Orthodox Christianity

messaggera

Pelican
Woman
Other Christian
Gabriel Białostocki is the saint of interest.

Two saints with similar deaths result of ritual murder (Orthodox - Polish-Russian and Catholic- Italian) .

Via @Palestrina

ritual-murder.png


Giovanni Gasparro, The Martyrdom of St. Simon of Trento in Accordance with Jewish Ritual Murder, 2020.

St. Simon of Trent Italy, a 2 year old boy was tortured to death for Jesus by Jews on March 21, 1475. He was canonized by Pope Sixtus V and his feast day is March 24th. Even though he died so young, one of the popes called him “Our Big Brother”. He is included in the Roman Martyrology. He was outside his parents home when he was abducted. He was undressed, butchered, blood collected in a bowl. They held his body in the form of a crucified Jesus and said: “take this crucified Jesus, just as our forefathers did once, so may all Christians by land and sea parish.” His body was thrown in a river, but God allowed his body to be found is buried in St. Peter’s Church in Trent, Italy. God also allowed all the details to be found out and the assassins punished. In the official court hearings this testimony was given: “The Hebrews killed the little boy Simon, in order to obey rabbinical religious laws: their motive being to serve as most wicked piety and devotion by obtaining Christian blood for celebrating Passover”. When the Jews protested that it was not true, Pope Sixtus IV again heard the case and found it all to be true.

There are two other saint children martyred for Jesus by the Jews: St. William of Norwich 1137 and St. Christopher who was martyred on Oct 17, 1490 at La Guardia Spain. He was canonized by Pope Pius VII. St. Christopher’s death was the last straw that caused King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella to expelled the Jews from Spain.

Ariel Toaff investigated the case of St. Simon to disprove it and then through his investigation was convinced of its truth. He is a Jewish Professor of Medieval and Renaissance History at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, has written Wine and Bread: A Jewish Community in the Middle Ages (1989; translated into English and French), Jewish Monsters: The Imaginary Jew from the Middle Ages to the Early Modern Age (1996).
 

Sister Evangelina

 
Banned
Woman
Catholic
Just wanted to point out that St. Monica is a saint from before the schism.
Also in bible study yesterday I found it interesting that Jesus renamed Simon "Cephas" (Translated: a rock) in John 1:42. This was their first time meeting. Jesus renamed him this as a testament to his character, not because he was bestowing a special job on him.
Oh really?

"And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter." (John 1:42)

Cornelius a Lapide, AD 1637:
And he brought him to Jesus. "It is probable," says S. Chrysostom, "that Andrew related many other things calculated to persuade. The other disciple was also present to confirm what he said. But Andrew, since it was not his office, and because he was not sufficient to tell of so great a light, brings him to that very fountain which he had discovered." Moreover, the mind of Peter, like a straw in presence of the fire, was inflamed with the desire of seeing and hearing Christ. Wherefore S. Chrysostom proceeds, "Consider the obedient mind of Peter from the beginning, and how full of good will. He brought him to Jesus; but let no one find fault with his too great readiness in believing. For it is not said that he immediately persuaded him, but only that he brought him to Jesus, there to learn all." Jesus beholding him (as it were a fitting subject to preach and make known His glory, and therefore designing him to be His successor and vicar, that Isaiah , the Pontiff of the Church) said, &c. Simon Peter"s father was called Johanan or John , by contraction Jona, as Jehoshua is contracted into Joshua and Jesus. Christ says this that He may reveal secrets, and show him that He is the Searcher of hearts and his God. Thou shall be called Cephas. Christ promises to Simon the name of Cephas, or Peter, as much as to say, I will give thee, Simon, another name. I will call thee Cephas, i.e, a rock or Peter, for I will make thee the rock of the Church, so that on thee and thy faith, and thy government the fabric of My Church may rest securely as upon a most solid foundation of rock. (See what is said on S. Matthew 16:18)

St. Cyril of Alexandria, AD 444:
He after a Divine sort looketh upon him, Who seeth the hearts and reins; and seeth to how great piety the disciple will attain, of how great virtue he will be possessed, and at what consummation he will leave off. For He Who knoweth all things before they be is not ignorant of ought. And herein does He specially instruct him that is called, that being Very God, He hath knowledge untaught. For not having needed a single word, nor even sought to learn who or whence the man came to Him; He says of what father he was born, and what was his own name, and permits him to be no more called Simon, already exercising lordship and power over him, as being His: but changes it to Peter from Petra: for upon him was He about to found His Church.

Rev. George Leo Haydock, AD 1849:
Thou art Simon, the son of Jona, or of John. Jesus, who knew all things, knew his name, and at the first meeting told him he should hereafter be called Cephas, or Petrus, a rock, designing to make him the chief or head of his whole Church. See Matthew xvi. 18. (Witham) Cephas is a Syriac word, its import is the same as rock or stone. And St. Paul commonly calleth him by this name: whereas others, both Greeks and Latins, call him by the Greek appellation, Peter; which signifies exactly the same thing. Hence St. Cyril saith, that our Saviour, by foretelling that his name should be now no more Simon, but Peter, did by the word itself aptly signify, that on him, as on a rock most firm, he would build his Church. (Lib. ii. chap. 12. in Joan.)

St. John Chrysostom, AD 407:
2. He begins from this time forth to reveal the things belonging to His Divinity, and to open It out little by little by predictions. So He did in the case of Nathaniel and the Samaritan woman. For -->prophecies--> bring men over not less than miracles; and are free from the appearance of boasting. Miracles may possibly be slandered among foolish men, He casts out devils, said they, by Beelzebub Matthew 12:24, but nothing of the kind has ever been said of prophecy. Now in the case of Nathaniel and Simon He used this method of teaching, but with Andrew and Philip He did not so. Why was this? Because those (two) had the testimony of John, no small preparation, and Philip received a credible evidence of faith, when he saw those who had been present. You are Simon, the son of Jonas. By the present, the future is guaranteed; for it is clear that He who named Peter's father foreknew the future also. And the prediction is attended with praise; but the object was not to flatter, but to foretell something future. Hear at least in the case of the Samaritan woman, how He utters a prediction with severe reproofs; You have had, he says, five husbands, and he whom thou now hast is not your husband. John 4:18 So also His Father makes great account of prophecy, when He sets Himself against the honor paid to idols: Let them declare to you, says He, what shall come upon you Isaiah 47:13; and again, I have declared, and have saved, and there was no foreign God among you Isaiah 43:12, Septuagint; and He brings this forward through all prophecy. Because prophecy is especially the work of God, which devils cannot even imitate, though they strive exceedingly. For in the case of miracles there may be delusion; but exactly to foretell the future belongs to that pure Nature alone. Or if devils ever have done so, it was by deceiving the simpler sort; whence their oracles are always easily detected. But Peter makes no reply to these words; as yet he knew nothing clearly, but still was learning. And observe, that not even the prediction is fully set forth; for Jesus did not say, I will change your name to Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, but, You shall be called Cephas. The former speech would have expressed too great authority and power; for Christ does not immediately nor at first declare all His power, but speaks for a while in a humbler tone; and so, when He had given the proof of His Divinity, He puts it more authoritatively, saying, Blessed are you, Simon, because My Father has revealed it to you; and again, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church. Matthew 16:17-18 Him therefore He so named, and James and his brother He called sons of thunder. Mark 3:17 Why then does He this? To show that it was He who gave the old covenant, that it was He who altered names, who called Abram Abraham, and Sarai Sarah, and Jacob Israel. To many he assigned names even from their birth, as to Isaac, and Samson, and to those in Isaiah and Hosea Isaiah 8:3; Hosea 1:4-9; but to others He gave them after they had been named by their parents, as to those we have mentioned, and to Joshua the son of Nun. It was also a custom of the Ancients to give names from things, which in fact Leah also has done; and this takes place not without cause, but in order that men may have the appellation to remind them of the goodness of God, that a perpetual memory of the prophecy conveyed by the names may sound in the ears of those who receive it. Thus too He named John early, because they whose virtue was to shine forth from their early youth, from that time received their names; while to those who were to become great at a later period, the title also was given later. 3. But then they received each a different name, we now have all one name, that which is greater than any, being called Christians, and sons of God, and (His) friends, and (His) Body. For the very term itself is able more than all those others to rouse us, and make us more zealous for the practice of virtue. Let us not then act unworthily of the honor belonging to the title, considering the excess of our dignity, we who are called Christ's; for so Paul has named us. Let us bear in mind and respect the grandeur of the appellation. 1 Corinthians 3:23 For if one who is said to be descended from some famous general, or one otherwise distinguished, is proud to be called this or that man's son, and deems the name a great honor, and strives in every way so as not to affix, by remissness of his own, reproach to him after whom he is called; shall not we who are called after the name, not of a general, nor any of the princes upon earth, nor Angel, nor Archangel, nor Seraphim, but of the King of these Himself, shall not we freely give even our very life, so as not to insult Him who has honored us? Do you not know what honor the royal bands of shield-bearers and spearmen that are about the king enjoy? So let us who have been deemed worthy to be near Him, and much closer, and as much nearer than those just named, as the body is closer to the head than they, let us, I say, use every means to be imitators of Christ. What then says Christ? The foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man has not where to lay His head. Luke 9:58 Now if I demand this of you, it will seem perhaps to most of you grievous and burdensome; because therefore of your infirmity I speak not of such perfection, but desire you not to be nailed to riches; and as I, because of the infirmity of the many, retire somewhat from (demanding) the excess of virtue, I desire that you do so and much more on the side of vice. I blame not those who have houses, and lands, and wealth, and servants, but wish them to possess these things in a safe and becoming way. And what is a becoming way? As masters, not as slaves; so that they rule them, be not ruled by them; that they use, not abuse them. This is why they are called, things to be used, that we may employ them on necessary services, not hoard them up; this is a domestic's office, that a master's; it is for the slave to keep them, but for the lord and one who has great authority to expend. You did not receive your wealth to bury, but to distribute. Had God desired riches to be hoarded, He would not have given them to men, but would have let them remain as they were in the earth; but because He wishes them to be spent, therefore He has permitted us to have them, that we may impart them to each other. And if we keep them to ourselves, we are no longer masters of them. But if you wish to make them greater and therefore keep them shut up, even in this case the best plan of all is to scatter and distribute them in all directions; because there can be no revenue without an outlay, no wealth without expenditure. One may see that it is so even in worldly matters. So it is with the merchant, so with the husbandman, who put forth the one his wealth, the other his seed; the one sails the sea to disperse his wares, the other labors all the year putting in and tending his seed. But here there is no need of any one of these things, neither to equip a vessel, nor to yoke oxen, nor to plough land, nor to be anxious about uncertain weather, nor to dread a fall of hail; here are neither waves nor rocks; this voyage and this sowing needs one thing only, that we cast forth our possessions; all the rest will that Husbandman do, of whom Christ says, My Father is the Husbandman. John 15:1 Is it not then absurd to be sluggish and slothful where we may gain all without labor, and where there are many toils and many troubles and cares, and after all, an uncertain hope, there to display all eagerness? Let us not, I beseech you, let us not be to such a degree senseless about our own salvation, but let us leave the more troublesome task, and run to that which is most easy and more profitable, that we may obtain also the good things that are to come; through the grace and lovingkindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom to the Father and the Holy and quickening Spirit be glory, now and ever, and world without end; Amen.
 

Sister Evangelina

 
Banned
Woman
Catholic
I find the Orthodox Church extremely appealing, in so many ways, but I can't give up on the Catholic Church as much as it is tempting to turn my back on it and have nothing to do with that sordid mess. That is the rock of Peter which has to stand until the end of the world, against the gates of hell itself. So as a faithful Christian, I have to pray for it and uphold it despite my constant disappointment with her craven and evil leadership. I think that serious Catholics should be inspired by the example of St. Monica, who served her son and her wretch of a husband with such great humility and patience that they were converted in the end.
Amen.

THE EASTERN ORTHODOX SCHISM: Why the Schismatic Orthodox Churches Are Not Truly Orthodox​

by Rev. Fr. Benedict Hughes, CMRI
reign-of-mary-167.jpg
Many Catholics are bewildered by the crisis in the Church today. Did not Christ found His church upon the Rock, upon Peter? They know what the catechism teaches about the papacy. They have studied the teachings of theologians and Vatican Council I regarding the authority and infallibility of the successors of Saint Peter. Yet, looking to the Vatican today, they cannot dispute the evident heresy that is being promulgated in the name of Catholicism.

Various Protestant preachers, members of denominations that have long considered the popes to be the “Antichrist” predicted by the Apocalypse, gleefully point out these inconsistencies as proof that they have been right all along. They throw the scandals of Francis and his Vatican II predecessors in the face of Catholics, saying that this certainly cannot be true Christianity. You have been deceived, they claim, into believing that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ.

Disillusioned, many cradle Catholics don’t know what to think. They know that Protestantism is wrong. Based on their Catholic upbringing, they easily recognize the errors of Martin Luther and his fellow Protestant “reformers.” But, on the other hand, how can they explain the contradictions posed by the juxtaposition of traditional Catholic teaching with the teachings of Vatican II? In a search for answers, not a few have opted for the claims of the Orthodox.

Now just who are the Orthodox? Under this heading I include not only the large Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox churches, but also the smaller national churches of the East that follow the basic ideas of these larger churches. This article has for its purpose an explanation of what the Orthodox churches teach and how Catholics must regard their claim of being authentic Christianity. First, let us look at the origins of the Orthodox churches.

The History of the Orthodox Schism

Let us begin with an examination of the meaning of the word orthodox. Simply put, the word means dogmatically correct. The opposite of orthodoxy is heterodoxy, which means heresy. So an orthodox Christian is one who adheres to the correct doctrines revealed by Christ. Interestingly, the “Orthodox” are actually not so orthodox after all, as we shall point out. In other words, they have hijacked a term for their position, just as Luther hijacked the term “reformation,” when his movement was anything but a true reform. While we must question the claim of the Orthodox to having a monopoly on true Christianity, we will nevertheless, for the purpose of this article, use that term to denote all those groups who are in agreement with the basic tenets that led the Christian Church in Constantinople to break from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054 AD.

In order to understand the causes that led to the rupture between Constantinople and Rome, let us first take a brief look at the origins of the city of Constantinople. Constantine became emperor in 312, after his defeat of Maxentius at the battle of the Milvian Bridge. Eventually, he became sole ruler of the Roman Empire, and in order to unite its eastern and western parts, he decided to move his residence to the east. The ancient Greek city of Byzantion (or Byzantium), which had been founded on the European side of the Bosphorus in the 7th century before Christ, was chosen as the sight of the new capital. Since the city had been razed to the ground by Emperor Septimius Severus in 196, it required a complete rebuilding, a project which took 6 years. Finally, the completed city was dedicated in 330 and renamed Constantinople.

After the Barbarian invasions of the western part of the Roman Empire, Constantinople achieved greater prominence. Yet members of Christ’s Church always knew that the Pope in Rome was the successor of Saint Peter, and recourse was always made to the Roman pontiffs in time of doctrinal questions. In fact, the East became a hotbed of heresy. Various Catholic (and truly orthodox) bishops of Constantinople were persecuted or exiled for opposing the various heresies, perhaps the most famous of them being Saint John Chrysostom. And while the Orthodox claim that their church represents authentic Christianity, Constantinople became the center of nearly all the early heresies to afflict the Church, such as those of Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, Inconoclasm, etc.

Although doctrinal issues—especially the Filioque controversy, which shall be discussed below—cannot be underestimated, it would be a mistake to believe that they were the sole reason for the schism of 1054. Some of the other causes were the gradual estrangement of East and West, given the difference in language and rite, and the geographical distance between Rome and Constantinople. But more importantly, there was the resentment by many in the East to the prominence of Rome in authority. They reasoned that the Faith had begun in the East (in the Holy Land) and from there spread westward, and that the early councils of the Church were in the East. Moreover, there were the great Eastern doctors of the Church. (Yet it remains a fact that the bishops of the East had always recognized the preeminence of the successor of Saint Peter in authority, especially when deciding doctrinal disputes.) To summarize, resentment—caused by pride—eventually led to the schism.

Catholics recognize the fact that Saint Peter was made the indubitable head of the apostles by Christ. There are a good number of references to this preeminence of Saint Peter in the Gospels and in the Acts of the Apostles, which we will not take the time to enumerate here. Saint Peter, upon leaving Jerusalem as the Church began to grow and spread, first set up his seat of authority in Antioch. Recognizing, however, that Rome was the center of the Empire at that time, he wisely moved his seat of authority to Rome. His successors in the bishopric of Rome have always been recognized as the vicars of Christ—as having the authority of Peter. Many quotations could be given of the Eastern writers of the early centuries acknowledging this fact.

Although there had been some earlier schisms, the first great schism was that of 867. Ignatius, the rightful patriarch of Constantinople, had reigned as its bishop for eleven years. In 857, however, he was compelled to refuse Communion to a man guilty of open incest—a man who happened to be a government official. In response, the government of the city, anxious to defend one of their own, claimed to depose Ignatius and install a man named Photius as the new patriarch. Naturally, the pope (Nicholas I) defended the good bishop Ignatius against this unjust usurpation of his authority, a fact that did not sit well with either Photius or the government officials. As a result, they refused to submit to the authority of the pope. Fortunately, a council restored Ignatius to his rightful see two years later, with the other patriarchs of the East declaring that they had accepted the pope’s decision from the start. The schism was healed, but it had sown the seeds of rebellion.

Sadly, this first major schism was followed two centuries later by a lasting schism. The protagonist this time was the patriarch Michael Caerularius, who began an open rebellion against the pope in 1053. It would be hard to find reasons to explain the vicious attitude of this man toward Rome and the pope, unless one realizes that resentment had been building for a long time—a resentment that started centuries before and later was greatly fomented by Photius—a resentment that finally boiled over. Caerularius shut the Latin churches at Constantinople, hurled a string of wild accusations against the pope, struck the pope’s name from his diptychs, “excommunicated” the papal legates, and showed in other ways that he wanted a schism. This time, however, all the other Eastern patriarchs took the side of Caerularius against the pope. The schism could not be healed. Although there were later attempts (at the Council of Lyons in 1274 and the Council of Florence in 1439) to heal the schism, these were not lasting. That schism has persisted to this day.
Finally, in 1453, Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks, and its position as a principal city of Christendom was gone forever.

The Filioque Controversy

If you have studied the Eastern Schism, you have likely learned that a major accusation of the Eastern Orthodox against the Catholic Church revolves around the Filioque controversy. This is a Latin word from the Nicene Creed which means “and from the Son.” It occurs in the latter part of the creed when we profess our faith that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son. The Orthodox believe that the Holy Ghost proceeds only from the Father, and they claim that the Catholic Church added this word later to the creed. So what is the story here?

The Council of Nicaea, the first general council of the Church, was called by the emperor Constantine to resolve the contention of the Arian heresy. The council convened in the eastern city of Nicaea to decide the issue, and after condemning Arius as a heretic and defining the true doctrine that Jesus is divine, it issued its famous creed in 325. Later, the Council of Constantinople in 381 added two articles, so it is sometimes called the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. But since this creed describes the Holy Ghost as “the Lord and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, and Who spoke through the prophets,” the phrase was later added “and the Son” immediately after the underlined words.

This final addition was made in the sixth century to counteract the belief of some that the Holy Ghost proceeds only from the Father, and not also from the Son. After this final addition had been made, no one complained until Photius conveniently used its insertion as an argument to support his schism. To this day, the Orthodox deny the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and from the Son, asserting that the Holy Ghost proceeds only from the Father.

But what do the Scriptures say? Saint Paul in several places indicates this procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son. He says the Holy Ghost is “the Spirit of the Son” (Galatians, 4:6), the “Spirit of Christ” (Romans, 8:9), the “Spirit of Jesus Christ” (Philippians, 1:19). Again, according to Sacred Scripture, the Son sends the Holy Ghost (Luke, 24:49; John, 15:26, 16:7, and 20:22; Acts, 2:33; and Titus, 3:6). Of all these references, however, I will quote just one, which clearly indicates this doctrine. It is found in the discourse of Our Lord to His apostles at the Last Supper.

Saint John narrates the words of Jesus:
Cum autem venerit Paraclitus, quem ego mittam vobis a Patre, Spiritum veritatis, qui a Patre procedit, ille testimonium perhibebit de me—When however the Paraclete shall come, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness concerning Me” (John 15:26). “Whom I will send you from the Father…” clearly indicates to an honest person that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son.

But Jesus did not leave His followers in doubt as to the meaning of Sacred Scripture, for we have the consistent teaching of His Church on this subject. It can also be demonstrated that many Greek Fathers, such as Saint Gregory Nazianzen, Saint Gregory Thaumaturgus, Saint Gregory of Nyssa, and Saint Cyril of Alexandria, among others, taught this doctrine. Rather, the accusation that the addition of Filioque to the Creed was heretical, was an argument used by Photius and Caerularius to bolster their case against the pope and Rome.

More than a Schism

The sin of schism is the refusal to submit to the lawful authority of the Church. Usually, however, every schism includes at least some heretical ideas. And indeed this is the case with the Eastern Schism. Not only do the Orthodox reject the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, they also reject papal authority and papal infallibility. To them, the pope is the bishop of Rome and can only be entitled to a distinction of honor—a sort of first among equals—at best. But the successor of Saint Peter has authority over the entire church and all its members. For Jesus said to Peter “feed My lambs” (the faithful); “feed My sheep” (the bishops). He also said to Peter: “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren” (Luke, 22:32). Saint Peter is always given first place in any list of the apostles in Scripture and was always acknowledged by the other apostles to be their head. For he is the rock, upon which Christ built His church.

Moreover, since they reject papal infallibility, the Orthodox also reject the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary—because this truth was solemnly defined by Pope Pius IX. But what is particularly curious among their heresies is that they allow divorce and remarriage. One would think, after the clear words of Our Lord (“What God has joined together, let not man put asunder”) that the permanence and indissolubility of marriage would be a “no-brainer” for a true Christian. And we are not speaking here of marriages that were clearly null and void, due to an impediment, but rather of marriages that are acknowledged to have been valid. In this heresy of theirs, the

Orthodox can perhaps find some common ground with Francis, after his infamous Amoris Laetitia!
These are the primary heresies taught by the Orthodox. Quite obviously, they do not deserve to use the term “orthodox,” since they promote heretical notions along with their schism. We must pray that the blindness that afflicts them be removed, and that they humbly submit to the one Church founded by Christ.

In Conclusion…

Let us return to our original question: Could the Orthodox Church be the true church after all? Considering the evident heresies emanating from Rome over the past 50 years, might the claim of the Catholic Church to be the true church of Christ be mistaken? Such is the reasoning toward which some disillusioned Catholic have been gravitating. I know personally of at least one case where a Roman Catholic converted to the Greek Orthodox Church, and of others who are being tossed with doubts along these lines.

For readers of this magazine, however, this question does not present a dilemma. We know that the papacy was founded by Christ and that the true popes have always preserved the faith pure and undefiled. The Roman See has never subscribed to any heresy, but rather has been the pillar and ground of truth for the faithful. We can read a consistent line of truly orthodox teaching in the writings of all the popes from Saint Peter up to and including Pope Pius XII. The problem, then, is that these modern “popes” are not truly popes at all. They cannot be, else Christ’s promise has failed. The Eastern Orthodox churches, as we have seen, are not only schismatic but also heretical. They do not represent the glorious history of the great Eastern fathers and doctors of the Church, but are rather different churches.

Truly, we are in unprecedented times… times which try men’s faith. Yet if we remain firmly attached to the teachings of the popes before Vatican II, we are compelled to reject the modern impostors who have lived in the Vatican wearing white cassocks. As a great Eastern doctor of the Church (Saint Athanasius) would have phrased it: “They may have the buildings; they may use the names (“catholic” or “pope”); but they are not true successors of Saint Peter.” Let us hold firmly to that faith and reject the claims—whether of the Eastern Orthodox or anyone else—who would seek to draw us away from the church that Jesus Christ established to lead us to heaven.

This article appeared in the Winter 2018 issue of The Reign of Mary (vol. 49, no. 167), pp. 4-6, and is reprinted here with the permission of Fr. Benedict Hughes, CMRI. To subscribe to The Reign of Mary quarterly, please click here.
 

DanielH

Ostrich
Moderator
Orthodox
Oh really?
As explained in detail in Michael Whelton's "Two Paths," a majority of early Church Fathers, from the East and West came to the conclusion that Jesus was identifying Peter's confession of faith as the rock. No they weren't unanimous, yeah you can quote mine, but if you stacked up all of the opinions from before the schism and they cast a vote, the majority say you're wrong.

You are also mischaracterizing John Chrysostom's opinion on the matter. In commenting on John 16:18 "And I say also unto you, That you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it," Saint John writes the following:

What then says Christ? You are Simon, the son of Jonas; you shall be called Cephas. Thus since you have proclaimed my Father, I too name him that begot you; all but saying, As you are son of Jonas, even so am I of my Father. Else it were superfluous to say, You are Son of Jonas; but since he had said, Son of God, to point out that He is so Son of God, as the other son of Jonas, of the same substance with Him that begot Him, therefore He added this, And I say unto you, You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; Matthew 16:18 that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And if not against it, much more not against me. So be not troubled because you are shortly to hear that I shall be betrayed and crucified.

I'll also remind you that the Roosh V Forum is explicitly Orthodox and you are on an explicitly Orthodox thread on that explicitly Orthodox forum.
 

Cavalier

Kingfisher
Orthodox
Oh really?

"And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter." (John 1:42)

Cornelius a Lapide, AD 1637:


St. Cyril of Alexandria, AD 444:


Rev. George Leo Haydock, AD 1849:


St. John Chrysostom, AD 407:
Even if you were right about the office of Pope being the singular head of the Church, why wouldn’t the Bishop of Antioch be Pope since that was the first church and was established by Peter? In fact Peter though martyred in Rome may not have even been a bishop of Rome. The Pope in 1054AD being above all else a secular ruler concerned with power in this world, took advantage of the misfortune of the other Patriarchates with the exception of Constantinople being under Moslem control, to make a power grab to have even more worldly power. Constantinople was at that time under centuries of Moslem attacks and much of Europe had finally but nominally converted from killing rampaging Pagans to some might say killing rampaging Christians. So the Pope through personal arrogance, barbaric heritage and worldly greed lead his entire Patriarchate into apostasy.
 

Sister Evangelina

 
Banned
Woman
Catholic
As explained in detail in Michael Whelton's "Two Paths," a majority of early Church Fathers, from the East and West came to the conclusion that Jesus was identifying Peter's confession of faith as the rock. No they weren't unanimous, yeah you can quote mine, but if you stacked up all of the opinions from before the schism and they cast a vote, the majority say you're wrong.
Some of the Church fathers do speak of Christ or of Peter's confession as "the Rock" of Matt 16:18, ALL of these SAME Church fathers ALSO speak of Peter himself as the Rock. In other words, the confession of Peter is in relation to Peter. It says something about him, and his faith. In this respect, it was not an either-or proposition for our ancient Christian forefathers, but a "both-and" proposition. The fathers –including ALL the Greek fathers –say that Peter himself is the Rock of Matt 16. They make no distinction between Peter himself and Peter’s confession; for any father who speaks of it as Peter’s confession is ALSO on record calling Peter himself the Rock. As one Amazon reviewer pointed out:
"[Mr. Whelton] often gives selective historical evidence and is at times guilty of special pleading, e.g., in his discussion of St. John Chrysostom's testimony. By framing the basic question as to the patristic evaluation of Christ's promise to Peter in Matthew 16, the author is able to more or less ignore the larger question, what was the early Church's view of the See of Rome. So, for example, the early testimony of Irenaeus is not mentioned, nor the fact that our Lord actually changed Simon's name to Rock (Peter) as reported in John 1:40-42, nor the sheer weight of the many and repeated testimonies by Fathers, both East and West, as to the special position of the See of Rome in the Church. (Mr. Whelton simply dismisses all except one or two of such Eastern statements by saying they are forgeries - quite an astounding remark which he does not back up by any citation.)"
You are also mischaracterizing John Chrysostom's opinion on the matter. In commenting on John 16:18 "And I say also unto you, That you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it," Saint John writes the following:



I'll also remind you that the Roosh V Forum is explicitly Orthodox and you are on an explicitly Orthodox thread on that explicitly Orthodox forum.
See above. Michael Whelton essentially just recycles old Anglican polemics and bad scholarship from the 19th century. He's lazy at best and a liar at worst. James Likoudis wrote a book-length critique where he documented Whelton’s highly selective and creative cut-and-paste job on the Fathers.

Catholicism=vindicated.
 

Cavalier

Kingfisher
Orthodox
Some of the Church fathers do speak of Christ or of Peter's confession as "the Rock" of Matt 16:18, ALL of these SAME Church fathers ALSO speak of Peter himself as the Rock. In other words, the confession of Peter is in relation to Peter. It says something about him, and his faith. In this respect, it was not an either-or proposition for our ancient Christian forefathers, but a "both-and" proposition. The fathers –including ALL the Greek fathers –say that Peter himself is the Rock of Matt 16. They make no distinction between Peter himself and Peter’s confession; for any father who speaks of it as Peter’s confession is ALSO on record calling Peter himself the Rock. As one Amazon reviewer pointed out:
"[Mr. Whelton] often gives selective historical evidence and is at times guilty of special pleading, e.g., in his discussion of St. John Chrysostom's testimony. By framing the basic question as to the patristic evaluation of Christ's promise to Peter in Matthew 16, the author is able to more or less ignore the larger question, what was the early Church's view of the See of Rome. So, for example, the early testimony of Irenaeus is not mentioned, nor the fact that our Lord actually changed Simon's name to Rock (Peter) as reported in John 1:40-42, nor the sheer weight of the many and repeated testimonies by Fathers, both East and West, as to the special position of the See of Rome in the Church. (Mr. Whelton simply dismisses all except one or two of such Eastern statements by saying they are forgeries - quite an astounding remark which he does not back up by any citation.)"

See above. Michael Whelton essentially just recycles old Anglican polemics and bad scholarship from the 19th century. He's lazy at best and a liar at worst. James Likoudis wrote a book-length critique where he documented Whelton’s highly selective and creative cut-and-paste job on the Fathers.

Catholicism=vindicated.
But all the books you cite are from apostates from the true Church the Orthodox Church.
 

DanielH

Ostrich
Moderator
Orthodox
@Sister Evangelina me showing you that Saint John Chrysostom not only didn't say what you thought he did, but that he said the opposite, not only didn't get you to apologize for citing him incorrectly, but instead you went full bore in your old line of rhetoric and actually ramped it up. You also didn't bother finding pre-Schism sources, you basically just said "nuh-uh," then "Catholicism=vindicated" and then listed off a bunch of books written by post-schism Catholics that nobody except a Catholic would ever in their right-mind read. There is no point to this discussion and I'm not going to feed into it for you.
 

Sister Evangelina

 
Banned
Woman
Catholic
Even if you were right about the office of Pope being the singular head of the Church, why wouldn’t the Bishop of Antioch be Pope since that was the first church and was established by Peter? In fact Peter though martyred in Rome may not have even been a bishop of Rome.
The bishop of Antioch wasn't "The Successor of Peter" because Peter was still alive when he left Antioch. The bishop of Rome became "The Successor of Peter" because Peter was Bishop of Rome when he was martyred, so the next bishop of Rome truly "succeeded" Peter. Also, every Church Father attests that Peter was Bishop of Rome. No one seriously denies it.
The Pope in 1054AD being above all else a secular ruler concerned with power in this world, took advantage of the misfortune of the other Patriarchates with the exception of Constantinople being under Moslem control, to make a power grab to have even more worldly power. Constantinople was at that time under centuries of Moslem attacks and much of Europe had finally but nominally converted from killing rampaging Pagans to some might say killing rampaging Christians. So the Pope through personal arrogance, barbaric heritage and worldly greed lead his entire Patriarchate into apostasy.
LOL. Wow. You have a lot of malice and an extreme degree of historical ignorance! You don't know anything about anything, do you?

This is what really happened:
"The Eastern Schism" - from The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)
The Orthodox Eastern Church by Fr. Adrian Fortescue
 

Cavalier

Kingfisher
Orthodox
The bishop of Antioch wasn't "The Successor of Peter" because Peter was still alive when he left Antioch. The bishop of Rome became "The Successor of Peter" because Peter was Bishop of Rome when he was martyred, so the next bishop of Rome truly "succeeded" Peter. Also, every Church Father attests that Peter was Bishop of Rome. No one seriously denies it.

LOL. Wow. You have a lot of malice and an extreme degree of historical ignorance! You don't know anything about anything, do you?

This is what really happened:
"The Eastern Schism" - from The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)
The Orthodox Eastern Church by Fr. Adrian Fortescue
If you think that a petulant Patriarch of Rome kicked out the other 4 Patriarchs because they wouldn’t submit to his belief in his own authority, creating his own church of which he is head, unlike the True Church which has Christ as it’s head then you are delusional.
 

Sister Evangelina

 
Banned
Woman
Catholic
But all the books you cite are from apostates from the true Church the Orthodox Church.
Literally none of these authors ever "apostatized" from Eastern "Orthodoxy".
 

Sister Evangelina

 
Banned
Woman
Catholic
@Sister Evangelina me showing you that Saint John Chrysostom not only didn't say what you thought he did, but that he said the opposite, not only didn't get you to apologize for citing him incorrectly, but instead you went full bore in your old line of rhetoric and actually ramped it up. You also didn't bother finding pre-Schism sources, you basically just said "nuh-uh," then "Catholicism=vindicated" and then listed off a bunch of books written by post-schism Catholics that nobody except a Catholic would ever in their right-mind read. There is no point to this discussion and I'm not going to feed into it for you.
St. John Chrysostom:
"Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father....this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey." (De Eleemos III, 4, vol II, 298[300])

"Peter the coryphaeus of the choir of apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the foundation of the faith, the base of the confession, the fisherman of the world, who brought back our race form the depth of error to heaven, he who is everywhere fervent and full of boldness, or rather of love than of boldness." (Hom de decem mille talentis, 3, vol III, 20[4])

"The first of the apostles, the foundation of the Church, the coryphaeus of the choir of the disciples." (Ad eos qui scandalizati sunt, 17, vol III, 517[504])

"The foundation of the Church, the vehement lover of Christ, at once unlearned in speech, and the vanquisher of orators, the man without education who closed the mouth of philosophers, who destroyed the philosophy of the Greeks as though it were a spider's web, he who ran throughout the world, he who cast his net into the sea, and fished the whole world." (In illud, Vidi dominum, 3, vol VI, 123[124])

"Peter, the base, the pillar...." (Hom Quod frequenta conueniendum sit, 5, vol XII, 466[328])

"This holy coryphaeus of the blessed choir, the lover of Christ, the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, he who received the spiritual revelation." (In Acta Apost VI, I [chap 2, verse 22] vol IX, 56[48])
Like I said...some of the Church fathers do speak of Christ or of Peter's confession as "the Rock" of Matt 16:18, ALL of these SAME Church fathers ALSO speak of Peter himself as the Rock. In other words, the confession of Peter is in relation to Peter. It says something about him, and his faith. In this respect, it was not an either-or proposition for our ancient Christian forefathers, but a "both-and" proposition. The fathers –including ALL the Greek fathers –say that Peter himself is the Rock of Matt 16. They make no distinction between Peter himself and Peter’s confession; for any father who speaks of it as Peter’s confession is ALSO on record calling Peter himself the Rock.

St. John Chrysostom (349-407) & Vatican 1 (1870) – Agree on “Rock” (Matthew 16:18)​


Hosios_Loukas_(nave,_south_east_conch)_-_John_Chrysostom_-_detail

St. John Chrysostom

Recently, I had someone reference an an article by well known Protestant William Webster which seeks to disprove the early acceptance of the Papal-theory as codified especially at the Vatican Council of 1870. I wanted to make sure a certain point was understood before the merits of that article are weighed, though this is not meant to engage with the whole of the article. At points, Webster is keen to find where he thinks the Patristic authors disassociated the “rock” (Matt 16:18) from “Peter”, but even more important is that even if this was associated, there was no continuing succession of Peter as the rock as some divine institution for the well-being of the Church. This later piece will not be addressed here, since I have a much finer point intended. But if readers are interested, I recommend my articles on St. Augustine, the Greek fathers, and some Patristic citations.

That the “rock” of St. Matthew’s account of the holy Gospel is Peter’s “confession of faith” is perfectly harmonious. In fact, if you go to the link here, under the show notes, you will find a citation from the Catholic Catechism which says the “rock” is the confession of Peter’s faith.

In any case, I wanted to show how one particular church father, St. John Chrysostom, not only proves Catholic doctrine on the matter, but even teaches precisely what the Vatican Council taught specifically concerning the relationship between the “rock” and “Peter”.

So let’s first take a quick look at what the Vatican Council said about the rock and its relation to Peter. Chapter 2, Paragraph 3 reads as follows:

Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ
Popepiusix

Pope Pius IX
himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received ” (Vatican, 1870)

What is the “rock-like strength” Peter was granted? Let’s observe the text which is commonly cited from St. John Chrysostom which supposedly contradicts.:

“‘And I say unto you, you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church’, that is on the faith of his confession” (Homily 54 on the gospel according to St. Matthew)

So it would seem as though the Vatican Council goes way beyond Chrysostom here. But that is only if we cut it short here. If we continue reading in Chrysostom’s homily, we read the following:

“…that is on the faith of his confession. Thus he shows many will believe and raises his mind and makes him shepherd. Do you see how he himself leads Peter to high thoughts of him, and reveals himself and shows that he is the Son of God by these two promise? For those things which are peculiar to God alone, namely to forgive sins, and to make the Church immovable in such an onset of waves, and to declare a fisherman to be
stronger than any rock while all the world wars against him
, these things he himself promises to
give; as the Father said, speaking to Jeremiah, that he would set him as a column of brass and as a wall — but him [Jeremiah] for one nation [Israel], this man [Peter] for all the world. I would ask those who wish to lessen the dignity of the Son, which gifts were greater, those which the Father gave to Peter, or those which the Son gave to him? The Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son, but the Son gave to Peter to sow that of the Father and of himself throughout the world; and to a mortal man he entrusted such authority over all things in heaven, giving him the keys, who extended the Church throughout the world and declares it to be stronger than heaven” (Patrologia Graeca 58 ,534; Homily 54 in St. Matthew, NewAdvent.org)

So it turns out that just like the Catholic Church has always believed, Chrysostom teaches the rock is the faith of Peter but it is a “rock-like” strength given to him and has an intricate association with Peter such that this faith is channeled into the ministry of Peter, such that it lifts him up to be a strength unto the nations, much like, albeit in a greater way, the ministry of holy Jeremiah.
Now, there is nothing in St. John Chrysostom himself that we have in the survived corpus which speaks of a specific continuation of the rock in the successors of St. Peter. But if you check the three links in the first paragraph, one could hardly argue that it was not held by both East and West in the early centuries of the holy and undivided Church of the first millennium.
 

get2choppaaa

Hummingbird
Orthodox
Literally none of these authors ever "apostatized" from Eastern "Orthodoxy".
Madam, I think you're on your way to becoming the first woman (that I know of) banned here.
 

DanielH

Ostrich
Moderator
Orthodox
Generally how these polemics go is, "well here's [GIANT WALL OF TEXT] that [doesn't say what I'm saying it says] written by [usually someone on the half of the schism we don't have in common]" that's not just Catholics, Orthodox do that as well, and it's really baffling to me that people try to argue like that, as if it would ever persuade anyone.
 

messaggera

Pelican
Woman
Other Christian
A thread to share Orthodox teachings, theology etc.

Roosh shared this learning source with audio and downloadable lecture notes. A great resource for further inquiry into the Orthodox Faith:


Enjoyed reading a few of the lecture notes from the series, and the audio will make a nice addition to daily radio sermons.

Also found useful the author updated known occultists to this modern time.

Thank you for sharing.
 

messaggera

Pelican
Woman
Other Christian
Enjoyed reading a few of the lecture notes from the series, and the audio will make a nice addition to daily radio sermons.

These are turning out to be great audios for listening during daily tasks/projects outside of homeschooling time. Starts and ends with prayer:


Currently getting ready to start the fourth lecture. Some of these topics would make for great discussion threads, and possibly a historical resource for older homeschooled children.

Seraphim Rose’s work is a heavy presence in the lectures. And there is a significant amount of content that could be commented on starting with the first lecture. The lecture notes provide a historical timeline.

This is another forum suggested survival course by Seraphim Rose:


Great resource listed in the above article:

 
Top