Featured

First blog post

This is the post excerpt.

This is your very first post. Click the Edit link to modify or delete it, or start a new post. If you like, use this post to tell readers why you started this blog and what you plan to do with it.

post

Salvation and repentance is possible after death

For no one is cast off by the Lord forever.Lamentations 3:31

Western Latin derived Christianity has a rather Grim view of salvation and sin,and I’m not just talking about their theologies regarding christ’s death to placate a wrathfull monsterly God who can’t Forgive without blood being shed in penal atonement,nor their false anti-scriptural and anti-patristic views of an eternal hell for even the unrepentant,but also the idea that if you die in a state of Mortal sin or unbelief you are sentenced to Hell forever and have no option of repentance.not only is this anti-scriptural but it goes against the patristic tradition aswell as the miracles of many saints of both the Chalcedonian and Miaphysite orthodox who delivered people from hell through their prayers.it makes a mockery of God’s mercy,and its implication that anything we do can affect God in anyway is also heretical.

let us begin with Scripture showing even idolaters can be reconciled after death

And upon the day following, as the use had been, Judas and his company came to take up the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen in their fathers’ graves.
Now under the coats of every one that was slain they found things consecrated to the idols of the Jamnites, which is forbidden the Jews by the law. Then every man saw that this was the cause wherefore they were slain.
All men therefore praising the Lord, the righteous Judge, who had opened the things that were hid,
Betook themselves unto prayer, and besought him that the sin committed might wholly be put out of remembrance. Besides, that noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forsomuch as they saw before their eyes the things that came to pass for the sins of those that were slain.
And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection:
For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.
And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.

so We see here that the prayers for the dead are efficious in releasing the dead from hell.

We also have in the Hagiography of St.Kristos Samra of ethiopia,that she was taken to Christ and Christ had promised her she could release souls from hell through her prayers.

in another incident she actually freed 10,000 souls from hell

he said to him “Lord had forgiven you so come out with your people from this place of suffering” When she said this the heart of Devil was burning like a fire. The devil then held her left hand with his left hand and threw her to hell. However, the Archangel hit the Devil with his sword and the doors of hell were opened. At this moment, there was a loud and disturbing noise and scream and souls in hell surround and circled her. At this moment, 10,000 souls were saved/taken out of hell via the Archangel’s wind and the wing that she was given. When she saw this, she was delighted, due to her extreme delight she was jumping among them like a breast-feeding calf, which was jumping at the same time.

Then she went to the Lord Jesus Christ and thanked him for his forgiveness, love and forgiveness. He said to her “did you bring lives winning Devil?” She said yes. He then called the Archangel and told him to take those souls to Saint Kirstos Semra’s residence that I readied for her before creation of the world. She said to Him, “Where is my residence, my Lord?” Lord said to her “you place of residence is with my Mother, the Virgin Mary, and your rank will be second to her and all those who love you are respected.”

Elder Cleopas states

It is indeed possible for someone to be redeemed from perdition, but not through the purgatorial fire as the Roman Catholics content (their offering of expiation presented for the living and the dead notwithstanding. The Lord, as ruler of the heavens, the earth and the infernal regions has the power to remove a soul from Hades, as Scripture testifies: ‘The Lord killeth and maketh alive; He bringeth down to the grave and bringeth up.’

The power and sacrifice of Christ, which is offered to whosoever seeks it, is unlimited and His goodness so great that only He is able to rescind the eternal anguish of man. We know that God asks that we love our fellow man and looks on this love with joy. We we are truly praying for others, there is nothing greater than love. God hears the prayer of the Church very clearly, especially when the prayers of Christians are united with the suppliant voices of angels in the heavens, and that of the Lady Theotokos. …

Between Hades and Paradise there does exist a great chasm indeed, as our Lord has told us. Yet, this chasm does not have the power to impede the mercy of our great God, Who hears our prayers for the reposed. We do not suppose, as do the Roman Catholics that there exists a purgatorial fire, but we say that only for those who since very severely (or mortally) and did not confess their sin is the passage form Hades to Paradise impossible. For those who sinned more lightly this pathway is not definitely closed, given that in the future judgment each one’s pace, either in heaven or in hell, will be decided definitively, inasmuch as after this judgment someone whose orientation was Hades can no longer pass over into Paradise. For those who sinned unto death, our prayers are completely futile. … We do not pray for those who have committed sins against the Holy Spirit, for such sins will not be forgiven, neither in this life, nor in the one to come. Rather, we pray for those who committed lighter sins for which forgiveness–when we pray–is also possible in the other world, inasmuch as we love them to inherit eternal life. (pp. 127-129)

The Emperor Theophilos, who fought against the holy icons, was a heretic and went to Hell. His wife, Theodora, however, begged Patriarch Methodios to pray for his soul. So the patriarch, together with other virtuous members of the clergy prayed fervently in Aghia Sophia for the whole of the first week of Great Lent (During this period they would have certainly have said Thrice-Holies and not performed the Divine Liturgy). Likewise, the Empress Theodora prayed with the whole of her court in the Church of the Mother of God. When Saturday dawned, Theodora saw Christ in a vision! And he said to her: “Woman, great is your faith. Know, therefore, that through your tears and your faith, and the entreaties of my priests I shall show favour to your husband, Theophilos.” The miracle happened. The heretic Theophilos was saved.

Will the Lord reject forever? Will he never show his favor again?Psalm 77:7

A quick debunking of papal infallibity

roman popes openly taught heresy and even apostacized proving vatican I ,the council outlining papal supremacy wrong,first let us make clear that the pope by catholic doctrine cannot even be a material heretic,but in many cases we have popes being formal heretics aswell.

this is what Vatican I states about popes being material private heretics:“This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine.”This See of holy Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error”

Vatican II stated :And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.”

Pope Marcellinus offered incence to a idol.Roman apologists will say the pope is only infallible when speaking from the chair of peter on faith and morals directed to the church..but this is not the wording of Vatican I.Vatican I above makes it clear in no uncertain terms that the pope can never be a material heretic

Pope Honorius said Monolethism in his letter to Sergius and council wording anathemizing him say he confirmed others heresies.he wasnt merely anatahemized for negligence as roman apologists claim.

Pope John XXII denied any saints had seen the beatific vision,when christ said St.Dumas on the cross would be in heaven ”today”.

Pope Benedict was a Heretic too for calling mary co-redemptrix against the council of Trent.

Pope Benedict XV, Inter Sodalicia, March 22, 1918: “For with her suffering and dying Son, Mary endured suffering and almost death. She gave up her Mother’s rights over her Son to procure the salvation of mankind, and to appease the divine justice, she, as much as she could, immolated her Son, so that one can truly affirm that together with Christ she has redeemed the human race

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 25, On Invocation, Veneration and Relics of Saints, and on Sacred Images, ex cathedra: “… the saints, who reign with Christ, offer up their prayers to God for men; and that it is good and useful to invoke them suppliantly and, in order to obtain favors from God through His Son JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD, WHO ALONE IS OUR REDEEMER and Savior…

This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine.

pope Pius XI said the same thing in his radio message calling mary co-redemptrix contrary to council of trent (Pius XI, Radiomessage to Lourdes, April 28, 1935. Osservatore Romano, April 29, 1935. ) this should not be possible

Pope St.Gregory the Great denied papal supremacy wich makes him a heretic by roman standards,he said any person that wishes to be called or calls himself universal bishop is the precursor of the antichrist to the Bishop of constantinople. in a letter to the chalcedonian bishop of alexandria and archbishop all of egypt.He also said that there is one see of peter occuppied by three persons(rome,antioch,alexandria)contrary to roman doctrine.

we have a pope and saint of the catholic church denying papal supremacy as no such doctrine existed at the time and he was certainly not aware of it,Vatican I however says it was known” since the beginning by all” . False!

finally we also have a heretical pope named pope
Vigilius that publically endorsed the heretical blasphemous nestorian letter of Ibas to Maris the persian,later claiming the devil mislead him to do so after he was beaten and forced to renounce the letter by the Byzantine authorities.

papal inmfallibility is a sham,even if we narrowingly defined papal infalliblity as a pope only teaching heresy publically from the chair of peter on faith and morals.

patristic evidence against the papal supremacy

Catholic Saint Augustine says Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. (Sermon 229)

none of the fathers indicate papal supremacy.rather all of them indicate equality of the successors of the Apostles the bishops.

lets take Saint Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, who considered peter the rock(but saw every bishop as owning the chair of peter) he says:

Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her (Cant. 9:6) (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3, p. 133).

Saint John Chrysostom

For the Son of thunder(John), 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 (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1, p. 1).

St. Bede: “Although it may seem that this power of loosing and binding was given by the Lord only to Peter, we must nevertheless know without any doubt that it was given to the other apostles…Indeed even now the same office is committed to the whole Church in her bishops and priests.”[Bede the Venerable, Homilies on the Gospels: Book One: Advent to Lent, Hom. I.20, p. 202.]

St. Isidore of Seville: “So Peter first received the power of binding and loosing, and he first led people to faith by the power of his preaching. Still, the other Apostles have been made equal with Peter in a fellowship of dignity and power. They also, having been sent out into all the world, preached the Gospel. Having descended from these apostles, the bishops have succeeded them, and through all the world they have been established in the seats of the apostles”(De Ecclesiasticus, II.5, M.P.L., Vol. 83, Col. 781-782).

Origen: But if you think the whole church to be built by God upon that one Peter only, what would you say of John the son of thunder or each of the Apostles? Are we to venture to say that the gates of Hades do not prevail against Peter by a special privilege, but prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? What is said surely belongs to each and all of them, since all are ‘Peter’ and the ‘Rock,’ and the church of God has been built upon them all, and against none who are such do the gates of Hades prevail. Is it to Peter alone that the Lord gives the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this privilege, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ is common to the others, so also are all the preceding words addressed as it were to Peter (Origen on Matthew XII, 10 as cited in eyendorff J. The Primacy of Peter: essays in ecclesiology and the early church St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992, p. 61).

Saint Chrysostom “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

There is one Universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation. In which there is the same priest and sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine; the bread being changed (transsubstantiatio) by divine power into the body, and the wine into the blood, so that to realize the mystery of unity we may receive of Him what He has received of us. And this sacrament no one can effect except the priest who has been duly ordained in accordance with the keys of the Church, which Jesus Christ Himself gave to the Apostles and their successors. Canon 1, Fourth Lateran Council,

So a Catholic ‘infallible’ecumenical council declared that peter did not alone receive the keys of heaven but also the apostles and their successors.

”If, however, Jovinianus should obstinately contend that John was not a virgin, (whereas we have maintained that his virginity was the cause of the special love our Lord bore to him), let him explain, if he was not a virgin, why it was that he was loved more than the other Apostles. But you say, Matthew 16:18 the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism. ”St. Jerome, Against Jovianus, Book I: 26

”St. Bruno of Segni : Here in fact this statement is said principally to Peter, and it ought to be understood as being said to the rest of the apostles. And not only to the apostles, but truly also to the bishops and priests. In fact, the keys and powers themselves have been given by the Lord to not only will free the Church, but also to open the heavens to others.

”

if the keys are the powers of binding and loosing,did not the Lord give this privelage to all the apostles in Matthew 18:18? “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

One pope, venerated as a saint by Catholics is Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604), whom famously opposed Patriarch John of Constantinople’s desire to add the term “Ecumenical” to his title, writing to the patriarch that” Whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others.”

What about the fathers that support the papacy through cherrypicked quotes?

answering catholic misquotations of the church fathers that allegedly support the papacy:

Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Cyprian

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and b.asphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

answer:You quote St. Cyprian as saying, “”With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source.” but Cyprian never actually says this. why do you misquote Cyprian’s Epistle to Cornelius (54:9-14 actually, not 59:14). It isn’t even vaguely similar to your misquote and suggests nothing similar to your position. Your quote even uses ahistorical terminology like sacerdotal unity!

Origen

“[i]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with

Answer:

You quote Origen’s commentary on Matthew 16, but only quote a small part of it out of context and not the whole which completely rejects the pope: “… And if we too have said like Peter, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God, not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, You are Peter, etc. Matthew 16:18 For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.” (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (book XII))

Optatus “In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head – that is why he is also called Cephas – of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . .Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

Answer:Your quote of Optatus is completely off point. He was arguing against the Donatists and their setting up of a counterfeit bishopric in Rome. What he is saying is that only the See of Peter, the Bishopric of Rome, is legitimate, apostolic—in the West!

Augustine

“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

“Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies” (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).

“Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

Answer: St. Augustine is divided into early Augustine and later Augustine because St. Augustine later on wrote a book called “The Retractions” where he rejects much of what he had earlier argued, including what you quoted. The same is true for Origen, just in reverse.

Here St. Augustine retracts his former beliefs on St. Peter being the rock: “In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’…But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.” (The Retractions, Chapter 20, p. 151)

The very fact that St. Augustine finally says that it is up to the reader to decide which of the two opinions is more likely also shows definitely that it wasn’t a dogma in his time like it is today with the Roman Catholic Church.

Let me quote St. Augustine, again, by the way, “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 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. This same Peter therefore who had been by the Rock pronounced ‘blessed,’ bearing the figure of the Church.”

Saint Irenaeus

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anencletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded. . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [inter AD. 180-190]).

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops qf the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2).

Answer:You quote St. Irenaeus, who in fact isn’t making the usual Catholic claims in that quote. Even without any context to that quote it is completely in line with what the Orthodox believe. And notice he’s not making the usual Catholic claims about St. Peter being the sole foundation of the church. he’s saying St. Peter and St. Paul founded the Church of Rome.Secondely,this translation is based on a latin translation of a lost Greek text.However, it isn’t likely he used the Greek “dei” for “must” signifying a moral obligation or duty, or it would have been translated into Latin as “oportet”. Rather, “necesse est” likely translates the Greek “anagke” which signifies simply a necessity which must be gathered from the context.

In this case, Irenaeus mentions that Rome has “potior principalitas”, a “more powerful pre-eminence”.

He bases this pre-eminence of influence not only on being jointly founded by two apostles, but because the faithful must resort to Rome, and that the tradition there preserved, from the apostles, “is always preserved by those who are from all quarters”.

If we possessed the Greek text of the passage in question, there is no doubt there would not be the uncertainty resulting from the Latin word. But Eusebius and Nicephorus have preserved for us other fragments of the primitive text. Now it happens that in these fragments the good Father uses expressions which the Latin translator has rendered by the word convenire, and which have no meaning, except just this one of going—whether together or separately.

In the second book, chapter xxii., (Migne’s edition, col. 785,) St, Irenæus says: “All the priests who have gone to Asia, to John, disciple of the Lord, bear witness to it.”

Greek Text: καὶ πάντες οἱ πρεσβύτεροι μαρτυροῦσιν, οἱ κατὰ τὴν Ἀσίαν Ἰωάννῃ τῷ τοῦ κυρίου μαθητῇ συμβεβληκότες.

Latin translation: “Omnes seniores testantur qui in Asia apud Joannem discipulum Domini convenerunt.”

In the third book, 21st chapter, (Migne’s edition, col. 947,) speaking of the Septuagint interpreters of Scripture, St. Irenæus says of them, “Being assembled at Ptolemy’s house,” etc.

In Greek: “Συνελθόντων δὲ αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ παρὰ τῷ Πτολεμαίῳ.”

The Latin translator renders this “Convenientibus autem ipsis in unum apud Ptolemæum.”

The good father then has simply said that, the concourse of Believers from all countries, drawn to Rome by the necessities of their business, because that city was the first and most powerful of the Empire, contributed to preserve there the Apostolic tradition, because those Believers carried there the Faith of the Churches to which they belonged.

Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 88.1-2

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

Answer:this is another quote taken out of context.this would seem to indicate that Chrysostom taught that Peter was the supreme ruler of the Church. However in the passage cited above Chrysostom speaks of the apostle John as also receiving the charge of the whole world and the keys equally with Peter: 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 (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 88.1-2, pp. 331-332).The Greek word used here is prostases,and Saint Chrysostom uses this word for other apostles in Catechetical Lectures 6.15

For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1, p. 1).

He goes on to speak of Paul as being on an equal footing with Peter: 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) (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XI, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans, Homily 32, Ver. 24, pp. 561-562).

Further, Chrysostom speaks of James, and not Peter, as possessing the chief rule and authority in Jerusalem and over the Jerusalem Council:

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 (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XI, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily 33, pp. 205, 207)

For He that wrought for Peter unto the Apostleship of the Circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles.’ He calls the Gentiles the Uncircumcised and the Jews the Circumcision, and declares his own rank to be equal to that of the Apostles; and, by comparing himself with their Leader not with others, he shows that the dignity of each was the same. After he had established the proof of their unanimity, he takes courage, and proceeds confidently in his argument, not stopping at the Apostles, but advances to Christ Himself, and to the grace which He had conferred upon him…(Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIII, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Epistle to the Galatians, Chapter II, ver. 8, p. 17).

He clearly states here that Peter and Paul are equal in status.

In another writing Chrysostom says this about all of the apostles: The Apostles were designated rulers, rulers who received not nations and particular cities, but all being entrusted with the world in common (Inscriptionem Actorum II. PG 51, 93).

He took the coryphaei (plural meaning heads or rulers) 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.Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily 56.2

The coryphaei, Peter the foundation of the Church, Paul the vessel of election Contra ludos et theatra 1, PG VI, 265

Hesychius of Jerusalem uses the term Coryphæus(Head,ruler) to refer to James.Denny, E., (1912)Papalism: A Treatise on the Claims on the Papacy as set forth in the Encyclical Satis cognitum, (Rivingtons; London), p85

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.Homily LXXXVI On the Gospel of John John xx. 10, 11 also,chrysostom refers to the bishop of antioch as peter’s successor

In referring to Flavian, bishop of Antioch, Chrysostom says

In referring to Flavian, bishop of Antioch, Chrysostom says: In speaking of S. Peter, the recollection of another Peter has come to me, the common father and teacher, who has inherited his prowess, and also obtained his chair. For this is the one great privilege of our city, Antioch, that it received the leader of the apostles as its teacher in the beginning. For it was right that she who was first adorned with the name of Christians, before the whole world, should receive the first of the apostles as her pastor. But though we received him as teacher, we did not retain him to the end, but gave him up to royal Rome. Or rather we did retain him to the end, for though we do not retain the body of Peter, we do retain the faith of Peter, and retaining the faith of Peter we have Peter (On the Inscription of the Acts, II. Cited by E. Giles, Documents Illustrating Papal Authority (London: SPCK, 1952), p. 168. Cf. Chapman, Studies on the Early Papacy, p. 96).

And in speaking of Ignatius of Antioch, Chrysostom refers to him as: a successor of Peter, on whom, after Peter, the government of the church devolved (In S. Ignat. Martyr., n. 4. Cited by Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1910), Volume III, p. 309).

so is Ignatius Aphrem II the bishop of bishops instead of pope Francis?

Saint Cyril of Alexandria said Peter and John were both apostles and saints adorned with equal honours and powers”. In commenting on Mt 16:18 he teaches that the word “rock has only a denominative value – it signifies NOTHING but the steadfast and firm faith of the apostles” ~Of the Trinity, Book 4.” (17)

St. Theodore the Studite: “John was…equal with Peter” [see Oratio IX, Laudation in S. Joannem apostolum et evangelium, P.G. 99, 772A-788D], or rather the Apostle John was “the greatest of all the Apostles” [St. Theodore, Ep. II.41]

Peter then was only the first among the apostles as Stephen was the first among deacons.” [Augustine, Sermon 316; cf. also St. Cyprian, 71st letter, to Quint.]

St. Bede the Venerable: “‘Thou art Peter [Petrus –Rocky], and upon this Rock [Petra] from which thou didst receive thy name, that is, upon Me Myself, I will build the Church, and if anyone turns aside from the society of this confession, even though it may seem to him that he does great things, he will not belong to the building which is the Church.”[“Homily 1.16, After Epiphany, “Homilies on the Gospels Book I, 163]

St. John Chrysostom: “‘And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’; that is, on the faith of his confession”[St. John, Homily 53 on St. Matthew].

St. John Chrysostom: “He speaks from this time lowly things, on His way to His passion, that He might show His humanity. For He that hath built His Church upon Peter’s confession, and has so fortified it, that ten thousand dangers and deaths are not to prevail over it…”[St. John Chrysostom, Homily 82.3 on St. Matthew]

Saint Cyprian :to all the apostles after His resurrection He gives equal power (parem potestatem) and says “As the Father hath sent me, even so I send you: ” ~Cyprian, De Unitate 4.

For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose… when Paul disputed with him afterwards about the circumcision, claim anything to himself unsolently, nor arrogantly assume anything, so as to say that he held a primacy, and that he ought to be obeyed by novices and those lately come. Cyprian, Epistle LXX concerning the baptism of heretics.

In the administration of the Church each bishop has the free discretion of his own will, having to account only to the Lord for his actions. None of us may set himself up as bishop of bishops., nor compel his brothers to obey him; every bishop of the Church has full liberty and complete power; as he cannot be judged by another, neither can he judge another (Cyprian’s opening address to the Council of Carthage. …

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 by these same rulers. 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. ~Cyprian to the Lapsed, Epistle XXVI.

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. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. 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. (Gregory the Great, Book VII, Epistle XL)

St. Jerome represents St. Paul as saying: “I am in nothing inferior to Peter; for we were ordained by the same God for the same ministry.” [St. Jerome, Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, cited Abbe Guettee, The Papacy; clearly, if inferior in nothing (in nullo), then equal in every thing.]

“He, then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard, ‘But who do you say I am,’ immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank….”

(The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1963), Saint Ambrose, Theological and Dogmatic Works, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord IV.32-V.34, pp. 230-2

his, then, is Peter, who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men. And so he is called the foundation, because he knows how to preserve not only his own but the common foundation…Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter’s flesh, but of his faith, that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ But his confession of faith conquered hell. And this confession did not shut out one heresy, for, since the Church like a good ship is often buffeted by many waves, the foundation of the Church should prevail against all heresies…”-Saint Ambrose

Theological and Dogmatic Works (The Fathers of the Church, Volume 44)page 231

Answering Chalcedon and the Eastern orthodox

among the orthodox there are two communions.the Orthodox Oriental Maphysites(Egyptian church,Syrian church of antioch,Ethiopian church,Armenian church,Malankara indian church,Eritrean Church)and the Chalcedonian Byzantine Eastern orthodox.the two split in 451 due to the council of Chalcedon.the Oriental church saw this council as nestorian and contrary to previous councils.Here I outline why chalcedon should not be accepted .I consider the eastern orthodox to be fully orthodox and correct in doctrine today,only because they corrected and revised their errors at chalcedon at Constantinople II.Unfortunately they also still cursed our Saints in this council who were martyred for rejecting the Blasphemous council of Chalcedon.for a hndred years the eastern orthodox lost their mark of Truth for some time.the Church is one,holy,apostolic and true.it is for this reason I believe the Oriental orthodox have the fullness of the church above the eastern orthodox even if due to revising their former opinions the eastern orthodox are doctrinally correct Today.

The orthodox Reject the Council of Chalcedon.the Council of Chalcedon was a Council held in the year 451 a the city of chalcedon.Years earlier in 431 there was an ecumenical council wich the chalcedonians accept called Ephesus I.at Ephesus I the Blasphemy of Nestorian Christology was officially condemned by Saint Cyril of Alexandria head of the council.the whole Christian Church accepted the council as guided by the Holy Spirit.However certain prominent nestorians were still promoting their theology.one man,pope leo was actually a supporter of Nestorius and ignorant of Saint Cyril’s writings.it is this man that called the council. According to the Nestorians, Christ essentially exists as two persons sharing one body. His divine and human natures are completely distinct and separate. This idea is not scriptural, however, and goes against the orthodox Christian doctrine of the hypostatic union, which states that Christ is fully God and fully man in one indivisible Person. God the Son, Jesus Christ, took on a human nature yet remained fully God at the same time. Jesus always had been God (John 8:58; 10:30), but at the Incarnation Jesus also became a human being (John 1:14).Furthermore if only the Human nature died on the cross as nestorianism claims,the salvation becomes invalid.No’ man’ can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for them–Psalm 49:7 only God could do so,so God must have died on the cross.

Thus Nestorianism was condemned because it contradicts the salvific work of Christ on the Cross.

Nestorianism was not completely stamped out however,three prominent men,theodore of cyrrhus,Theodore of Mopsuestia,and Ibas of Edessa still held to Nestorianism and defended Nestorius.

at the Council of Chalcedon the blasphemy of Ibas was accepted by the council .

He had been deposed at the council of Ephesus in 449 AD for his Nestorianism but was then restored at Chalcedon in 451 AD.

One of the six anathemas of Saint Dioscorus refer to this bishop by name. It is in fact the fourth anathema which says,

Chalcedon is anathematised because it has accepted the communion of the partisans of Nestorius, such as Ibas.

Ibas had said,

“I do not envy Christ becoming God, for in so far as he has become God I have become so, for he is of the same nature as myself.”

This shows that he maintained the views held by Theodore of Mopsuestia, that Christ was a human subject, apart from the divine Word, who became God in some sense. Ibas said:In the beginning was the Word, but Matthew the Evangelist has said – The Book of the Generations of Jesus Christ, the Son of Abraham, the Son of David – is not the former one thing and the latter quite another?”

and he had said in the Church during a homily that the Jews had only crucified a mere man.

One witness, John, a vowed person, testifies most clearly to the essentially Theodorean foundation of Ibas’ teaching in this period just before the Second Council of Ephesus and that of Chalcedon, when he reports,

“I heard Ibas, when expounding in Church, say:- ‘It was one person who died, and another who was in heaven, and that was one person who was without beginning, and that was another perdon who is subject to a beginning; and he was one person who is of the Father, and he was another who is of the Virgin.”

at the council of Chalcedon Bishop Paschasinus and Bishop Lucentius, with Boniface, speak first on behalf of Pope Leo of Rome.
They speak with his authority and say,

“from the reading of his letter we have found him to be Orthodox.”

This is an important judgement. The representative of the Roman Pope, giving a judgement on behalf of Leo, and concerning which Leo never shows any objection, say that they have read Ibas’ letter to Maris the Persian and after having read it they conclude that he is Orthodox.

in the Acts of the council ,Anatolius, archbishop of Constantinople, speaks next and says,

“the reading of all the accompanying material prove the most devout Ibas innocent of the accusations brought against him.”

Then Maximus of Antioch speaks, and he also states clearly that he has heard what has been read, including his letter to Maris, and,

“from what has just been read it has become clear that the most devout Ibas is guiltless of everything charged against him; and from the reading of the transcript of the letter produced by his adversary his writing has been seen to be Orthodox.”

in the Acts of the council At the Council of Chalcedon the Patriarch Maximus of Antioch and the Roman legates declared: “Having read hisletter again, we declare that he is orthodoxCatholic Encyclopaedia, Vol VII, Ibas.

1910

In this letter which was declared Orthodox at Chalcedon he says..

“Cyril has been found to fall into the error of Apollinarius..”

“He has written 12 chapters… how impious such statements are your piety will be already persuaded”

”If any one assigns the expressions of the Gospels and Apostolic letters, which refer to the two natures of Christ, to one only of those natures, and even ascribes suffering to the divine Word, both in the flesh and in the Godhead; let him be anathema.”

“[At Ephesus] they adopted, confirmed and assented to the 12 Chapters written by Cyril as if they were consonant with, while they are in reality adverse to, the True Faith”

“those who had departed to the Lord, amongst whom is the Blessed Theodore (of Mopsuestia), that preacher of the Truth, that Doctor of the Church”.

“[Cyril] has become abashed, apologising for his folly, and teaching the very opposite to their former doctrine. For no man ventures now to affirm that there is one nature of the Divinity and humanity, but men avow the Temple and Him who dwells in it to be the One Son Jesus Christ”

All of these false and heretical (later described as blasphemous by the Chalcedonians) statements were read out in the letter of Ibas which was then declared Orthodox.

Yet at the 5th Council of the Chalcedonians when the letter was read the Fathers there responded by saying:

In the third place the letter which is said to have been written by Ibas to Maris the Persian, was brought forward for examination, and we found that it, too, should be read. When it was read immediately its impiety was manifest to all. And it was right to make the condemnation and anathematism of theafore said Three Chapters, as even to this time there had been some question on the subject. But because the defenders of these impious ones, Theodore and Nestorius, were scheming in someway or other to confirm these persons and their impiety, andwere saving that this impious letter, which praised and defended Theodore and Nestorius and their impiety, had beenreceived by the holy Council of Chalcedon we thought itnecessary to shew that the holy synod was free of the impietywhich was contained in that letter, that it might be clear thatthey who say such things do not do so with the favour of thisholy council, but that through its name they may confirm theirown impiety.

The chalcedonian council states that the impiety of the letter was immediately apparent, yet Chalcedon determined that it was orthodox. Indeed the 5

the council attempts to show that Chalcedon had not received the letter of Ibas.But even the Catholic Encyclopaedia repeats the passage from the Acts, that the letter was received as orthodox.Now if the 5th

council found the letter heretical how much more must the anti-Chalcedonians have found it impossible to accept Chalcedon when it approved Ibas. As described previously most of the Western Church and North African Church received Ibas, Theodore and Theodoret as entirely Orthodox, and as having been approved by Chalcedon.The West anf North Africa were in Schism and refused to accept the 5th council until the year 700 because they rightfully knew that the 5th council repudiated chalcedon.

so the Chalcedonians accept 3 different and contradictorary councils affirming the faith of Saint Cyril,negating it,and affirming it 100 years later.yet to the Chalcedonians they demand the orthodox consider these last 2 contradictorary councils as guided by the Spirit and infallible.

Oh Reader can you not see the folly in the Chalcedonian position?At the Council of Chalcedon (451), the Fathers accepted the epistle of Ibas of Edessa that praised Theodore as a “herald of truth and doctor of the Church” (Act Conc Oec 2.1:392)Yet later on they call his Works impious at the council of Constantinople II.

Chalcedon accepted these writings, and Constantinople rejected them.Wich one was Guided by the Holy Spirit?

______________________________________

Chalcedonian Bigotry towards the Orthodox

if you ask most Chalcedonians,the Miaphysite orthodox are monophysites.monophysites Believe in one nature,the divine nature of Christ wich was swallowed up his human nature like vinegar in the ocean.this doctrine was formulated by eutyches a monk in constantinople.Eutyches had repented from his blasphemy and saint dioscorus accepted him back based on his false repentance.However St.timothy aeleurus condemned him and monophysitism in a council right after the death and exile of sant dioscorus by the Byzantines.This was called the Third Council of Ephesus. it is clear from Saint Dioscorus’s Writings that he never was a monophysite.As a matter of fact, it was Saint Dioscorus at the Council of Chalcedon who explained his theology. He clearly says, “We do not commingle, nor change the natures, nor absorb one nature into the other, but we proclaim one nature without mingling, without confusion, without alteration. ANATHEMA to those who mingle, confuse, or change.”this is Clearly proof we have never been monophysites.

Miaphysites believe in one nature in a compound sence.like a man and woman being one flesh.or a number of persons being one nation.St. Cyril defended and adored this term: Mia Physis to Theo Logo Sesarkomene ,which has the obvious meaning, “one nature of the Word of God Incarnate.” We simply love to take St. Cyril’s term “Mia Physis” and defend it. He defended it saying clearly “without change” and “without seperation.” A full human with soul, spirit, and body, and full divinity consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit.it is a united nature .Christ is of Two natures.not in Two natures as the council of chalcedon proclaimed.

Of vs. In
two letters have caused the most tragic breach in all of Christendom. In the Aramaic language, the difference is in one letter, Dolath vs. Beth–the difference between the two is a small line on the bottom and dot in the center. These prepositions while short and subtle, contain within their meanings the difference between truth and fiction. In as far as these refer to the language of Chalcedon, the Oriental Miaphysite Orthodox follow the traditional terminology using the preposition “of,” whereas the Byzantines use the preposition “in.”

The question then comes in how these terms are used in regards to Christology. In the Nicene-Contantinopolian Creed, we see that “Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary,” thus the foundation is made clear. In terms of Christology the Oriental understanding is that Christ is “One Nature–the Logos Incarnate,” of the full humanity and full divinity. The Byzantine understanding is that Christ is in two natures, full humanity and full divinity.

Just as all of us are of our mother and father and not in our mother and father, so too is the nature of Christ. If Christ is in full humanity and in full divinity, then He is separate in two persons as the Nestorians teach. Imagine your nature in your mother and your father; you are then two different people. If however your nature is of your mother and your father, then you are one person.

This is the linguistic difference which separated the Orientals from the Byzantines.

______________________________________________________________________

Prophecies wich warn of Chalcedon

The Plerophories are a collection of visions, prophecies and dreams which were gathered together by the anti-Chalcedonian communion. As the introduction to the text tells us..

That is to say: testimonies and revelations that God made to the saints, on the subject of the heresy of the two natures and of the prevarication which took place at Chalcedon; They were made by one of the disciples of Peter the Iberian, whose name was the priest John of Beit-Rufin, of Antioch, bishop of Maiouma in Gaza

I. Our father and bishop, the venerable Abba Peter the Iberian, related to us that when he was still at Constantinople, before he renounced the world, when Nestorius was still living and was bishop: As he ended the commemoration of the holy Forty Martyrs in the Church called after Mary, he got up to explain the Scripture before all the people in my presence. He had a clear and feminine voice. He started to blaspheme and to say before me in the middle of his speech: “You will not be glorified, Mary, as if you had given birth to God; for, O excellent one, you have not given birth to God, but to the man, the instrument of God”. As soon as he had said this, he was possessed by a demon, even in the pulpit, so that, together with his face, his right hand was turned upside down; as he twisted and was about to fall some servants and deacons caught him quickly, and carried him and laid him in the sacristy. And since that time the greater part of the inhabitants of the city separated from his communion, and especially the people of the palace, and me also, before all the others, although he loved me much.

II. The father spoke to us on the subject of blessed Pelagius of Edessa, who had kept a perfect life. He was a monk and a prophet; and when he had heard the blasphemies of Ibas, Bishop of Edessa, and that he had repeated them openly, he had much to suffer from his part. Finding himself persecuted, he went into a certain locality of Palestine and stayed there in peace during the time of Juvenal, before the council of Chalcedon, and the corruption of the faith. In this manner grace dwelt in him; He was full of the spirit of prophecy and he deserved to have frequent visions. He went very often to visit Abba Peter who was then living in peace in the Laura of Maiuma of Gaza. These saints had, indeed, a great affection the one for the other. In one of their meetings, as Pelagius walked with our father in the sandy parts of the laura, and while he was having a discussion with him concerning the thoughts and perfections which are in God, he said, seven years before the council, that he had been caught up in ecstasy, and he had seen the corruption which was to take place at Chalcedon on the part of the bishops. He even named the impious emperor Marcian, at the time, and by whose power this corruption would occur, as well as the later events, and he said, “These times will come upon us, me and you also, Abba, and when we are persecuted with all the saints who will not consent to acquiesce to this corruption of the faith, we will die during this persecution”. And finally, this also came to pass.

III. It was of the same Abba Pelagius who was a prophet, that our father told us, when he went with some of the other saints to find this old man. He had yet another vision before the council of Chalcedon, and he began to say while in tears: “Misfortune unto Pulcheria! Misfortune to Pulcheria! Misfortune to Pulcheria”. And when we asked him was great insistence to reveal to us the significance of his words, he said: “Pulcheria, who promised her virginity to God, who drove out Nestorius and who is represented by all the saints in all the countries as holy and a virgin, she who was considered as the head of Orthodoxy, she is on the point of becoming an apostate to her faith and to her virginity, and of maltreating the saints”. This is also what happened. She broke her vows of purity, which she had made to Christ, she married Marcian, and she became the heiress of his empire, of his impiety and of the sorrows which are reserved for him.

IV. The same priest Pelagius, as Pamphilius recounts, deacon of the Church of Jerusalem and his friend, who entered with him once into the holy place of Golgotha, to pray there, while it was still night, – it was indeed his usual practice – as he prayed upright, he had a vision, and, under the weight of sadness and tears, he began to say: “Juvenal! Juvenal! Juvenal!”. When the vision came to an end, the deacon Pamphilius threw himself to his knees and demanded of him what was the object of this vision, and why had he not ceased to cry out: Juvenal! Pelagius responded: “This Juvenal, you will see him, if you still live, carried in triumph by the Romans and the demons, as you see now, this Juvenal, carried in triumph by monks and the clergy”.

V. This Pelagius, seeing in spirit that which would happen, said to our holy father and to the blessed John the Eunuch: “Contemplate the Divine Scriptures, my sons, and when Christ entrusts His churches to you, pray for me”. In this way he predicted the laying on of hands to those who were to receive it; also, the blessed Peter was in astonishment, and he by no means found the words pleasant which had just been said, because he had until then fled from the imposition of hands. Full of anger he spoke to the old man saying: “You do not know what you say, old man”. But Pelagius, preserving his serenity, answered: “I know what I say, and that which is a cause of distress, distresses me also”.

VI. This Pelagius, at the time of the corruption of the faith, constantly offered this prayer: “Lord my God, preserve me until the end from the transgression of the Orthodox faith and from joining the communion of those who oppressed the faith at Chalcedon. Receive my spirit where you will and as you will, even at the hostelry or the inn. Keep me only from becoming a renegade. And this also happened to him in reality, at Ascalon, at the home of a certain Cyril, an orthodox hosteler, who had been driven from Maiuma for the cause of Orthodoxy, and who had retired to Ascalon and ran a hotel. As the blessed Pelagius was hiding with him, he died one night, as he had asked and predicted. When some of the zealous brothers of Maiuma learned of his death, they came at night, carrying his body and buried it in the Laura, at the monastery of the friend of the Messiah, Haroun, the corn merchant.

The same night of the death of Pelagius – as the Orthodox bishops were then persecuted, Bishop Abba Peter had left – he was in Oxyryncos in the Thebaid and, at a distance, he saw in a dream, the blessed Pelagius joyfully approaching him with a smiling face, greeting him and saying, “Father, pray for me and recommend me to God, because I am going to the Lord”. Our father noted in writing the day he had this vision and found later that it was the hour when the great confessor Pelagius had died.

The mother of this man, fasting for a week, conceived him, brought him forth into the world and raised him in holiness. He became a man and reached middle age. When one of the most honourable men of the cirt died, seeing him placed in the ground, he was overwhelmed with sadness and, immediately after the funeral he fled to the monastery because he understood the vanity of this world, and so became a chosen vessel.

Abba Paul, who was a sophist, recounted to us that he had lived with Abba Andrew, an old prophet, who was hard-working and sincere, and who, before the Council of Chalcedon, was one of the great saints of Egypt.

This Abba Andrew, in a vision, saw an immense crowd of bishops who stirred a very fiery furnace into which they threw a beautiful child resplendent like gold, and they closed in on all sides so that one could not see any smoke from the furnace and even the air could not enter into it; and, at the end of three days, he saw the child leaving healthy and safe from the furnace, and he recognized that it was the Lord.

As he had the habit of speaking to him, he said: “Who are these who have done this to you and who have thrown you into the furnace?” He said to him: “The bishops crucified me again and they decided to strip me of my glory.” And He was right: because the Nestorians are sick with the disease of the Jews, when they say that He who was crucified was a man purely and simply, and not God incarnate.

When the old man looked again, he saw in the distance an old man who held himself upright, and who did not approve the other bishops or associate with them, neither when they stirred the furnace, nor when they shut up the child and mocked him. The old man called to the child: “Who is this old man?” And He answered him: “It is Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria who alone did not take part in their intentions”. The old man, taking confidence, ventured to say to the Lord: “Lord, why is it that all the bishops of Alexandria fight until death for the truth?”

And He said: “Since Simon Cyrene carried my cross – and Cyrene is in a part of Egypt – since then I foresaw and predicted that Egypt, to which belongs the town of Cyrene located in Libya, would carry my cross until the end, would remain faithful to me and would mark their zeal for me until death”.

none of the fathers indicate papal supremacy.rather all of them indicate equality of the successors of the Apostles the bishops.

lets take Saint Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, who considered peter the rock(but saw every bishop as owning the chair of peter) he says:

Saint John Chrysostom

So a Catholic ‘infallible’ecumenical council declared that peter did not alone receive the keys of heaven but also the apostles and their successors.

”

What about the fathers that support the papacy through cherrypicked quotes?

answering catholic misquotations of the church fathers that allegedly support the papacy:

Cyprian of Carthage

Cyprian

Origen

Answer:

Augustine

“Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

Saint Irenaeus

In this case, Irenaeus mentions that Rome has “potior principalitas”, a “more powerful pre-eminence”.

In the second book, chapter xxii., (Migne’s edition, col. 785,) St, Irenæus says: “All the priests who have gone to Asia, to John, disciple of the Lord, bear witness to it.”

Latin translation: “Omnes seniores testantur qui in Asia apud Joannem discipulum Domini convenerunt.”

In the third book, 21st chapter, (Migne’s edition, col. 947,) speaking of the Septuagint interpreters of Scripture, St. Irenæus says of them, “Being assembled at Ptolemy’s house,” etc.

In Greek: “Συνελθόντων δὲ αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ παρὰ τῷ Πτολεμαίῳ.”

The Latin translator renders this “Convenientibus autem ipsis in unum apud Ptolemæum.”

Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 88.1-2

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

Further, Chrysostom speaks of James, and not Peter, as possessing the chief rule and authority in Jerusalem and over the Jerusalem Council:

He clearly states here that Peter and Paul are equal in status.

The coryphaei, Peter the foundation of the Church, Paul the vessel of election Contra ludos et theatra 1, PG VI, 265

In referring to Flavian, bishop of Antioch, Chrysostom says

so is Ignatius Aphrem II the bishop of bishops instead of pope Francis?

Peter then was only the first among the apostles as Stephen was the first among deacons.” [Augustine, Sermon 316; cf. also St. Cyprian, 71st letter, to Quint.]

St. John Chrysostom: “‘And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’; that is, on the faith of his confession”[St. John, Homily 53 on St. Matthew].

Saint Cyprian :to all the apostles after His resurrection He gives equal power (parem potestatem) and says “As the Father hath sent me, even so I send you: ” ~Cyprian, De Unitate 4.

the biblical case for the Trinity

the deity of jesus Christ:Titus 2:13

while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ

2 Peter 1:1

…those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours.

¹⁷When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. ¹⁸I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades. Revelation 1

this is a direct claim by Jesus to be God.as God says in Isaiah

6 Thus saith the LORD, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer the LORD of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last, and beside Me there is no God.

Diety and personhood of the Holy spirit

some jehovah’s witnesses claim the nHoly spirit is not a person,but a force of God.this is not the case in scripture for he says:1 Corinthians 12:11: “All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.” 1 Corinthians 2:10-11 also ascribes knowledge to the Holy Spirit wich an impersonal force like electricity doesn’t have.

7Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says,
“TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE,

8DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS AS WHEN THEY PROVOKED ME,
AS IN THE DAY OF TRIAL IN THE WILDERNESS,

9WHERE YOUR FATHERS TRIED Me BY TESTING Me,
AND SAW MY WORKS FOR FORTY YEARS.

10“THEREFORE I WAS ANGRY WITH THIS GENERATION,
AND SAID, ‘THEY ALWAYS GO ASTRAY IN THEIR HEART,
AND THEY DID NOT KNOW MY WAYS’;

11AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH,
‘THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST.’”Hebrews 3

Here the Holy Spirit,directely Claims to be the one that was tested,tried by the israelites and did the works in the desert for forty years wich is none other than God!

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,Matthew 28:19

answering protestants

the main failures wich show protestantism to be a schismatic and false church are too numerous to list in a pamphlet,however we will briefly make the case for something that distinguishes orthodoxy from protestantism wich is the apostolicity of the church,meaning that the church had a structure of bishops,priests and deacons being descended from the apostles themselves though ordination by laying of hands.

Acts 6:3-6

Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.

Acts 13:2-3

While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said,“Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

1 Timothy 3:1-7

Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseerdesires a noble task. ²Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, ³not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. ⁴He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full^[a] respect. ⁵(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) ⁶He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. ⁷He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.

1 Timothy 4:14 Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through prophecy when the body of elders laid their hands on you.

1 Timothy 5

¹⁷The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.¹⁸For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,”^[a] and “The worker deserves his wages.”^[b] ¹⁹Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. ²⁰But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning. ²¹I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism.

Titus 1:5–1:5

⁵I left you behind in Crete for this reason, so that you should put in order what remained to be done, and should appoint elders in every town, as I directed you

the church thus is apostolic,it has bishops,priests and deacons as successors of the apostles.early christian writings say the same

Ignatius of Antioch was a apostolic father,he knew the apostles personally,this si what he wrote:

“Now, therefore, it has been my privilege to see you in the person of your God-inspired bishop, Damas; and in the persons of your worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius; and my fellow-servant, the deacon, Zotion. What a delight is his company! For he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ” (Letter to the Magnesians 2 [A.D. 110]).

“Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest” (6:1).

“Take care, therefore, to be confirmed in the decrees of the Lord and of the apostles, in order that in everything you do, you may prosper in body and in soul, in faith and in love, in Son and in Father and in Spirit, in beginning and in end, together with your most reverend bishop; and with that fittingly woven spiritual crown, the presbytery; and with the deacons, men of God. Be subject to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was subject to the Father, and the apostles were subject to Christ and to the Father; so that there may be unity in both body and spirit” ( 13:1–2).

“Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in his death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore—and such is your practice that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live in him. It is necessary also that the deacons, the dispensers of the mysteries [sacraments] of Jesus Christ, be in every way pleasing to all men. For they are not the deacons of food and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They must therefore guard against blame as against fire” (Letter to the Trallians 2:1–3 [A.D. 110]).

“In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him” (ibid., 3:1–2).

“He that is within the sanctuary is pure; but he that is outside the sanctuary is not pure. In other words, anyone who acts without the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons does not have a clear conscience” ( 7:2).

“I cried out while I was in your midst, I spoke with a loud voice, the voice of God: ‘Give heed to the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons.’ Some suspect me of saying this because I had previous knowledge of the division certain persons had caused; but he for whom I am in chains is my witness that I had no knowledge of this from any man. It was the Spirit who kept preaching these words, ‘Do nothing without the bishop, keep your body as the temple of God, love unity, flee from divisions, be imitators of Jesus Christ, as he was imitator of the Father’” (Letter to the Philadelphians 7:1–2 [A.D. 110]).

protestant objection to praying to saints and angels

protestants generally do not pray to saints or angels,they say that this is idolatry.but any reading of the bible disproves such a idea.

Hosea 12:4 Yea, he(Jacob) had power over the angel, and prevailed: he wept, and made supplication unto him: he found him in Bethel, and there he spake with us

But you have approached Mount Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and myriads of angels, and the assembly and church of the firstborn who have been enrolled in heaven, and God the judge of all, and spirits of righteous ones who have been made perfect, and Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and the sprinkled blood which speaks better than that of Abel” (Heb.rews 12:22-24)

Praise the LORD, you his angels, you mighty ones who do his bidding, who obey his word. Psalm 103:20

Hebrews 1:14 Are not the angels ministering spirits, sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?

Psalm 148:2 Praise Him, all His angels; Praise Him, all His hosts!

Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, “These who are clothed in the white robes, who are they, and where have they come from?” 14 I said to him, “My lord, you know.” And he said to me, “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. 15 “For this reason, they are before the throne of God; and they serve Him day and night in His temple; and He who sits on the throne will spread His tabernacle over them.” (Revelation 7)

Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us” (Hebrews 12:1)

The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.”–James 5:16

Another protestant objection to catholic practice is the veneration of relics.but venerating relics are biblical and not idolatry!

Once while some Israelites were burying a man, suddenly they saw a band of raiders; so they threw the man’s body into Elisha’s tomb. When the body touched Elisha’s bones, the man came to life and stood up on his feet. 2 Kings 13:21

so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them.Acts 19:12

As a result, people brought the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and mats so that at least Peter’s shadow might fall on some of them as he passed by. Acts 5:15

Refuting the protestant doctrine of faith alone and once saved always saved

the key cornerstone of protestantism is faith alone saves.we agre that faith saves,but mere faith is not enough to warrant heaven.sin breaks our connection with God.the bible is full of warnings to Believers that they too can lose salvation if they commit certain sins.

James 2:24- “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only 14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? Matthew 10:22- “And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

1 Corinthians 9:24-27- “Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway Paul is talking to Justified believers(See Galatians 3:26 and 27)

Galatians 5:19-21- “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”

1 Corinthians 6:9-11- “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”

Ephesians 5:5-8- “For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them. For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light.”

2 Peter 2:20-22- “For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.”

1 Corinthians 6:11- “And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”

1 Corinthians 13:1-2- “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing

Acts 8:18-21- “… when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.

Philippians 2:12- “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

Romans 2:2-3- “… the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Romans 2:8-10- “But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.

Romans 8:12-13- “Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

Romans 11:20-22- “Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off

1 Corinthians 11:28-29- “But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

1 Timothy 4:16- “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.” J

ames 1:12- “Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him

James 1:13-15- “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

the case for faith alone is found by isolating the following verses,yet immediately after these verses there is condemnation for sin John 3:16– “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”John 3:17-20- “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already… And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.”

John 5:24- “He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.”

John 5:28-29- “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.”

Romans 3:28- “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” (New American Standard Version) “For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from observing the law.” (Romans 3:28 – NIV Version) “Works of the law” means works of the Old Law of the Israelites. It does not mean all works and human actions. Paul was writing to people who were stuck on the notion that the system of the Old Law, with circumcision, the laws about clean and unclean foods, ritual sacrifices, etc. is indispensable.

This is seen from a few Verses:

Galatians 2:12-16- “… fearing them which were of the circumcision… If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”

Galatians 5:3-6- “For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.”

Galatians 6:13- “For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.” Romans 3:1- “What advantage then hath the Jew? Or what profit is there of circumcision?”

Philippians 3:5-9- “[I] Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith

James 2:21-24- “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar [Genesis 22:10]? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”

To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ–their Lord and ours then after he says Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God

Obediance wich leads to justification (Romans 6 :16) the doers of the law will be justified(romans 2:13 )

we cannot earn our salvation through works,it is by Grace alone not faith alone.but the bible is clear justified believers can lose their salvation.

the continuity of church orthodoxy throughout the ages

the premise of protestantism is that the Church went astray and that martin luther reinvented christianity,but this notion that the church went astray is not true biblically for christ said Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means ‘rock’), and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it Matthew 16:18

and teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.MATTHEW 28:20

the protestant church is only 500 Years old,the orthodox have been here for 2000 years.

the Fathers positively affirming equality of bishops

none of the fathers indicate papal supremacy.rather all of them indicate equality of the successors of the Apostles the bishops.

lets take Saint Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, who considered peter the rock(but saw every bishop as owning the chair of peter) he says:

Saint John Chrysostom

So a Catholic ‘infallible’ecumenical council declared that peter did not alone receive the keys of heaven but also the apostles and their successors.

”

Answering Catholicism

answering catholic misquotations of the church fathers that allegedly support the papacy:

Cyprian of Carthage

Cyprian

Saint Cyprian denied the pope’s authority at the seventh council of carthage:”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.” That you are just a fool who doesn’t understand anything is also understandable along by the very fact that you quote St. Cyprian twice and separately as if there were two separate Cyprians, not knowing that it’s the same person.

Origen

Answer:

Optatus
“In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head – that is why he is also called Cephas – of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . .Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

Augustine

“Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

Saint Irenaeus

Answer:You quote St. Irenaeus, who in fact isn’t making the usual Papist claims in that quote. Even without any context to that quote it is completely in line with what the Orthodox believe. And notice he’s not making the usual Papist claims about St. Peter being the sole foundation of the church. he’s saying St. Peter and St. Paul founded the Church of Rome.Secondely,this translation is based on a latin translation of a lost Greek text.However, it isn’t likely he used the Greek “dei” for “must” signifying a moral obligation or duty, or it would have been translated into Latin as “oportet”. Rather, “necesse est” likely translates the Greek “anagke” which signifies simply a necessity which must be gathered from the context.

In this case, Irenaeus mentions that Rome has “potior principalitas”, a “more powerful pre-eminence”.

In the second book, chapter xxii., (Migne’s edition, col. 785,) St, Irenæus says: “All the priests who have gone to Asia, to John, disciple of the Lord, bear witness to it.”

Latin translation: “Omnes seniores testantur qui in Asia apud Joannem discipulum Domini convenerunt.”

In the third book, 21st chapter, (Migne’s edition, col. 947,) speaking of the Septuagint interpreters of Scripture, St. Irenæus says of them, “Being assembled at Ptolemy’s house,” etc.

In Greek: “Συνελθόντων δὲ αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ παρὰ τῷ Πτολεμαίῳ.”

The Latin translator renders this “Convenientibus autem ipsis in unum apud Ptolemæum.”

Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 88.1-2

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

Answer:this is another quote taken out of context.this would seem to indicate that Chrysostom taught that Peter was the supreme ruler of the Church. However in the passage cited above Chrysostom speaks of the apostle John as also receiving the charge of the whole world and the keys equally with Peter: 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 (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 88.1-2, pp. 331-332).The Greek word used here is prostases,and Saint Chrysostom uses this word for other apostles in Catechetical Lectures 6.15

Further, Chrysostom speaks of James, and not Peter, as possessing the chief rule and authority in Jerusalem and over the Jerusalem Council:

He clearly states here that Peter and Paul are equal in status.

He took the coryphaei (plural meaning heads or rulers) 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.Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily 56.2

The coryphaei, Peter the foundation of the Church, Paul the vessel of election Contra ludos et theatra 1, PG VI, 265

Hesychius of Jerusalem uses the term Coryphæus(Head,ruler) to refer to James.Denny, E., (1912)Papalism: A Treatise on the Claims on the Papacy as set forth in the Encyclical Satis cognitum, (Rivingtons; London), p85

also,chrysostom refers to the bishop of antioch as peter’s successor

In referring to Flavian, bishop of Antioch, Chrysostom says

as we have seen the fathers wich seemed to support the papacy do not support it at all!

the curse of Jeconiah

being aware of many prophecies wich at face value seem to allude to jesus christ as nazareth as being the foretold messiah,many jews say that the curse of jeconiah invalidates jesus christ as messiah.lets see this claim:

Jeremiah (22:28–30) cursed Jeconiah that none of his immediate descendants would ever sit on the throne of Israel:

This is what the LORD says: ‘Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah.'” — Jeremiah 22:30, NIV

this is True.however Jesus Christ was not a Descendant of Jeconiah.Joseph his adoptive father was a descendant according to some modern interpretations but even then we will see thats not the case.Jesus being without fleshly father is not under the curse of jeconiah.

The Jeconiah who was cursed in Jeremiah 22 was the grandson of Josiah, and had only 1 brother. But the Jeconiah who is in Joseph’s genealogy was the son of Josiah and had plural brothers. Most people don’t think about this though because they haven’t fully researched the topic.Chronicles 3:16 says Josiah had a grandson not son named jeconiah.or did he?you see in II kings 23:34 Eliakim’s name was changed to Jehoiakim,Zedekiah’s name was originally mattaniah(II kings 24:17)also shallum had this name changed to jehoahaz.all three of his brothers had their names changed so its very likely he had his name changed aswell.

Matthew Chapter I could not refer to the Cursed Jeconiah because matthew’s Jeconiah had many brothers,while the cursed Jeconiah had one brother only(1 Chronicles 3:16).

the fact that the jeconiah of joseph’s lineage is actually Johanan is obvious from the fact that all of his brothers were carried to babylon!Matthew 1:11-12 says: Josias begat Jechonias and his brothers, about the time they were carried away to Babylon;And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoniah was the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,

this Jeconiah had brothers,while the cursed jeconiah had one brother.this jeconiah’s brothers were exiled to babylon,just like Johanan’s brothers!Jeconiah is Johanan!

an objection,due to Ignorance of the Text would be that both jeconiah’s had a son named shealtiel and a grandson named zerubbabel.is this the case?no!

the cursed jeconiah had a son named shealtiel who had a son named padiah who had a son named zerubbabel and this zerubbabel had children named shelomith,hananiah,meshullam while joseph’s jeconiah had a son named Abiud!

we know this is the case because Haggai 2 :23 explicetely says God Chose this zerubbabel as his signet ring and Zechariah(4:7) says this zerubbabel will bring forth the capstone!

so as we can see Jesus was not descended from the cursed jeconiah,but even if joseph were his biological father,he would still be descended from a different Jeconiah!