines God to himself and thinks that He is like to his imagination, he maketh to himself an idol—that is the meaning of the prohibition in the Old Testament. But an image [eikon] (that is to say, the Name of God painted in colors), or a representation of His Saints, made by love, is not forbidden by the spirit of truth. Let none say, "Christians are going over to idolatry;" for the spirit of Christ which preserves the Church is wiser than a man's calculating wisdom. Wherefore a man may indeed be saved without images, but he must not reject images.
    The Church accepts every rite which expresses spiritual aspiration towards God, just as she accepts prayer and images [eikons], but she recognizes as higher than all rites the holy Liturgy, in which is expressed all the fullness of the doctrine and spirit of the Church; and this, not only by conventional signs or symbols of some kind, but by the word of life and truth inspired from above. He alone knows the Church who knows the Liturgy. Above all is the unity of holiness and love.

    Salvation

    THE HOLY CHURCH, in confessing that she looks for the Resurrection of the dead and the final judgment of all mankind, acknowledges that the perfecting of all her members will be fulfilled together with her own, and that the future life pertains, not only to the spirit, but also to the spiritual body; for God alone is a perfectly incorporeal Spirit. Wherefore she rejects the pride of those who preach a doctrine of an incorporeal state beyond the grave, and consequently despise the body, in which Christ rose from the dead. This body will not be a fleshly body, but will be like unto the corporeal state of the Angels, inasmuch as Christ Himself said that we shall be like unto the Angels.
    In the last Judgment our justification in Christ will be revealed in its fullness; not our sanctification only, but also our justification, for no man has been or is as yet completely sanctified, but there is still need of justification. Christ worketh all that is good in us, whether it be in faith or in hope or in love; while we only submit ourselves to His working, but no man submits himself wholly. Therefore there is still need of justification by the sufferings and blood of Christ. Who, then, can continue to speak of the merits of his own works, or of a treasury of merits and prayers? Only those who are still living under a law of bondage. Christ works all good in us, but we never wholly submit ourselves, none, not even the Saints, as the Saviour Himself has said. Grace works all, and grace is given freely and to all, that none shall be able to murmur, but not equally to all, not according to predestination, but according to foreknowledge, as the Apostle says. A smaller talent indeed is given to the man in whom the Lord has foreseen negligence, in order that the rejection of a greater gifts should not serve to greater condemnation. And we do not increase the talents which have been intrusted to us ourselves, but they are put out to the exchangers, in order that even here there should not be any merit of ours, but only non-resistance to the grace which causes the increase. Thus the distinction between "sufficient" and "effectual" grace disappears. Grace worketh all, if a man submits to it the Lord is perfected in- him, and perfects him; but let not a man boast himself in his obedience, for his obedience itself is of grace. But we never submit ourselves wholly: wherefore besides sanctification we ask also for justification.
    All is accomplished in the consummation of the general judgement, and the Spirit of God that is, the Spirit of faith, hope, and love, will reveal Himself in all His fullness, and every gift will attain its utmost perfection; but above them all will be love. Not that it is to be thought that faith and hope, which are the gifts of God, will perish (for they are not separable from love), but love alone will preserve its name, while faith, arriving at its consummation, will then have become full inward knowledge and sight; and hope will have become joy; for even on earth we know that the stronger it is, the more joyful it is.

    Unity of Orthodoxy

    BY THE WILL OF GOD the Holy Church, after the falling away of many schisms, and of the Roman Patriarchate, was preserved in the Greek Dioceses and Patriarchates, and only those communities can acknowledge one another as fully Christian which preserve their unity with the Eastern Patriarchates, or enter into this unity. For there is one God and one Church, and within her there is neither dissension nor disagreement.
    And therefore the Church is called Orthodox, or Eastern, or Greco-Russian, but all these are only temporary designations. The Church ought not to be accused of pride for calling herself Orthodox, inasmuch as she also calls herself Holy. When false doctrines shall have disappeared, there will be no further need for the name Orthodox, for then there will be no erroneous Christianity. When the Church shall have extended herself, or the fullness of the nations shall have entered into her, then all local appellations will cease; for the Church is not bound up with any locality; she neither boasts herself of any particular see or territory, nor preserves the inheritance of pagan pride; but she calls herself One Holy Catholic and Apostolic; knowing that the whole world belongs to her, and that no locality therein possesses any special significance, but only temporarily can and does serve for the glorification of the name of God, according to His unsearchable will.
    at No comments:

    Saturday, October 12, 2019

    Sola Scriptura INSTRUCTIVE Entertainment.


    James White handed Lee Baker his ass, but Lee is too wrapped up in his ego (to stupid) to grasp it. Truly SAD show, but BEAUTIFUL in the Truth it exposes. 

    No document in all the history of mankind has more source evidence than does the New Testament, and those sources MATCH what the present Greek Text, with its footnotes portray. 

    How that solid written witness is then interpreted is another story and is as variable as the pride, egos, passions and ignorance of the men interpreting it, or rejecting it, as we see here witnessed in the person of Lee Baker. 

    One needs to ask why such debates based solely upon the Text of the New Testament have never happened in Apostolic Orthodox Christianity, no where, no time, in her 2000 year history; is it neglect or has there never been need for it? 

    At the same time, I truly appreciate the amazing body of work done by the (mostly protestant) bible scholars. One set of such lying scholars lead to the absurdity of "The Jesus Seminar" a Cultural Marxist financed deconstructionist effort, and the other to REAL SCIENCE, of whom Dr. White is a shining example. 

    I am archiving this video, because Dr White's work here, spoken in non-technical language, is an invaluable witness of the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, patiently manifesting TRUTH, who is a Person, in a sea of Mormon created ignorance and lies. 

    BTW, this ignorant ex-Mormon cannot understand the unfolding of God's revelation in time. He was fed the idea of the validity of a "Channeled Book" with his mother's milk, and taught the idea that inspiration means "channeling" which DESTROYS ALL Historical Witness. 

    The New Testaments is NOT a Channeled book, like a Koran by Mohammed, 
    or a Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith, 
    or The Cosmic Tradition, by Max and Alma Theon, 
    or the Book of Law by Aleister Crowley, 
    or Toward the light by Johanne Agerskov, 
    or the Teaching of Silver Birch by A.W. Austen, 
    or Ashtar by George Van Tassel, 
    or A Course in Miracles by Schucman and Thetford 
    and HUNDREDS of MORE.
    Christianity sees these things rightly as the desperation of Satan, teaching theology to those he fears will slip from his grasp. 

    The New Testament as is the Old Testament, rather the Christian Canon of Scriptures is in a totally different class and category, a "revelation through time" an accounting of both the history and wisdom of God's revealing himself progressively over centuries, and that Revelation WAS, IS and Always will be Jesus Christ. 

    Each Theophany (appearance of God) from God's walks with Adam in the Garden, to his appearance in the Upper Room after his resurrection witness the exact same TRUTH who is a person. IF one is not religiously sick with pagan superstitutions, that multiplicity of witnesses over time revealing the same TRUTH has exponentially more power than does some spiritually challenged person channeling the teachings of devils. 

    "Our Heavenly Father: Let us not be caught in the fear of servile religion; keeping Tradition out of ignorance and offering our correctness as a sign of righteous enlightenment. 
    "Let us not be caught in the tyranny of our rational minds, which creates innovations upon the faith, which leads us to hold prideful theologies that diminish God to the level of OUR understanding, or worse, which deny him altogether. 
    "Let us not be caught by the tyranny of our emotions, mistaking our soul's fantasy producing powers for the working of the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life. 
    "Let us not be caught in the mere form of the written word of God, but the LIFE of it. 
    "Let us not be caught in the mere form of the visible church, but in the LIFE of it, who is Jesus Christ, the LIVING WORD of God, present even today to all who truly seek him. "Let our keeping of Tradition spring from the warmth of YOUR Love, from a heart that seeks continual repentance, from a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart YOU will not despise. 
    "In the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen"+++

    +++

    +++
    at No comments:
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

    Google in their "Infinite Wisdom" just returned my Letters from the Gulag Blog - after four years.

     https://rumble.com/v73cowk-the-endtime-shite-show-pt-3-the-shakhanah-glorification-of-erika-kirk.html

    • 0018 Disintegration & Centralization
      This is a cosmic war taking place on a global scale masquerading as a civil war pretending to be a democratic election. All warfare is dece...
    • I Do NOT Like Donald Trump!
      But it would be stupidity and/or evil at this point in our history not to support him vigorously! Firstly why I don't like Trump.  T...
    • Ted Cruz's NeoCon Bonafides
      Attention Christian Conservatives who have been fooled by Edwardo Ted Cruz. The NeoCon/CIA/Media tells you that Ted Cruz is an "outsi...