Index

St. Basil the Great on the Art of Medicine

Selections from St. Basil regarding "Whether recourse to the medical art is in keeping with the practice of piety." "In as much as our body is susceptible to various hurts, some attacking from without and some from within by reason of the food we eat, and since the body suffers affliction from both excess and eficiency, the medical art has been vouchsafed us by God, who directs our whole life, as a model for the cure of the soul, to guide us in the removal of what is superfluous and in the addition of what is lacking. Just as we would have no need of the farmer's labor and toil if we were living amid the delights of paradise, so also we would not require the medical art for relief if we were immune to disease, as was the case, by God's gift, at the time of Creation before the Fall.. After our banishment to this place, however, and after we had heard the words: 'In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread,' through prolonged effort and hard labor in tilling the soil we devised the art of agriculture for the alleviation of the miseries which followed the curse, God vouchsafing us the knowledge and understanding of this art. And, when we were commanded to return to the earth whence we had been taken and were united with the pain ridden flesh doomed to destruction because of sin and, for the same reason, also subject to disease, the medical art was given to us to relieve the sick, in some degree at least." "Now, the herbs which are the specifics for each malady do not grow out of the earth spontaneously; it is evidently the will of the Creator that they should be brought forth out of the soil to serve our need. Therefore, the obtaining of that natural virtue which is in the roots and flowers, leaves, fruits, and juices, or in such metals or products of the sea as are found especially suitable for bodily health, is to be viewed in the same way as the procuring of food and drink. Whatever requires an undue amount of thought or trouble or involves a large expenditure of effort and causes our whole life to revolve, as it were, around solicitude for the flesh must be avoided by Christians. Consequently, we must take great care to employ this medical art, if it should be necessary, not as making it wholly accountable for our state of health or illness, but as redounding to the glory of God and as a parallel to the care given the soul. In the event that medicine should fail to help, we should not place all hope for the relief of our distress in this art, but we should rest assured that He will not allow us to be tried above that which we are able to bear. Just as in those days the Lord sometimes made clay, and anointed,

and bade wash in Siloe, and on other occasions was content with the mere command: I will, be thou made clean whereas He left some to struggle against their afflictions, rendering them more worthy of reward by trial, so it also is with us. He sometimes cures us secretly and without visible means when He judges this mode of treatment beneficial to our souls; and again He wills that we use material remedies for our ills, either to instil in us by the prolonged nature of the cure an abiding remembrance of the favor received, or, as I have said, to provide an example for the proper care of the soul. As in the case of the flesh it is essential to eliminate foreign elements and add whatever is wanting, so also, where the soul is concerned, it behooves us to rid ourselves of that which is alien to it and take unto ourselves that which is in accordance with its nature; for 'God made man right and He created us for good works that we might walk in them." "To place the hope of one's health in the hands of the doctor is the act of an irrational animal. This, nevertheless, is what we observe in the case of certain unhappy persons who do not hesitate to call their doctors their saviors. Yet, to reject entirely the benefits to be derived from this art is the sign of a pettish nature." "When the favor of a cure is granted us, whether by means of wine mixed with oil, as in the case of the man who fell among the robbers, or through figs, as with Ezechias, we are to receive it with thanksgiving. Besides, we shall view the watchful care of God impartially, whether it comes to us from some invisible source or by a physical agency, the latter, indeed, frequently engendering in us a livelier perception of the favor as coming from the hands of God. Very often, also, the diseases which we contracted were for our correction and the painful remedies we were obliged to submit to formed part of the instruction. Right reason dictates, therefore, that we demur neither at cutting nor at burning, nor at the pains caused by bitter and disagreeable medicines, nor at abstinence from food, nor at a strict regimen, nor at being forced to refrain from that which is hurtful. Nevertheless, we should keep as our objective (again I say it), our spiritual benefit, in as much as the care of the soul is being taught in the guise of an analogy. There is no small danger, however, that we will fall into the error of thinking that every kind of suffering requires medical relief. Not all sicknesses for whose treatment we observe medicine to be occasionally beneficial arise from natural causes, whether from faulty diet or from any other physical origin." "So, then, we should neither repudiate this art altogether nor does it behoove us to repose all our confidence in it; but, just as in practicing the art of agriculture we pray God for the fruits, and as we entrust the helm to the pilot in the art of navigation, but implore God that we may end our voyage unharmed by the perils of the sea, so also, when reason allows, we call in the doctor, but we do not leave off hoping in God. It seems to me, moreover, that the medical art is no small aid to continency."

St. Basil the Great, Question 55 in The Long Rules, St. Basil: Ascetical Works, trans. by M. Monica Wagner, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Vol. 9 (Wash., D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1962), 330-337. The text of this book is available online in various formats:http://www.archive.org/details/fathersofthechur027835mbp. Posted by Fr. Symeon at 2:12 PM Labels: pain and suffering, patient, physician, prayer, science

Holistic healing in Byzantium by john t chirban

http://www.uncg.edu/rel/contacts/faculty/CVs%20and%20Files/Krueger,%20Healing%20and%20the%20Scope %20of%20Religion%20in%20Byzantium,%20Hol.pdf

Medicine and social welfare in the Byzantine Empire.

Constantelos DJ.

Source http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11624569
The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey, Pomona, USA.

Abstract
Byzantine medicine was guided by Hippocratic principles and Christian theological precepts, all of which viewed the human being as a psychosomatic entity. Medical philosophy and Christian theology had achieved an alliance, and the well-being of the entire person was the central objective of both. Along with pharmaceutical herbs and drugs, diet and baths, exercises and optimistic outlooks, Byzantine physicians, whether laymen or clergymen, emphasized rational treatment but also the need for religious faith and hope. Even though the holy man and his miraculous therapeutic powers were highly respected, appreciation of the power of logic had never gone into a total eclipse throughout the Byzantine era. Thanks to the work of good physicians and their impact on the welfare of society medicine obtained high respect in 9th century. Nevertheless, the dialogue between secular medicine and sacred medicine, and the debate between secular and spiritual approaches to health and social welfare continued unabated down to the fall of the Byzantine Empire.

Idolatry, unrighteous, blasphemy of holy spirit.

The idea omeone is repulsed with the concept of a natural godly cure over that of westernised manmade follistical medicine that does more damage than good

Byzantine psychosomatic medicine (10th- 15th century).

Eftychiadis AC.

Source
Department of Philosophy and History of Medicine, Medical School of Athens University, Athens, Greece.

Abstract
Original elements of the psychosomatic medicine are examined by the most important byzantine physicians and medico-philosophers during the 10th -15th centuries. These topics concern the psycosomatic unity of the human personality, the psychosomatic disturbances, diseases and interactions, organic diseases, which cause psychical disorders, psychical pathological reactions, which result in somatic diseases, the psychology of the depth of the soul, the psychosomatic pathogenetic reasons of psychiatric and neurological diseases and suicide, the influence of witchcraft on psychosomatic affections, maniac and demoniac patients. The psychosomatic treatment has a holistic preventive and curative character and encloses sanitary and dietary measures, physiotherapy, curative bathing, strong purgation, pharmaceutical preparations proportional to the disease, religious disposition, psychoanalysis and psychotherapy with dialogue and the contribution of the divine factor. The late byzantine medical science contributed mainly to the progress of the psychosomatic medicine and therapeutics. The saint woman physician Hermione (1st -2nd cent.) is considered as the protectress of psychosomatic medicine.

Against the Gnostic Story of the Judging Demons - the "Toll-Houses"

The "Tollhouse Account" presents the gnostic concept that demons sit in judgment over souls, usurping Christ's place, and involves the legalistic notion that one's sins must be "balanced" by an equal number of good deeds (or extrameritous prayers of one's spiritual father) else he will not attain heaven. There are 20 such "tollbooths" at each of which a different kind of sin is judged by the demons. If an insufficient amount of good works is found for the soul... off to hell with it! (And the un-Baptized non-Orthodox go straight to hell; they do not pass through the tollhouses.) This is found in the Theodora Vision, the foundational document for the tollhouse story. The "Toll-House Story" stands in opposition to the clear and joyful true teaching of the Orthodox Church. From a Catechism of the Greek Orthodox Faith: With death comes the separation of the soul from the body. The body returns to the earth from which it was taken. It decomposes but it is not lost. The time will come when it will be resurrected, spiritualized and made incorruptible, at the time of the just judgement. And then it will be united with the soul to be judged along with the soul. In the meantime, the soul which was separated, through death, from the body, lives in a middle state. It undergoes the particular judgement. "It is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes the judgement"(Hebrews 9:27). This means that immediately after death the soul is judged individually. It remains after this particular judgement until the final judgement, at the second Coming of Christ, having a foretaste of paradise or of hell. At the final judgement, which will take place at the Second Coming of Christ, all people will be presented before Him to be judged. The evangelist Matthew tells us the following: "Before Him will be gathered all nations"(Matthew 25:32). At the final judgement, the souls will not be the only ones to be presented. We will be presented wholly, with our body and soul--with all our personhood. Body and soul will be judged. St. Paul tells us: "For we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body" (2 Corinthians 5:10). At the final judgement everyone will be judged according to their faith and their works. Christ will then separate the just from the unjust or sinners. "Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" (Matthew 25:34), and to the sinners He will say: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41). Then "they [sinners] will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life"(Matthew 25:46). This will be the final judgement. After the final judgement, there will either be eternal life or hell--eternal punishment. There will be no changes after the final judgement. The just will be grounded in their righteousness and will always be righteous, and will live eternally. The sinners will be stabilized in their sin. They will not be able to change. They will live in hell. They too will live. They will not vanish, as some fools say. The above verse makes that vividly clear. This will occur to man after death. In order for this to happen, two things must come first: the resurrection of the dead by which the soul will be reunited with the body, and the Second Coming of Christ. With death, the soul is separated from the body. It receives a particular judgement and remains separated until the Second Coming of Christ and the final judgement. At the final judgement, man will be presented before Christ as a full person, with a body and soul. For man to be presented like this, his body must be resurrected and be united with the soul. This will happen immediately before the final judgement. Holy Scripture absolutely assures us of this. ---Taken (with slight editing) from "A Catechism of the Greek Orthodox Faith" by Metropolitan Sotirios of Toronto PRIMARY TEXTS OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH REFUTING THE "AERIAL TOLLHOUSES": THE DIVINE SERVICES Lex orandi, lex credendi! From the Octoechos: "When my soul is about to be forcibly parted from my body's limbs, then stand by my side and scatter the counsels of my bodiless foes and smash the teeth of those who implacably seek to swallow me down, so that I may pass unhindered through the rulers of darkness who wait in the air, O Bride of God." Octoechos, Tone Two, Friday Vespers "Pilot my wretched soul, pure Virgin, and have compassion on it, as it slides under a multitude of offences into the deep of destruction; and at the fearful hour of deathsnatch me from the accusing demons and from every punishment." Ode 6, Tone 1 Midnight Office for Sunday The prayer of St. Eustratius, which is said in the Midnight Office for Saturdays: "And now, O Master, let Thy hand shelter me and let Thy mercy descend upon me, for my soul is distracted and pained at its departure from this my wretched and filthy body, lest the evil design of the adversary overtake it and make it stumble into the darkness for the unknown and known sins amassed by me in this life. Be merciful unto me, O Master, and let not my soul see the dark countenances of the evil spirits, but let it be received by Thine Angels bright ARMAMENT AGAINST THE FEAR OF THE TERRORIZING DEMON JUDGES "Tollhouses: Dogma and a Logic of Damnation" RESPONSE REGARDING THE "TOLL-HOUSES" FROM ARCHBISHOP LAZAR A Letter from Father Michael Pomazansky to Deacon Lev [Archbishop Lazar] Puhalo A Letter from Father Panagiotes Carras, reporting to Archbishop Vitaly regarding the "Toll-House" debate. The Toll-House Myth: The Neo-Gnosticism of Father Seraphim Rose (booklet also available from Synaxis Press) A Note from Archbishop Lazar - December 1,1998 THE RETURN OF THE TOLLHOUSES by Rev. Dr. Michael Azkoul The Human Body According to St Gregory Palamas by V Rev Dr George Papademetriou A Review of Homily on Death and of The Soul After Death An Open Letter and Response to the Tollhouse heresy

MORTAL BY NATURE, IMMORTAL BY GRACE

by George S. Gabriel ***** QUESTION: I have read some of your writing against Gnosticism. I think you are right that this old heresy is

and shining. Glorify Thy holy name and by Thy might set me before Thy divine judgment seat. When I am being judged, suffer not that the hand of the prince of this world should take hold of me to throw me, a sinner, into the depths of hades, but stand by me and be unto me a savior and mediator" From the Pre-Nikonian Slavonic Texts In the second Canon to the Guardian Angel, found in the "Old Orthodox Prayer book", one finds the following:. In Ode 6: "Let shame and disgrace cover the dark, foul and fetid faces of the enemy when my poor soul is separated from the body. Let thy most sacred wings then protect my soul, O my guide." In Ode 7 verse: "As a mind beautiful in goodness, sweet and happy, and bright like the sun, stand before me with smiling face and merry glance, when I shall be taken from the earth, O my guide." "In thy mercy, loving-kindness and the exceeding copiousness of thy love toward man, O my guardian, protect me under the shelter of thy wings when I depart from the body, that I may not see the hideous faces of the demons." In Ode 9 verse: "When my spirit is forcibly parted from me, may I see thee, my defender and guardian, calm and radiant, standing at the right of my passionate soul and driving away the bitter demons who seek to seize me." As the highlighted lines of these holy texts show, the time being referred to is the hour of death - not any point afterward - when demonic hosts gather in the air about the deathbed and tempt the person all the more strongly at this moment when he is most vulnerable due to the natural rebellion of human nature at unnatural death, the rending of the one integral person into two unnaturally separate parts, the soul and body, and the grief at parting (however short a time it may be) from his loved ones. From Ode 8, of The Canon of Supplication to our lord Jesus Christ and the Most Holy Theotokos, the Mother of the Lord, at the Parting of the Soul from the body of any Orthodox, page 81, vol 3, Book of Needs, Published by St. Tikhon's Monastery: "O thou that gavest birth to the Lord Almighty, when I come to die, do thou banish from me the commander of the bitter toll-gatherers and ruler of the earth, that I may glorify thee unto the ages, O holy Theotokos." If this referred to the mythical tollhouses, it would read, "after I have died" rather than "when I come to die." Keeping to what the text *says* - rather than what you would like to read into it - it refers to what happens AT death. And, I might add, it correctly portrays the demons who assail us on this side of the grave as rapacious taxcollectors (metaphor!) who tempt us to despair at this most harrowing time.

posing a new threat in the Church. Can you offer some simple guidelines that might help us recognize Gnostic teachings without reading all the books you reference in the bibliography of Tale of Elder Basil the New? ANSWER: I would strongly recommend the Introduction of Hans von Balthasar's The Scandal of The Incarnation: Irenaeus [of Lyons] Against the Heresies (Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1990). I am going to present some extracts from that Introduction here, with a few explanatory notes, for those who might not have access to the book. St Irenaeus was perhaps the foremost ancient expert on the Gnostic threat and dedicated much of his writing to exposing it. It may come as a surprise to some, but he actually did refute the Gnostic "aerial toll house" teaching. Much of the current threat from this ancient system of heresy comes from an organized attempt to infiltrate it into the Orthodox Church. There is a general lack of careful study of the theological history of the Church. The great 9th-10th century struggle with the Bogomil and Paulician Gnostic movements is actually unknown even to many seminary graduates. A substantial number of the clergy of all ranks are unaware of that great struggle, or have heard of it only in some passing references. Nevertheless, the New Age Movement is replete with profoundly Gnostic ideas and a group which has infiltrated every jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church has been steadily introducing new Gnostic ideas into the Orthodox Church while at the same time resurrecting and reinforcing residual Bogomil/Manichaean doctrines which have lingered in the Church in a shadowy manner since the time when this heresy dominated the Balkans. One can truthfully use the words of Tsar Peter of Bulgaria in his desperate letter to Ecumenical Patriarch Theophylact in the 900s: we are faced with "an ancient heresy newly reappeared." Here are some tips extracted from the Introduction section of von Balthasar's book. Balthasar begins by pointing out that even the great persecutions by the Romans posed less of a threat to the Church than did Gnosticism. This very fact explains why I have been so adamant in my own opposition to the neoGnosticism of subversive entities within the Orthodox Church today. The fact that many of those who rather unwittingly support this neo-Gnosticism are unwilling to look at the way in which it contradicts the teahings of the holy fathers on several subjects, and the doctrines of the faith, is in itself a sin against the Orthodox Faith. Gnosticism predates Christianity. Balthasar likens it to a "parasite" which took hold of Christianity and used it. What made it so insidious was the fact that the Gnostics very often did not want to leave the Church. Instead, they claimed to be offering a superior and more authentic exposition of Holy Scripture, though this was only for the 'superior souls' (the spiritual, the pneumatic'); the common folk (`the psychic') were left to get on with their crude practices. It is not hard to see how this kind of compartmentalizing of the Church's members indeed of mankind as a whole, inevitably encouraged not only an excited craving for higher initiation, but also an almost unbounded arrogance in those who had moved from mere `faith' to real, enlightened `knowledge'.(p;1) Gnostics outwardly profess the teachings of the Church but deviously strive to subvert them to their "secret" or "higher" knowledge. Here then is your first clue that

some group or teacher is Gnostic. Clue 1: They introduce a "higher knowledge" that is accessible to "the more spiritual." In our own era, this "higher gnosis" is expressed as "ascetic theology." While our new Gnostics are careful not to put it into actual words, for them this higher "ascetic theology" overrides the "theological theology" of the Church. The elite "special knowledge" (in this case a special "ascetic theology") is a lens through which the Gnostic reinterprets the doctrines of the Church and distorts them in order to subtly introduce their own concepts and understandings. Balthasar points out: Always in the background was the fundamental dogma of Gnosticism C the belief that the lower, material sphere, the `flesh', the world of the `psychic', was contemptible, something to be vanquished, while the higher spiritual world was all that was excellent, the only thing worth cultivating. (p.1) Clue 2: The introduction of an "invisible world" which is separate from and/or opposed to the "visible world." Only those with an elitist "secret knowledge," those illuminati of the "invisible world," know its secrets. Among the delusions of this Gnostic elite, one finds fanciful, sometimes quite carnal descriptions of the Garden of Eden. They assert that Eden exists in an invisible realm, filled with fruit that does not rot or decay, and other sensual/mystical ideas. This notion of opposing visible (material) and invisible (spiritual) worlds is a form of "dualism." Gnostics are essentially dualists whose fundamental concept arose from the ancient Persian religion of Zoroaster. All Gnostics are dualists. Clue 3: Dualism. Gnostics create dualisms in every realm. While those who infiltrate the Orthodox Church do not openly teach a dualistic idea of God (a good deity and a bad deity), they do elevate the authority of Satan and demons to the level of demi-gods which have authority to judge human souls, even to override God's mercy, the indwelling Holy Spirit and Christ's work on the cross. They can "drag souls down to hell" even before Christ has had an opportunity to judge them, and even before the Second Coming and the Last Judgment, even though this is a notion condemned by the holy fathers (See for example, St. Mark of Ephesus, Ten Discourses Against Purgatory). Clue 4: Dangerous journey of the soul after death. Balthasar observes of the Gnostics, "What mattered most was the knowledge that ensured spiritual power: the timetable for all the soul's journeys in the hereafter, the ground plan and genealogy of all the cosmic spheres, the key to the riddles of nature, the knowledge of all the powers holding sway between earth and heaven..." In the "aerial tollhouse" myth, the demigod demons have authority to judge and condemn souls and keep them from even approaching Christ for His judgment. They have the power to usurp Christ's authority, even though scripture clearly says that "all power in heaven and earth has been given to Him". The idea that the soul can be judged, rewarded or punished without the body is a doctrine refuted and condemned by a whole host of the holy fathers. While the most complete astral plane/aerial toll house teaching was developed in Mesopotamia by the Mandaean Gnostics, the Bogomils, Paulicians and all varieties of Manichaeans taught a developed system of demonic judgement stations C aerial tollhouses. It was

primarily through the Bogomils, who had a huge following even in Constantinople in the 8th - 9th centuries, that the aerial tollhouse heresy spread into the Orthodox world. (see for example, the Tale of Basil the New; Study of a Gnostic Document, Synaxis Press, 1999). The bibliography and appendices in The Tale of Basil the New and The Soul, the Body and Death (Synaxis Press, 1995) will provide the patristic references necessary to follow up these matters. Balthasar deals only with St. Irenaeus of Lyons, but provides a powerful compendium against Gnosticism in his volume.

In defence of orthodoxy
Orthodox view to papal primacy

Orthodox understanding of Catholicity The test of catholicity is adherence to the authority of Scripture and then by the Holy Tradition of the church. It is not defined by adherence to any particular See. It is the position of the Orthodox Church that it has never accepted the pope as de jure leader of the entire church. All bishops are equal 'as Peter' therefore every church under every bishop (consecrated in apostolic succession) is fully complete (the original meaning of catholic). Referring to Ignatius of Antioch[2] Carlton says "Contrary to popular opinion, the word catholic does not mean "universal"; it means "whole, complete, lacking nothing." ...Thus , to confess the Church to be catholic is to say that She possesses the fullness of the Christian faith. To say, however, that Orthodox and Rome constitute two lungs of the same Church is to deny that either Church separately is catholic in any meaningful sense of the term. This is not only contrary to the teaching of Orthodoxy, it is flatly contrary to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, which considered itself truly catholic"[3] The church is in the image of the Trinity[4] and reflects the reality of the incarnation. "The body of Christ must always be equal with itselfThe local church which manifests the body of Christ cannot be subsumed into any larger organisation or collectivity which makes it more catholic and more in unity, for the simple reason that the principle of total catholicity and total unity is already intrinsic to it."[5] Any changes to the understanding of the church would reflect a change in the understanding of the Trinity. [edit]Orthodox rebuttal of Catholic arguments It is the position of Orthodox Christianity that Roman Catholic arguments in support of the teaching have relied on proofs from Fathers that have either been misinterpreted or so taken out of context as to misrepresent their true intent. It is the position of Orthodox Christianity that a closer examination of those supposed supports would have the effect of either not supporting the argument or have the opposite effect of supporting the counter-argument. [edit]Apostolic Throne Athanasius is used as a witness for papal primacy on numerous Catholic apologist sites. "Rome is called the Apostolic throne."[6][7]

Whelton however says that Athanasius does not use the definite article (the) in the text.[8] "Thus from the first they spared not even Liberius, Bishop of Rome, but extended their fury even to those parts; they respected not his bishopric, because it was an Apostolical throne"[9] Rome is an Apostolic throne, not the Apostolic throne. Augustine too is misquoted on the same point of grammar... Pope Leo XIII "And for a like reason St. Augustine publicly attests that, "the primacy of the Apostolic chair always existed in the Roman Church (Ep. xliii., n. 7)"[10] Augustine "because he saw himself united by letters of communion both to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished."[11] Whelton goes on to say that for Augustine there is not one Apostolic See, but many... "You cannot deny that you see what we call heresies and schisms, that is, many cut off from the root of the Christian society, which by means of the Apostolic Sees, and the successions of bishops, is spread abroad in an indisputably world-wide diffusion..."[12] [edit]Ignatius of Antioch For Ignatius each church under a bishop is complete the original meaning of "catholic". For Ignatius the church is a world-wide unity of many communities. Each has at its center a bishop "who draws together the local community in the Eucharistic celebration."[13] This then is the unity of the church each church united to its bishop -each of these churches united to each other. There is no evidence of him accepting a single supreme bishop-of-bishops as the bishops authority is localised to a particular church.[14] "Just as the Father is the principal of unity within the Holy Trinity, so the bishop is the center of the visible unity of the Church on earth."[15] Ignatius sets out what he believes consists of the church in an epistle to the Trallians; "In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church."[16] There is no reference to another tier above bishop. For Ignatius, the bishop is supreme, not the bishop because he is in communion with the bishop in Rome.[17][18][19][20][21] Thus when he writes to Polycarp the bishop of Smyrna he states that God is Polycarps bishop, implying that there is no intermediary between the local bishop and God.[22] John Chrysostom referred to Ignatius of Antioch as a "teacher equivalent to Peter".[23] [edit]Letter to the Romans Ignatius' Epistle to the Romans is used by Catholic apologists to suggest Roman primacy.[24] In particular his opening remarks Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to

those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, [I wish] abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.[25] J.H. Srawley concedes that the Roman church presides but argues that it is unclear as to what area the act ofpresiding ("presides in the place of the region of the Romans" and "presides over love") refers to. He argues that the act of presiding may be simply of those churches in theregion of the Romans, that is, those in Italy.[26] [edit]Tome of Leo Often cited as a proof of Papal Supremacy[27][28][29][30] is the Tome of Leo which is a letter sent by Pope Leo to the Second Ecumenical Council. It in part seems to suggest that Leo speaks with the authority of Peter. It is the position of Orthodox Christianity that the approval of the Tome is simply to state a unity of faith, not only of the pope but other churchmen as well. "After reading of the forgoing epistle (Pope Leo's), the most reverend bishops cried out: "This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe.[31] However it is not just Leo's teaching that is the teaching of the Apostle, but Cyril's teaching as well. Both teach as Peter. The same language was used following the reading of Cyril's letter at the council.[32] The language of the council is simply to reinforce that all believe.[33] At the Third Ecumenical Council Pope Celestine and Cyril were compared to Paul![34] [edit]John Chrysostom Another apparent witness for supremacy claims is John Chrysostom. This evidence is supposed to be based on an incident when he faced exile and he appealed to the pope for help. When he was to be exiled he appealed to the pope for help, as well as two other western prelates; Venerius of Milan and Chromatius of Aquileia. He appealed to all three in the same terms rather than viewing the pope as leader.[35] In 2007 Pope Benedict XVI also spoke of this "How well known and highly esteemed Chromatius was in the Church of his time we can deduce from an episode in the life of St John Chrysostom. When the Bishop of Constantinople was exiled from his See, he wrote three letters to those he considered the most important Bishops of the West seeking to obtain their support with the Emperors: he wrote one letter to the Bishop of Rome, the second to the Bishop of Milan and the third to the Bishop of Aquileia, precisely, Chromatius (Ep. CLV: PG LII, 702)."[36] Historian J. N. D Kelly wrote "While confined to his palace, John took a step of great importance. At some date between Easter and Pentecost... he wrote for support to the pope, Innocent I, and, in identical terms, to the two other leading patriarchs in the west, Venerius of Milan and Chromatius of Aquileia...His move in no way implied that he recognized the holy see as the supreme court of appeal in the church...Such an idea, absent from his sermons and other writings, is ruled out by his simultaneous approach to the two other western patriarchs."[37] The pope took up the cause of John Chrysostom, convoking a western synod to investigate the matter.[38] They found in favor of John Chrysostom and sent delegates to Constantinople but these were ignored and sent back after only three months.[39] The pope's findings in support of John Chrysostom were not viewed as serious enough to annul John Chrysostom's exile. It must also be remembered that he took his vows from Meletius (whom we noted earlier was not in communion with Rome). He accepted as an authority men not in communion with Rome. After Meletius died John

Chrysostom accepted Flavian as his bishop[40] - another person not in communion with Rome.[41] John Chrysostom spent much of his life not in communion with Rome. Other texts are used to allege he supported Roman primacy. John Chrysostom sometimes ascribes to Peter greatness. "For he who then did not dare to question Jesus, but committed the office to another, was even entrusted with the chief authority over the brethren."[42] This would seem to indicate that Chrysostom taught that Peter was the supreme ruler over thebrethren. He goes on to ascribe Peter as the teacher of the world.[43] However, according to Abb Guette on other occasions John Chrysostom ascribes the same titles to others[44]... "The merciful God is wont to give this honor to his servants, that by their grace others may acquire salvation; as was agreed by the blessed Paul, that teacher of the world who emitted the rays of his teaching everywhere."[45] Denny also notes that John Chrysostom goes on to speak of Paul as being on an equal footing with Peter[46]

[47] Further, the Catholic encyclopedia offers this frank admission of his writings
"...that there is no clear and any direct passage in favour of the primacy of the pope."[48] [edit]Basil the Great Basil the Great also supported Meletius against Rome's candidate.[49] Writing to Count Terentius Basil said "But a further rumour has reached me that you are in Antioch, and are transacting the business in hand with the chief authorities. And, besides this, I have heard that the brethren who are of the party of Paulinus are entering on some discussion with your excellency on the subject of union with us; and by us I mean those who are supporters of the blessed man of God, Meletius. I hear, moreover, that the Paulinians are carrying about a letter of the Westerns assigning to them the episcopate of the Church in Antioch, but speaking under a false impression of Meletius, the admirable bishop of the true Church of God. I am not astonished at this... But I shall never be able to persuade myself on these grounds to ignore Meletius, or to forget the Church which is under him, or to treat as small, and of little importance to the true religion, the questions which originated the division. I shall never consent to give in, merely because somebody is very much elated at receiving a letter from men."[50] From his letters it appears that Basil did not hold the popes in high esteem. When Basil wrote to the west for help (in combating Arianism) he addressed his letters to the whole western church.[51] He didn't especially write to Rome for help and did not even list it first. "To his brethren truly God-beloved and very dear, and fellow ministers of like mind, the bishops of Gaul and Italy, Basil, bishop of Csarea in Cappadocia"[52] Damasus was the leader of a group supporting the heretic Marcellus "If the anger of the Lord lasts on, what help can come to us from the frown of the West? Men who do not know the truth, and do not wish to learn it, but are prejudiced by false suspicions, are doing now as they did in the case of Marcellus when they quarrelled with men who told them the truth, and by their own action strengthened the cause of heresy."[53] Of the pope, St Basil wrote "...but what possible good could accrue to the cause by communication between a man proud and exalted, and therefore quite unable to hear those who preach the truth to him from a lower standpoint, and a man like my brother, to whom anything like mean servility is unknown?"[54] [edit]Coryphus

Coryphus means the head of the choir. Catholic apologists note that John Chrysostom uses the term to describe Peter.[55] However he also uses this term in relation to others "He took the coryphaei (plural) and led them up into a high mountain apart...Why does He take these three alone? Because they excelled the others. Peter showed his excellence by his great love of Him, John by being greatly loved, James by the answer...'We are able to drink the chalice.'"[56] "The coryphaei, Peter the foundation of the Church, Paul the vessel of election."[57] It is argued by Catholics that John Chrysostom only uses the singular Coryphus in relation to Peter. This is true, but others don't restrict the use of the singular to Peter. Basil also uses the term Coryphus. He refers to Athanasius as "Coryphus of all."[58] He refers to Pope Damasus as Coryphus, but as the leader of the westerners, not of the whole church. "Apart from the common document, I should like to have written to their Coryphus."[59] Hesychius of Jerusalem uses the term Coryphus to refer to James.[60] [edit]Maximus the Confessor Pope Leo III has already been shown to have misquoted Athanasius. Whelton states that (in his encyclical Satis cognitum) he misquotes Maximus the Confessor.[61] In Defloratio ex Epistola ad Petrum illustrem Maximus (also rendered Maximos) is alleged to have said... "Therefore if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man...but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See."[62] Edward Denny giving his own translation and using that of Vincenzi[63] shows that the words of Maximus give Rome a power conferred upon it by Holy Synods. This is in contrast with Catholic teaching and also would suggest that if a Synod can confer power, it can also take it away. Denny states that Vincenzi is "...compelled by the facts to admit that these very authorities to which St Maximus refers, as they have been handed down to us, are witness against the Papal Monarchy."[64] [edit]Formula of Pope Hormisdas Under the emperor Anastasius I, the churches of Constantinople and Rome were in schism. However with the ascendency of the orthodox emperor Justin I, the two churches could be reconciled again. Justin ordered negotiations begin. Pope Hormisdas issued a formula of orthodox catholic faith which the Patriarch John II could sign if he wished reunion of the two churches. "The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church," [Matthew 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied. From this hope and faith we by no means desire to be separated and, following the doctrine of the Fathers, we declare anathema all heresies, and, especially, the heretic Nestorius, former bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned by the Council of Ephesus, by Blessed Celestine, bishop of Rome, and by the venerable Cyril, bishop of Alexandria. We likewise condemn and declare to be anathema Eutyches and Dioscoros of Alexandria, who were condemned in the holy Council of Chalcedon, which we follow and endorse. This Council followed the holy Council of Nicaea and preached the apostolic faith. And we condemn the assassin Timothy, surnamed Aelurus ["the Cat"] and also Peter [Mongos] of Alexandria, his disciple and follower in everything. We also declare anathema their helper and follower, Acacius of Constantinople, a bishop once condemned by the Apostolic See, and all those who remain in contact and company with them. Because this Acacius joined himself to their

communion, he deserved to receive a judgment of condemnation similar to theirs. Furthermore, we condemn Peter ["the Fuller""] of Antioch with all his followers together with the followers of all those mentioned above. Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome."[65] Catholic apologists emphasize part of the text bolded above. Those in agreement with orthodox faith would naturally be in agreement with the church in Rome on this matter which was stating orthodox faith. For Catholic apologists agreement to this text means an agreement to Rome, because Rome is the leader. For Orthodox agreement to Rome is because it stated the truth. "For the Greeks, the text of the libellus meant a factual recognition that the apostolic Roman church had been consistent in orthodoxy for the past seventy years and, therefore deserved to become a rallying point for the Chalcedonians (those who accepted the Council of Chalcedon) of the East."[66] Further evidence seems to point to this. Patriarch John expressed his opinion that Rome (Old Rome) and Constantinople (New Rome) were on the same level.[67] The Patriarch showed this when he added to the document "I declare that the see of apostle Peter and the see of this imperial city are one"[68] Furthermore despite it being on of the demands in the formula the east continued to disregard papal demands by not condemning Acacius.[69] In doing so John was re-affirming Canon XXVIII of the Council of Chalcedon - a canon which the popes were not to affirm for many centuries to come. The politics of this is demonstrated by the fact that the Emperor Justin ignored the pope's candidate for the vacated see of Alexandria and instead "authorised the consecration of Timothy III, an intransigent Monophysite."[70] Theoderic, king in Italy, and an Arian grew suspicious of the new alliance between Rome and Constantinople. John who succeeded as pope was sent to Constantinople to restore Arian churches there. Thus the orthodox Catholic pope was sent to urge the restoration of churches to heretics. This the pope did with limited success.[71][72] Having failed, upon his return the pope was arrested and died in prison. This then is not the capitulation of the eastern churches to Roman authority. It is not even the capitulation of the church in Constantinople as other eastern churches ignored the formula completely. The popes didn't have authority over the church and in fact were forced to go and plead the case of heretics before the imperial throne. [edit]Opposition arguments from early church history

The church at Rome was founded (or organised) by both Peter and Paul. As no particular charism or

primacy attaches to Paul, then it is not from his co-foundation of the church of Rome that the Roman Pontiff claims primacy.

As many Sees are of Peter, Peter serves as an archetype of Apostle. Rome had primacy, but it was one of honour, rather than power.

Rome is an Apostolic throne, not the Apostolic throne. Each bishop has the right to decide affairs within his local church. In the event of a dispute with another Church Fathers do not refer to another tier above bishop. Cases which had been decided by Rome were appealed to bishops in other metropolitan areas Cases which had been decided by Rome were appealed to synods of bishops in other metropolitan Peter founded many Episcopal sees. There is no difference between the Sees of Peter; all are equal. The Apostles were equal; nothing was withheld from any of the Apostles. The Roman Pontiff is also styled "universal bishop" (Latin: Summus Pontifex Ecclesiae Universalis), but Rome (Old Rome) and Constantinople (New Rome) were on the same level. Eastern patriarchs have regarded popes as the leader of the westerners (not of the whole church). Faced with exile, John Chrysostom - the Archbishop of Constantinople - wrote an appeal for help to

bishop, only a general council may rule on the matter.

areas

a previous pope condemned the use of such a title by any bishop.

three western churchmen. While one of these was the bishop of Rome, had Rome exercised primacy at that time, he would not have written to the other two bishops. [edit]"Keys of the Kingdom" Orthodox Christians accept that Peter had a certain primacy. In the New Testament, he is first to be given the keys Matthew 16:18. However other texts may be interpreted to imply that the other Apostles also received the keys in Matthew 18:18. Such an interpretation, it is claimed,[73] has been accepted by many Church Fathers; Tertullian,[74] Hilary of Poitiers,[75] John Chrysostom,[76]Augustine.[77][78][79][80] [edit]The Council of Jerusalem Main article: Council of Jerusalem The New Testament records (Acts 15) the convening of a council to decide whether gentiles who converted should be required to be circumcised, which according to some interpretations was prescribed by the Mosaic law. (Rabbinic Judaism only prescribes Noahide Laws for gentiles.) Catholic historians note that when Peter spoke, all were silent. However Whelton notes that when Paul and James spoke, all were silent as well.[81] Eusebius said that it was James who stated the decision of the Council, not Peter.[82] John Chrysostom noted James made the decision.[83][84] The ruling of the Council was expressed as being the decision of all the council, not just Peter. Continuing with this the opening statements of official formulations normally begins with the phrase "Following the Holy Fathers", not "Following the ruling of the Pope."[85] [edit]Easter controversy There existed a difference in how some local churches celebrated Easter: in the Roman province of Asia it was celebrated on the 14th of the moon[86] (Quartodecimanism), not necessarily on Sunday. "Bishop Victor of Rome ordered synods to be held to settle the matter an interesting early instance of synodality and indeed of popes encouraging synods and excommunicated Polycrates of Ephesus and the bishops of Asia when their synod refused to adopt the Roman line. Victor was rebuked by Irenaeus for this severity and it seems that he revoked his sentence and that communion was preserved."[87] Eusebius wrote: "Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to

consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor. Among them was Irenus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord's day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom."[88] The matter was eventually resolved at the First Ecumenical Council in line with Sunday observance. [edit]Orthodox arguments from Church Councils This section does not cite anyreferences or sources.(October 2011)

Not one Ecumenical Council was called by a pope; all were called by Byzantine emperors. Had the

teaching of primacy formed part of Holy Tradition, then such power would have been exercised to resolve the many disputes in the early history of the church.

A general council may overrule decisions of the Roman Pontiff Decisions taken by popes in cases involving against bishops have often been confirmed by ecumenical

councils. This indicates that the papal decision itself is not considered binding. See also Ancient church councils (pre-ecumenical ). [edit]First Ecumenical Council Arius and his teachings were condemned by a synod of bishops which the pope summoned in 320. Alexander of Alexandria summoned a local synod in Alexandria in 321 which also condemned Arianism.[89] Five years after the pope had condemned Arianism, Emperor Constantine I called an ecumenical council to settle the matter. Whelton argues that the pope's decision was not considered an end to the matter because a council in Africa met to examine the issue for itself. Constantine then ordered a larger council to decide on the matter.[90] The Fourth Canon of this council confirmed that bishops were to be appointed only locally.[91] This is in contrast with Catholic canon law that allows the pope (should he wish) to interfere in the appointment of church officers at any level. [edit]Second Ecumenical Council The Second Ecumenical Council read into its notes the proceedings of the First Ecumenical Council even though the First had not yet at that time been approved of by the pope; therefore it can be argued that the bishops assembled at that council didn't seem to believe that the pope's approval was necessary to make a council ecumenical. Further to not regarding the pope's approval, the Second Ecumenical Council was presided over by Meletius of Antioch, who was not in communion with Rome.[92][93] [edit]Third Ecumenical Council The Third Ecumenical Council called Nestorius to account for his teachings following his condemnation as a heretic by Pope Celestine I. The council did not consider the papal condemnation as definitive.[94]

[95] Catholic theologian Jacques-Bnigne Bossuet noted

"It was fixed that all was in suspense once the authoritry of the universal Synod was invokved even though the sentence of the Roman Pontiff about doctrine and about persons accused of heresy had been uttered and promulgated."[96] Bishop Maret said

"The Pope had pronounced in the affair of Nestorius a canonical judgment clothed with all the authority of his see. He had prescribed its execution. Yet, three months after this sentence and before its execution, all the episcopate is invited to examine afresh and to decide freely the question in dispute."[97] St Vincent of Lerins "And that blessed council holding their doctrine, following their counsel, believing their witness, submitting to their judgment without haste, without foregone conclusion, without partiality, gave their determination concerning the Rules of Faith."[98] In its condemnation of Nestorius, the language given is of the council ruling, not because the pope said so. Cyril writes that he, and his fellow bishop - the pope - had both condemned Nestorius.[99] Catholic apologists Fathers Rumble and Carty stated " The Council of Ephesus in 431, embracing all Bishops and not even held at Rome, decreed, "No one can doubt, indeed it is known to all ages, that Peter, Prince and Head of the Apostles and Foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from Christ our Redeemer, and that to this day and always he lives in his successors exercising judgment."[100] It is true that the statement was made at the council. It is however not a 'decree'. It was a statement by a priest during the deliberations of the council. This priest, Philip was at the council to represent the pope. It was not a decree or finding made by the council and remains his opinion.[101] [edit]Fourth Ecumenical Council The Fourth Ecumenical Council was called against the expressed wishes of the pope.[102] [edit]Fifth Ecumenical Council A controversy arose out of the writings known as Three Chapters written by bishops Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas. Pope Vigilius opposed the condemnation of the Three Chapters. At the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553) the assembled bishops condemned and anathematized Three Chapters. Vigilius changed his mind blaming the devil for misleading him.[103] Bossuet wrote "These things prove, that in a matter of the utmost importance, disturbing the whole Church, and seeming to belong to the Faith, the decress of sacred council prevail over the decrees of Pontiffs, and the letter of Ibas, though defended by a judgment of the Roman Pontiff could nevertheless be proscribed as heretical."[104] German theologian Karl Josef von Hefele notes that the council was called " without the assent of the Pope"[105] [edit]Sixth Ecumenical Council At the Sixth Ecumenical Council, both Pope Honorius and Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople were declared heretics.[106] The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to our promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal god-protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasis and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul[107] The council anathematized them[108] and declared them tools of the devil[109] and cast them out of the church.

[110][111]
The popes (from Pope Leo II) themselves adhered to the Council's ruling and added Honorius to their list of heretics, before quietly dropping his name in the eleventh century.[112] The Catholic Encyclopedia states...

also in the oath taken by every new pope from the eighth century to the eleventh in the following words: "Together with Honorius, who added fuel to their wicked assertions" (Liber diurnus, ii, 9).[113] So too the Seventh Ecumenical Council declared its adhesion to the anathema in its decree of faith. Thus an Ecumenical Council could rule on the faith of a pope and expel him from the church.[114] [edit]The Council of Trullo The Council in Trullo considered by Orthodox as a continuation of the sixth.[115][116] At this council it was confirmed (in Canon 39) that the local church could regulate itself; to have its own special laws and regulations.[117] [edit]The Council of Sardica It is claimed by Catholic apologists[118] that this council offers proof of papal primacy. In particular this reference is used "The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle." Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius (A.D. 342).[119][120] It is further stated that Athanasius referred to this council as "the Great Council."[121] However, this council was not an ecumenical one and not all of it was accepted by the east, who in fact refused to attend.[122] Further they assembled themselves in an opposition council and believing that they were right to do so show that they were unaware of papal supremacy.[123] Apart from the fact that the council at Sardica was not accepted by the whole church, it had only given to the bishop of Rome a very limited jurisdiction, a limited right of appeal in some circumstances.[124] Pope Zosimus would later misrepresent the Council of Sardica in order to bolster his claims for power over the churches in Africa.[125] Some churches could accept its position on Arianism without accepting some of its findings. "...the canons were repudiated by the African Church in 418 and 424. But, most important of all, the Byzantine Church never submitted itself to papal scrutiny in the manner prescribed by Sardica."[126] [edit]Western Councils [edit]Filioque In 809, when Pope Leo III was asked to approve the addition to the Nicene Creed of the Filioque, first included by the Third Council of Toledo (589) and later adopted widely in Spain, the Frankish empire and England, he refused:[127][128] "In 809 a council was held at Aix-la-Chapelle by Charlemagne, and from it three divines were sent to confer with the Pope, Leo III, upon the subject. The Pope opposed the insertion of the Filioque on the express ground that the General Councils had forbidden any addition to be made to their formulary So firmly resolved was the Pope that the clause should not be introduced into the creed that he presented two silver shields to the Confessio in St. Peters at Rome, on one of which was engraved the creed in Latin and on the other in Greek, without the addition[129] The claim that Pope John VIII also condemned the addition of the Filioque[130] is disputed.[131] Philip Schaff says there are different opinions about when the addition was accepted in Rome, whether by Pope Nicholas I (858867), Pope Sergius III (904-911) or, as is most commonly believed, by Pope Benedict VIII (10141015).[131] When arguing "that so far from the insertion being made by the Pope, it was made in direct opposition to his wishes and command", he expresses himself more decidedly:

"It was not till 1014 that for the first time the interpolated creed was used at mass with the sanction of the Pope. In that year Benedict VIII. acceded to the urgent request of Henry II. of Germany and so the papal authority was forced to yield, and the silver shields have disappeared from St. Peter's."[129] [edit]Council of Frankfurt The Council of Frankfurt was held in 794. "...Two papal legates were present, Theophylact and Stephen."[132] Despite the presence of papal representatives it still repudiated the terms of the Seventh Ecumenical Council despite the fact that the Seventh was accepted by the pope.[133] [edit]Rome's supposed primacy [edit]The first pope The Catholic church states that Rome's supremacy rests on the pope being given power handed down from the first pope Peter.[134] However there is evidence that Peter was not the first bishop, and that the church in Rome was founded (or organized)[135] by Peter and Paul together.[136] "The blessed apostles having founded and established the church, entrusted the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul speaks of this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy.[137] That is Linus is entrusted by the Apostles (plural). It is suggested that this evidence means that Linus was pope whilst Peter was still alive.[138][139] Rome's church could be said to be founded (or organised) on both Peter and Paul. [edit]Primacy based on Peter and Paul Rome had primacy, but it was one of honor, rather than power. The reasons for this are varied. One being that it was a See founded by both Peter and Paul. This honor was given not because of the 'primacy' of Peter (which is Catholic teaching), but on the position of both Peter and Paul. This was the accepted position, even in the west. Pope Leo the Great "I. Rome Owes Its High Position to These Apostles. The whole world, dearly-beloved, does indeed take part in all holy anniversaries, and loyalty to the one Faith demands that whatever is recorded as done for all men's salvation should be everywhere celebrated with common rejoicings. But, besides that reverence which to-day's festival has gained from all the world, it is to be honored with special and peculiar exultation in our city, that there may be a predominance of gladness on the day of their martyrdom in the place where the chief of the Apostles met their glorious end. For these are the men, through whom the light of Christ's gospel shone on thee, O Rome, and through whom thou, who wast the teacher of error, was made the disciple of Truth. These are thy holy Fathers and true shepherds, who gave thee claims to be numbered among the heavenly kingdoms, and built thee under much better and happier auspices than they, by whose zeal the first foundations of thy walls were laid: and of whom the one that gave thee thy name defiled thee with his brother's blood. These are they who promoted thee to such glory, that being made a holy nation, a chosen people, a priestly and royal state, and the head of the world through the blessed Peter's holy See thou didst attain a wider sway. by the worship of God than by earthly government. For although thou weft increased by many victories, and didst extend thy rule on land and sea, yet what thy toils in war subdued is less than what the peace of Christ has conquered.

VII. No Distinction Must Be Drawn Between the Merits of the Two. And over this band, dearlybeloved, whom God has set forth for our example in patience and for our confirmation in the Faith, there must be rejoicing everywhere in the commemoration of all the saints, but of these two Fathers' excellence we must rightly make our boast in louder joy, for God's Grace has raised them to so high a place among the members of the Church, that He has set them like the twin light of the eyes in the body, whose Head is Christ. About their merits and virtues, which pass all power of speech, we must not make distinctions, because they were equal in their election, alike in their toils, undivided in their death. But as we have proved for Ourselves, and our forefathers maintained, we believe, and are sure that, amid all the toils of this life, we must always be assisted in obtaining God's Mercy by the prayers of special interceders, that we may be raised by the Apostles' merits in proportion as we are weighed down by our own sins. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, &c.[140] Augustine[141] and Theodoret[142] also wrote on the greatness of Rome but for being the largest city, and its foundation on Peter and Paul. Rome's degree of 'primacy' was affirmed by one hundred and fifty bishops meeting at the Council of Chalcedon.[143] For this council Rome's primacy rested on the fact it was once the imperial capital. [edit]Canon XXVIII of the Council of Chalcedon This canon above comes up in numerous discussions on Papal Supremacy. For Orthodox it demonstrates a fluidity to the placing of honors it shows Constantinople's place of honor moving up higher than older Sees such as Jerusalem, Alexandria and, Antioch. Pope Leo I protested against the inclusion of this canon and refused to sign agreement to it. The Catholic encyclopaedia says "In reply Pope Leo protested most energetically against canon xxviii and declared it null and void as being against the prerogatives of Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, and against the decrees of the Council of Nicaea. Like protests were contained in the letters written 22 May, 452, to Emperor Marcian, Empress Pulcheria, and Anatolius of Constantinople. Otherwise the pope ratified the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, but only inasmuch as they referred to matters of faith."[144] The pope protested on behalf of two other Sees' privlleges, not on a matter of his own power. However despite his energetic protests the canon remained adhered to by the eastern churches. It was confirmed in the east at the Council of Trullo in 692, where the four major eastern patriarchs attended; Paul of Constantinople, Peter of Alexandria, Anastasius of Jerusalem, George of Antioch. Thus despite the wishes of the pope the eastern churches ignored his protests. Eventually it was accepted in the West. In 1215 at the Fourth Council of the Lateran the Roman church accepted Constantinople's position albeit when Constantinople was in western hands following the Fourth Crusade. Subsequently at the Council of Florence this was confirmed to the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople. "...and so the opposition of Rome gave way after seven centuries and a half, and the Nicene Canon which Leo declared to be inspired by the Holy Ghost and valid to the end of time[145] [edit]Rome as an archetype church The church in Rome is occasionally singled out. Tertullian Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-

eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally. Achaia is very near you, (in which) you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; (and there too) you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! Where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's! Where Paul wins his crown in a death like John's where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile![146] With no special charism associated with Paul, he is quietly ignored by Catholic apologists as a founder of the See of Rome. Or his part is acknowledged but merely in passing because the theory of the pope's authority has no place for Paul's role in the foundation of the Roman church. Rome serves as an example, but so do the other apostolic churches. Again, reflecting Ignatius' thoughts on catholic it is noted that the many churches each are 'one'. Cyprian "And this unity we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the Church, that we may. Let no one deceive the brotherhood by a falsehood: let no one corrupt the truth of the faith by perfidious prevarication. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole."[147] [edit]Equality of the Apostles Peter and Paul taught the same as each other. All the Apostles were the foundation (rock) of the church. Nothing was withheld from any of the Apostles. When they preached they did so with equal knowledge. Peter preached to the Jews as Paul preached to the Gentiles[148] Galatians 2:7. Tertullian "Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called "the rock on which the church should be built," who also obtained "the keys of the kingdom of heaven," with the power of "loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?" Was anything, again, concealed from John, the Lord's most beloved disciple, who used to lean on His breast to whom alone the Lord pointed Judas out as the traitor, whom He commended to Mary as a son in His own stead?"[149] 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.[150] Cyril of Alexandria "One therefore is Christ both Son and Lord, not as if a man had attained only such a conjunction with God as consists in a unity of dignity alone or of authority. For it is not equality of honour which unites natures; for then Peter and John, who were of equal honour with each other, being both Apostles and holy disciples."[151] [edit]"Rock" Orthodox Christians believe all people can share in God. In a process calledTheosis. We are all called to be rock. That is to share in the same nature. Thus from the earliest times the foundation of the church can be said to be; the faith; Jesus; the Apostles, not just Peter.

The Shepherd of Hermas "First of all, sir," I said, "explain this to me: What is the meaning of the rock and the gate?" "This rock", he answered, "and this gate are the Son of God."[152] The Divine Liturgy of James the Apostle and brother of God For the strengthening of your holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which you founded on the rock of the faith, so that the gates of Hell might not prevail against it, delivering it from every heresy and from the scandals caused by those who work iniquity, and from the enemies who arise and attack it, until the consummation of the age.[153] Others are called to be rock; Hippolytus of Rome;[154] Victorinus of Pettau;[155] Gregory of Nyssa;[156] Hilary of Poitiers;[157] Jerome;[158]Basil the Great;[159] Gregory Thaumaturgus;
[160]

Ambrosiaster;[161] Aphraates;[162] Athanasius;[163] Origen;[164] John Cassian[165]

The Orthodox Christian position is that all members of the church are called to be 'rock'; just as the church is built on the foundation of all the Apostles (Ephesians 2:20), all are called to bestones (1Peter 2:4-9). Protestant Matthew Henry's bible commentary notes this too when he states "The church is built upon the foundation of the apostles. The first stones of that building were laid in and by their ministry; hence their names are said to be written in the foundationsof the new Jerusalem."[166] Peter described himself as a fellow elder 1Peter 1:4-5, placing himself on equal footing with the other disciples.[167] For these early writers, Peter's leading position does not carry a special status that places him in a class different from all the other disciples of Jesus, nor do they imply that Peter's personal privileges and authority are transmitted to his successors in any particular church."[168] [edit]Peter as "Prince of the Apostles" Peter is often called the Prince of the Apostles. If such a special title meant that he held a special charism it was not exclusively Rome's. Other Sees had been founded by Peter. Pope Gregory the Great recognised these Sees were all equally as Sees of Peter. There is no difference between the Sees of Peter.[169] Pope Gregory "Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors... Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one... He himself stablished (sic) the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. "[170] Theodoret also refers to other Sees being thrones of Peter.[171]

[edit]Peter as the Archetype As all are called to be rock, and as many Sees are of Peter, Peter serves as an archetype of Apostle. When he receives the keys he represents all of the Apostles.

[172][173] This is found in the writings of Augustine[174] and Cyprian.[175]

[edit]Gregory the Great The pope now holds the title of universal bishop. However such titles once raised the ire of popes.[176] Pope Gregory the Great heard that Patriarch John the Faster had accepted the titleecumenical patriarch. This simply meant patriarch to the emperor, not 'universal' patriarch.[177] The pope wrote to the emperor to protest that any one bishop should be accorded the title universal bishop. Gregory first accords Peter the title prince of the Apostles. "For to all who know the Gospel it is apparent that by the Lords voice the care of the whole Church was committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of all the Apostles, Peter.[178] Gregory notes that honor was bestowed upon Peter and the church in Rome given it by an ecumenical council, but that no one person used the title.[179] It was an honor for all priests.[180]Gregory emphatically says no one person whould have such a title.
[181]

[edit]Pelagianism During the controversies surrounding Pelagius' heresies a council in Mileve (in Numidia) found against Pelagianism. They then wrote to the pope seeking his help. They gave him much praise "We write this from the council of Numidia, imitating our colleagues of the church and province of Carthage, who we understand have written on this matter to the apostolic see, which your blessedness adorns."[182] Catholic apologists may make the most of such praise. However in the context of history one must also note that this praise was conditional. The next pope Zosimus did not out-rightly condemn the heresy Pelagianism and was himself condemned by the rest of the church for back-pedalling.[183] Thus the same church (in Africa) could lavish praise upon the church in Rome but could equally condemn them, depending on the teachings Rome upheld. Zosimus eventually reconfirmed the decision of Innocent, Pelagius went to the churches in Palestine where a synod was called to hear his case.[184] Augustine says that the churches in Palestine were deceived by Pelagius. What is important though is that even after two popes had condemned him Pelagius could still seek judgment by another region's synod. Evidentially the Palestinian churches did not see the condemnation of the church in Rome and the church in Africa as binding. It would take an ecumenical council to bring the churches to agreement on this matter. [edit]Cyprian

In the encyclical Satis cognitum Pope Leo XIII misquotes Cyprian. "To be in communion with (pope) Cornelius is to be in communion with the Catholic Church"[185] The quotation is taken from Cyrpian's letter to Antonianus who was questioning whether he should be loyal to Cornelius or another claimant to the pontificate Novation. Cornelius selection as bishop of Rome was backed by sixteen bishops. Cyprian stated that Novation "...strives by bribery to be made an adulterous and extraneous bishop by the hands of deserters; and although there is one Church, divided by Christ throughout the whole world into many members, and also one episcopate diffused through a harmonious multitude of many bishops[186] Therefore to adhere to a heretic (Novation) is to separate oneself from the Catholic Church. Furthermore Cyprian confirms here that the one church is divided into many bishoprics throughout the world. He goes on to say in the same letter " While the bond of concord remains, and the undivided sacrament of the Catholic Church endures, every bishop disposes and directs his own acts, and will have to give an account of his purposes to the Lord[187] Cyprian is used several times in Catholic apologetics.[188] "And although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles yet He founded a single Chair, thus establishing by His own authority the source and hallmark of the [Church's] oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is [thus] made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, even if they are all shepherds, we are shown but one flock which is to be fed by all the Apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?"[189] The Jesuit scholar Bvnot notes "A primacy is give to Peter primatus Petro datur ...To translate primatus by 'the primacy' is to contradict the context which speaks of the Apostles as being equal in power, equally shepherds."[190] [edit]Cyprian and Augustine Background - Donatism During the persecutions of the early church some Christians, in order to avoid persecution renounced their faith. A question then rose of how to accept these people back into the church. Some argued that they should just be allowed back into the church. Others, Donatists argued that re-baptism was required. Cyprian of Carthage was one who argued that the lapsed needed to be baptised again. Augustine would argue against rebaptism. Augustines position was one that was accepted as orthodox. The local church decides for itself

Cyprian stated the position that each local church to decide upon matters.[191] Cyprian was adamant that the popes had no power over him.[192] Cyprian in his dispute believed he was following the teachings of the Apostles. He appealed to what he believed was always taught and this was the faith as maintained by all the Apostles. He addressed Pope Stephen not as his master, but as his equal.[193] "For we find also, in the Acts of the Apostles, that this is maintained by the apostles, and kept in the truth of the saving faith, so that when, in the house of Cornelius the centurion, the Holy Ghost had descended upon the Gentiles who were there, fervent in the warmth of their faith, and believing in the Lord with their whole heart; and when, filled with the Spirit, they blessed God in divers tongues, still none the less the blessed Apostle Peter, mindful of the divine precept and the Gospel, commanded that those same men should be baptized who had already been filled with the Holy Spirit, that nothing might seem to be neglected to the observance by the apostolic instruction in all things of the law of the divine precept and Gospel"[194] Augustine supports Cyprian Thus Cyprian's stance does not evidence Papal Supremacy. The pope had condemned this position but one local church continued on with its own matters in the manner it decided. Importantly Augustine, who disagrees with Cyprian's stance on dogma does not condemn Cyprian's manner.[195] Augustine agreed with Cyprian's right to decide within his local church... As Michael Whelton observed "He does not condemn Cyprian for refusing to submit to the Bishop of Rome"[196] Despite the fact that the pope had condemned Cyprians position, a general council had not yet ruled on the matter. Augustine recognises this fact.[197] Augustine is of the belief that Cyprian might have changed his mind if a general (ecumenical) council had been called.[198] He states that a council would have the ultimate say in removing all doubt.
[199]

Augustine had elsewhere argued that a council could over-rule a

local church - even the church in Rome.[200] Adherence to the Bishop of Rome was not "necessary" for unity.[201] This is the orthodox understanding bishops can be in error, including the bishop of Rome. Individual churches could disagree with each other, and still remain Catholic short of a general council deciding; it could be called in which all churches gathered and proclaimed a unity of faith. The African Church was steadfast in its belief, despite any papal pronouncements. In 258 at the Council of Iconium, presided over by St. Firmilian of Neo-Caesarea, and attended by Fathers from Cappadocia, Lycea, Galatia and other parts of Asia. It rejected the

teaching of Pope Stephen of Rome, and confirmed the decrees of Carthage in regards to the rebaptism and re-ordination of converts baptized or ordained by heretics. Around 419 at the Council of Carthage, presided over by Pope Aurelius of Carthage, and attended by 217 bishops all together it condemned Pelagianism (those who deny original sin and grace) and Donatism (who reject the ordination of those who had lapsed during the persecution), and denied the jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome in the African Church. Further it enumerated canon of Holy Scriptures (Old and New Testaments), and prohibited the rebaptism or reordination of those baptized or ordained by Donatists. (which of course depends on whether they were rightly ordained/baptised in the first place). Eventually, following an Ecumenical Council the orthodox position as supported by both the pope and Augustine was accepted in Africa. But, as shown they did not accept it simply because the pope had stated it was so. They recognised he could be in error, and that they had, for the time being ruled on their own affairs themselves. Augustine supported Cyprian's right to decide as he did. [edit]St Vincent of Lrins As Augustine argues that Cyprian would have rejoined orthodox belief following a general council, Vincent of Lrins wrote on what he considered constituted the teachings of the Catholic Church. His opening "General Rule" mentions no adhesion to the Bishop of Rome, rather what is taught by all the church. Hasler sums this up as "...a teaching can only be defined if it has been held to be revealed at all times, everywhere, and by all believers. "[202] This same rule would be used also to argue against Papal infallibility. [edit]The Reunion Council For Orthodox, the acceptance of a council relies on two points, it must not only state the faith as always taught, but also be accepted by the whole church. A council can rule and still be rejected by the faithful. Some Catholic historians maintain that the Second Council of Lyon of 1272 shows the churches of the east submitting to Roman authority. It was at this council that the Roman (Byzantine) Emperor Michael endeavored to re-unite the churches (split apart at the Great Schism in 1054). The delegation who attended from the east however did not represent the churches in the east, but the Emperor himself. They were his personal emissaries.[203] Historian Steven Runciman notes; "But on the whole it was only amongst the laymen of the Court that any supporters of a union could be found; and

they were moved by political rather than religious considerations."[204] Michael had genuinely wished re-union. His primary fear was not an attack from the Turks, but the fear of a renewed effort by the Latin west against the Empire one must remember that this is not long after Michael had recaptured Constantinople from the Latin west which had held it since the Fourth Crusade in 1204. With the failure of this attempt at union through a political solution, Michaels fears were realised when the pope concluded an alliance with Charles of Anjou in 1281. The empire and the dynasty were saved from military intervention only by the Sicilian Vespers, (a rebellion that broke out in Palermo).[205] This council then, having been rejected by the whole church is not accepted in the east as a valid council, despite the pope accepting it as such. [edit]Conclusion of Orthodox rebuttal The Catholic position is that Rome's bishop stands out from the others because he has a specialcharism handed down from Peter. As shown above Rome's greatness was found in the two apostles Peter and Paul; that there was no difference between them. The Church Fathers state that the keys are held by others; John the Evangelist, for example, and the church as a whole. The Church Fathers also say that rock refers not just to Peter, but to the church, to Jesus, and to the Christian faith. Further there was no difference between one of Peter's Sees from another. Orthodox maintain that all bishops are equal. All are called to be rock. As a reflection of the Trinity the church is united by love, not a formal adherence to one particular bishop in one particular location. For Orthodox, each individual to truly be a person must also be engaged in this unity of love with other persons.[206] The Trinity too is joined by a union of love - with each member of the Trinity fully God. Each church is fully catholic united by love. To change the structure of the church would change how we perceive God, and also how we must interact with each other. [edit]Citations

3 hierarch against Catholicism

1. St mark of Ephesus who called a forgery when presented to him was chyrsostom supporting the filoque. 2. Palamas against baalam 3. St photius the great.

Some facts to work summaries

recite byzantine calender, lineage of early fathers and 70 apostles from in monastery
Story of porphyrios against paisios prophecies and st arsenios god father to him

Source http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2012/03/controversial-end-time-prophecies-by.html Zervakos lineage to st nectarios great and on ecumenism Seraphim rose connection to gnostic school of man and heretical toll house theory akzoul expounds upon and also puhalo laza. Council of hieria, the robber council is the catholics 8th ecumenical council. Then photius is restored.

Byzantine study restoring byzantine emperor integrity study Scholar nico explores the contention that Vatican forgeries created to fabricate the corrupt caesarpapistic emperor over the virtuous pope. It is clear that the massacre of Thessalonica in perspective that gothic wars occurring in between, the romans wanted the goths out of the empire, Theodosius changed his mind about an execution order of protests, probably because he knew the tendencies of the barbarians.. also see battle of Adrianople is connected. The propaganda war between goths and romans. Skylitzes as a source from basil ii file is biased and unreliable, ignoring the virtues of the emperor other sources consensually show. Also fabricating events to make it appear that a Bulgarians wars were really a civil war and feuding of aristocratic families when this has been put out of context and perspective. Leslie brubaker and the myth of iconoclastic destruction and iconodule emperors who imposed orthodoxy when it Is the law in Byzantium that bishops decided on doctrine as it was customary for emperors to convene them and be obedient to the outcomes.[check Mario file notes from her book summarised] ready to publish on scribd. The franks influence on iconoclasm, robber council and quasi catholic position that was political againt the greeks. Follow from romanides franks and feudalism doctrine. How these events were precipitated by franks revulsion to icons. Recall the byzantine icon of children education refutes idea icons for the illiterate because this is from the libri carolini of the germans and their view. We can then follow misconceptions of Constantine from known Vatican forgeries like Constantine donation. Pagan sources attacking Constantine. Constantine historical truth file oodgr. And the hero of Justinian with tribonian and john of Cappadocia conforming social laws into more philanthropic and Christian way. The allegation that Constantine was pro ayrian and was baptised by an ayrian has been refuted. [double check this is a catholic forgery] there are many passages and references Constantine attacking ayrian ideas. After the ayrian influence of Constantinople, in part because of the goths influence at court, all those bishops involved in the theological debate were recalled from exile, showing the alleged episodes of torture were unfounded.[exile was the cultural standard in Byzantium. [this occurred under Julian apostate]

Goths influence on ayrianism can probably be established beyond reasonable doubt. This goes hand in hand that orthodox identity was not formed and developed in an evolutionary way through stages at each council, but was always known and the episodes of doubt occurred through a blantant attack on the .church. Note mt athos manuscript found describing 70 apotles. Russian mystics influenced by western esoteric thought and toll houses.

Fake Catholic literature (Part 1) Vati Leaks Comment on this Article It is rightly said that history is written by the victors, and that is the case with the
Church of Rome. How they did it is one of the great untold stories of all time, and few people today know how freely it is acknowledged in Church circles that popular Catholic versions of the history of Christianity are composed entirely of forgeries. Popes wrote a new Christian history From around the time of Pope Leo X (d. 1521) until more modern times, popes employed internal academic priestly writers to expound untrue Church claims adding academic respectability to false concepts: 'The Pontiff employed interested or mercenary writers to advocate his claims he transformed many points of divinity so as to satisfy his thirst for power, reputation, and gain'. ('Book of the Roman Catholic Church', Dr. and Bishop Charles Butler, 8 Vols. 1825, p. 664) This was just one of many papal schemes used to suppress the truth of Christian origins. Ancient Church records 'corrected' It is a little-known fact that in 1562, Pius IV (1559-1565, Giovanni Angelo de' Medici) established a special Vatican censoring department called the 'Index Expurgatorius' ('Expurgatory Index'), its purpose being to prohibit publication of 'erroneous passages of the early Church fathers' that carried statements opposing modern-day doctrine. When Vatican archivists came across 'genuine copies of the Fathers, they expunged them according to the 'Expurgatory Index' (ibid), and that confession provides researchers with 'grave doubts about the value of all patristic writings released by the Vatican to the public' ('The Propaganda Press of Rome', Sir James W. L. Claxton, Whitehaven Books, Belgravia Square, London, 1942) ('Index Expurgatorius Vaticanus', Edited by R. Gibbings, B.A., Dublin, 1837; For a full and accurate account of the 'Indices', both 'Expurgatory' and 'Prohibitory' the reader is referred to Rev. Mr. Mendham's work, 'The Literary Policy of the Church of Rome', Second Ed., 1840; also, 'The Vatican Censors', Professor Peter Elmsley (1773-1825), Principal of St. Alban's Hall, Oxford) The Vatican's 'Book of the Popes' entirely fictitious Some two decades after the establishment of the 'Index Expurgatorius', Pope Sixtus V (1585-1590) then created an internal Vatican publishing division and retrospectively created a literary past for the Christian religion by producing of a series of unashamedly fictitious books. As a result, a series of illusory books were written to defend and support untrue allegations about Christianity's past: 'Several of these fake books are frequently cited and applied to the defence of Christianity by the Church as true and genuine pieces'. ('A Dictionary of Universal Knowledge for the People', Lippincott and Co. 1877; also, Diderot's 'Encyclopdie', 1759; also, 'The Propaganda Press of Rome', Sir James W. L. Claxton, Whitehaven Books, Belgrave Square, London, 1942) During the 16th and 17th Centuries, the Vatican flooded the world with false books about its supposed 'popes', the most blatant example being the famous, or infamous but 'official' 'Book of the Popes' ('Liber Pontificalis'). Like the 'Liberian Catalogue' discussed in Part 2 of this series, this tome is notorious for its fictitious accounts of early and mythical 'successors' of an un-historic 'Pope St. Peter'. This papal fabrication provides a collection of glowing diatribes describing pontificates of docile and devout popes, most of who never existed, and has about it the spurious air of ingenuousness that so often amuses the non-Christian reader.

Invented 'popes' The 'Book of the Popes' makes martyrs of thirteen 'popes' of the Third and

Vati Leaks

The Symmachean forgeries are a sheaf of forged documents produced in the papal curia of Pope Symmachus (498514) in the beginning of the sixth century, in the same cycle that produced the Liber Pontificalis.[1] In the context of the conflict between partisans of Symmachus and Antipope Laurentius the purpose of these libelli was to further papal pretensions of the independence of the Bishops of Rome from criticisms and judgment of any ecclesiastical tribunal, putting them above law clerical and secular by supplying spurious documents supposedly of an earlier age. "During the dispute between Pope St. Symmachus and the anti-pope Laurentius," the Catholic Encyclopedia reports, "the adherents of Symmachus drew up four apocryphal writings called the 'Symmachian Forgeries'. ... The object of these forgeries was to produce alleged instances from earlier times to support the whole procedure of the adherents of Symmachus, and, in particular, the position that the Roman bishop could not be judged by any court composed of other bishops."[2]

The intention of the forgery is to showcase the bad emperor over the newly justified independent papacy
That also seems to offer the situation and environment which would most naturally call forth the document as we have it. This is well brought out by Ludo Moritz Hartmann in his Geschichte Italiens im Mittelalter, [6] and by Erich Caspar in his Pippin und die romische Kirche.[7] The Papacy was then cutting loose from the Emperor at Constantinople and ignoring his representatives in Italy, as well as developing its own independent policy toward Italian territory, toward the Lombards, and toward the Franks. The aim of the forger seems to have been the characteristically medieval one of supplying documentary warrant for the existence of the situation which had developed through a long-drawn-out revolution, namely, the passage of imperial prerogatives and political control in Italy from the Emperor to the Papacy. Hence, along with general statements of papal primacy, and of gifts of property, detailed and explicit stress is laid upon the granting of imperial honors, the imperial palace, and imperial power to the Pope, and upon the right of the Roman clergy to the privileges of the highest ranks of Roman society. Legal confirmation was thus given for riding roughshod over the vestiges and memories of the imperial regime in Italy and for looking to the Papacy as the [Page 8] source of all honors and dignities. Furthermore we know that Paul I was extremely devoted to the memory of Sylvester, and so it may well have been under his influence that this document came into existence with its tribute to Sylvester's personal character and historic significance.

I wish to give public expression of my thanks to Professor Deane P. Lockwood, of Columbia University, for his kindness in reading my translation of Valla's treatise and the many suggestions and improvements he indicated; to Professor J. T. Shotwell, of Columbia University, who was largely responsible for the beginning of the whole

undertaking; and to Mr. Alexander D. Fraser, of Allegheny College, for generous assistance in reading proof.

NOTES [1] C. B. Coleman, Constantine the Great and Christianity, three phases: the historical, the legendary, and the spurious. Columbia University Studies in History, Economics and Public Law, vol. LX, no. I. Columbia University Press, and Longmans, Green & Co., New York, 1914. [2] F. M. Nichols, ed., Epistles of Erasmus. Longmans, Green & Co., New York, 1901. [3] Vita di Lorenzo Valla (Florence, 1891). [4] Syntagma tractatuum de imperiali iurisdictione, etc., Strassburg, 1609; first published under a similar title at Basle, 1566. [5] Neue Forschungen uber die Konstantinische Schenkung, in Mittheilungen d. Instituts fur osterr. Geschichtsforschung, vol. X (1889), pp. 325 et seq., XI (1890), pp. l28 et seq. Reprinted in his Gesammelte Schriften in the Historische Studien of E. Eberling, vol. XLII. [6] II, ii (Leipsic, 1903), pp. 218-231. [7] Berlin, 1914, pp. 185-189.

source[above] and [below] http://history.hanover.edu/texts/vallaintro.html

Lorenzo Valla, Discourse on the Forgery of the Alleged Donation of Constantine In Latin and English English translation by Christopher B. Coleman (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1922).
Hanover Historical Texts Project Scanned and proofread by Jonathan Perry, February 2001.

Introduction by Christopher B. Coleman 1-8

[Page 1] THE Donation of Constantine-the most famous forgery in European history; papal authority-since the triumph of Christianity the most perennial question of European society; historical criticism-one of the most comprehensive, most alluring, and most baffling enterprises of the modern mind; Lorenzo Valla-the greatest of the professional Italian humanists; these lines of study have converged, accidentally perhaps, to call forth the following pages. Much of the subject matter which might properly form their introduction I have already treated more fully in an earlier work,[1] and a brief statement will suffice here. The Donation of Constantine (Constitutum Constantini), written probably not long after the middle of the eighth century, became widely known through its incorporation in the Pseudo-Isidorian

Decretals (about 847-853). Parts of it were included in most of the medieval collections of canon law; Anselm's, Deusdedit's, and Gratian's great work (the Decretum, or Concordia discordantium canonum). It purports to reproduce a legal document in which the Emperor Constantine the Great, reciting his baptism and the cure of his leprosy at the hands of Sylvester, Bishop of Rome 314-336, confirmed the privilege of that pontiff as head of all the clergy and supreme over the other four patriarchates; conferred upon him extensive imperial property in various parts of the world, especially the imperial Lateran palace, and the imperial diadem and tiara, and other imperial insignia; granted the Roman clergy the rank of the highest Roman orders and their [Page 2] privileges; gave Sylvester and his successors freedom in consecrating men for certain orders of the clergy; it tells how he, Constantine, recognized the superior dignity of the Pope by holding the bridle of his horse; grants Sylvester Rome, all of Italy, and the western provinces, to remain forever under the control of the Roman See; and states his own determination to retire to Byzantium in order that the presence of an earthly emperor may not embarrass ecclesiastical authority. This remarkable document was almost universally accepted as genuine from the ninth to the fifteenth century. The question of the position of the bishop of Rome in the Christian Church lacks but a few generations of being as old as Christianity itself. His relation to secular governments became an acute problem as soon as the imperial government broke down in Italy, and has remained so to the present moment. For centuries the Papacy was the strongest institution in western Europe. While its control at any one time rested principally on the power it actually possessed and on the ability of its representatives, legal theories and historical documents played a not inconsiderable part in its rise and decline. Of these documents the Donation of Constantine was perhaps the most spectacular, even though it was not the most important. It was cited by no less than ten Popes of whom we know, to mention no lesser writers, in contentions for the recognition of papal control, and contributed not a little to the prestige of the Papacy. On the other hand, when its spuriousness became known, the reaction against it, as in Luther's case, contributed powerfully to the revolt from Rome. Its century-long influence entitles it to a respect difficult for any one who now reads it to feel. And Valla's discussion of it contains many interesting reflections on the secular power of the Papacy, perhaps the most interesting expression in this connection of fifteenth century Italian humanism. Among the achievements of modern historical criticism Valla's work was a conspicuous pioneer. Its quality and its importance have often been exaggerated, and as often underestimated. It is some satisfaction to make it more generally available in the origi- [Page 3] nal text and translation, so that the reader may judge for himself. A critical appraisal would have to take into account that Nicholas Cusanus some seven years earlier in his De concordantia catholica covered part of the same ground even better than Valla did, and anticipated some of his arguments. But Valla's treatise is more exhaustive) is in more finished and effective literary form, and in effect established for the world generally the proof of the falsity of the Donation. Moreover, for the first time, he used effectively the method of studying the usage of words in the variations of their meaning and application, and other devices of internal criticism which are the tools of historical criticism to-day. So, while Valla's little book may seem slight beside later masterpieces of investigation and beside systematic treatises in larger fields, it is none the less a landmark in the rise of a new science. I speak from personal experience in adding that it is still useful in college classes in promoting respect for, and development in, critical scholarship. As to Valla himself the words of Erasmus will bear repetition; "Valla, a man who with so much energy, zeal and labor, refuted the stupidities of the barbarians, saved half-buried letters from extinction, restored Italy to her ancient splendor of eloquence, and forced even the learned to express themselves henceforth with more circumspection."[2] The Italian Renaissance is much extolled among us, - and so little known. A short time ago diligent search revealed no copy of Valla's works in the United States, and many of the larger libraries had none of his separate writings. The same is doubtless true in the case of other great names in the Renaissance. Meanwhile, there are those whose profession it is to teach European history and who are utterly unacquainted with medieval and later Latin

pseudo isidorean decretals.

The false pretense back of the huge forgery was that the documents included were genuine papal letters and decretals of the earliest popes, thus carrying back the Churchs late pretensions to the very first of the Church and to the pretended and fictitious associates and Successors of Peter. These spurious documents are taken up seriatim by the critical Father Dupin, as outlined in ANF., viii, and each in its turn pronounced a forgery. From the Introductory Notice to the Decretals, I think it pertinent to quote the following paragraph:

These frauds, which, pretending to be a series of papal edicts from Clement and his successors during the ante-Niccne ages, are, in fact, the manufactured product of the ninth century,the most stupendous imposture of the worlds history, the most successful and the most stubborn in its hold upon enlightened nations. Like the masons framework of lath and scantlings, on which he turns an arch of massive stone, the Decretals served their purpose, enabling Nicholas I to found the Papacy by their insignificant aid. That swelling arch of vanity once reared, the framework might be knocked out; but the fabric stood, and has borne up every weight imposed upon it for ages. Its strong abutments have been ignorance and despotism. Nicholas produced his flimsy framework of imposture, and amazed the whole Church by the audacity of the claims he founded upon it. The age, however, was unlearned and uncritical; and, in spite of remonstrances from France under lead of Hincmar, bishop of Rheims, the West patiently submitted to the overthrow of the ancient Canons and the Nicene Constitutions, and bowed to the yoke of a new canon law, of which these frauds were not only made an integral, but the essential, part. The East never accepted them for a moment. ... The Papacy created the Western schism, and contrived to call it the schism of the Greeks. The Decretals had created the Papacy, and they enabled the first Pope to assume that communion with himself was the test of Catholic communion: hence his excommunication of the Easterns, which, after brief intervals of relaxation, settled into the chronic schism of the Papacy, and produced the awful history of the medieval Church in Western Europe. (ANF. viii, 601.) Isidorian Decretals is the name given to certain apocryphal letters contained in a collection of canon laws composed about the middle of the ninth century. ... Nowadays every one agrees that these so-called papal letters are forgeries. These documents, about 100 in number, appeared suddenly in the ninth century and are nowhere mentioned before that time. ... The pseudo-Isidore makes use of documents written long after the times of the popes to whom he attributed them. The popes of the first three centuries are made to quote documents that did not appear until the fourth or fifth century, etc. Then again there are endless anachronisms. The Middle Ages were deceived by this huge forgery, but during the Renaissance men of learning and the canonists generally began to recognize the fraud. ... Nevertheless the official edition of the Corpus Juris, in 1580, upheld the genuineness of the false decretals. (CE. vi, 773.) But the God-guided Vicars of God knew they were forgeries.

Upon these spurious decretals, says Hallam, was built the great fabric of papal supremacy over the different national churches; a fabric which has stood after its foundations crumbled beneath it; for no one has pretended to deny, for the last two centuries, that the imposture is too palpable for any but the most ignorant ages to

credit. (History of the Middle Ages, Bk. VII, ch. ii, 99.) Though on their face affecting only matters spiritual and causes ecclesiastical, they soon had all Europe strangled as in the tentacles of a giant octopus, by a process thus described by Lord Bryce: By the invention and adoption of the False Decretals it (the Church) had provided itself with a legal system suited to any emergency, and which gave it unlimited authority through the Christian world in causes spiritual and over persons ecclesiastical. Canonical ingenuity found it easy in one way or another to make this include all causes and persons whatsoever; for crime is always and wrong is often sin, nor can aught be done anywhere which may not affect the clergy. (Holy Roman Empire, ch. x, 152.) The Forgery, says Dr. Draper, produced an immense extension of papal power, it displaced the old Church government, divesting it of the republican attributes it had possessed, and transforming it into an absolute monarchy. It brought the bishops into subjection to Rome, and made the pontiff the supreme judge of the whole Christian world. It prepared the way for the great attempt, subsequently made by Hildebrand, to convert the states of Europe into a theocratic priest-kingdom, with the pope at its head. http://www.thenazareneway.com/Forgery%20in %20Christianity/forgery_in_christianity_chapter_6.htm

Liberis Pontificalis is also called the Book of Popes where the "successors" of Peter (as pope) are accounted for. THIS IS ONE OF THE SOURCES OF APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION KEPHA AND JOHN 33AD IS BRAGGING ABOUT. But let's see the truth behind the Book of Popes: http://www.thenazareneway.com/Forger..._chapter_6.htm "This famous, or infamous, official fabrication, ;The Book of the Popes is notorious for its spurious accounts of the early and mythical successors of St. Peter; The Liber Pontificalis purports to be a history of the popes, beginning with St. Peter and continued down to the fifteenth century, in the form of biographies of their respective Holinesses of Rome. (CE. ix, 224.) It is an official papal work, written and kept in the papal archives, and preserves for posterity the holy lives and wonderful doings of the heads of the Church universal. Historical criticism, says CE., has for a long time dealt with this ancient text in an exhaustive way ... especially in recent decades. The Liber starts off in a typically fraudulent clerical manner: In most of its manuscript copies there is found at the beginning a spurious correspondence between Pope Damasus and St. Jerome. These letters were considered genuine in the Middle Ages. ... Duchesne has proved exhaustively and convincingly that the first series of biographies, from St. Peter to Felix III (IV, died 530) were compiled at the latest under Felix's successor, Boniface II (530-532). ... The compiler of the Liber Pontificalis utilized also some historical writings, a number of apocryphal fragments (e.g. the PseudoClementine Recognitions), the Constitutum Sylvestri, the spurious Acts of the alleged Synod of the 275 Bishops under Sylvester, etc., and the fifth century Roman Acts of Martyrs. Finally, the compiler distributed arbitrarily along his list of popes a number of papal decrees taken from unauthentic sources, he likewise attributed to earlier popes liturgical and disciplinary regulations of the sixth century. ... The authors were Roman ecclesiastics, and some were attached to the Roman Court (CE. ix, 225.) The general falsity of the Liber is again shown and the fraudulent use made of it by the later Church forgers, thus indicated: For instances, in the Liber it is recorded that such a pope issued a decree that has been lost, or mislaid, or perhaps never existed at all. Isidore seized the opportunity to supply a pontifical letter suitable

for the occasion, attributing it to the pope whose name was mentioned in the Liber. (CE. v. 774.) Thus confessed forgery and fraud taint to the core this basic record for some five centuries of the official histories and Acts of Their Holinesses of the primitive and adolescent years of the Holy Church. Pope Peter and his Successors for a century or more are thus again proven pious fictions and frauds.". Sorry, nobody can use the argument on apostolic succession anymore because there is controversy in Liber Pontificalis. http://www.thebereans.net/forum2/showthread.php?t=32946

Some scholars have even characterized the Liber Pontificalis, like the works of Pseudo-Isidore and the Donation of Constantine, as a tool used by the medieval papacy to represent itself "as a primitive institution of the church, clothed with absolute and perpetual authority."[4]

The title Liber Pontificalis goes back to the 12th century, although it only became current in the 15th century, and the canonical title of the work since the edition of Duchesne in the 19th century. In the earliest extant manuscripts it is referred to as Liber episcopalis in quo continentur acta beatorum pontificum Urbis Romae, and later the Gesta or Chronica pontificum.[1]

Patrologia Graeca

AN ORTHODOX RITE OF HOMOSEXUAL UNION?: A .

www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/bosdisc-april94.txt In their biography by Simeon Metaphrastes (available in J.P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 115, pp. 1005-1032) they are described as sweet companions and ...

The 15 forged letters of Ignatius:

They claim to be written by Ignatius in 110 AD, but were forged by another in about 250 AD that deceptively claimed to be Ignatius. Apostolic Fathers: Dates they lived and other info. 1.All scholars reject 8 of Ignatius' alleged writings as forgeries and say the 7 remaining letters are genuine and were written in 110AD. 2.Some scholars reject them all as forgeries that were written about 250AD 3.We take the firm view that all 15 Ignatian letters are forgeries. All of the letters that claim to be written by Ignatius are fakes. 4.Almost nothing is known about the real Ignatius. See Schaff's comments below.
http://www.bible.ca/history-ignatius-forgeries-250AD.htm

bollandists and benedictine forgeries

Acta Martyrum . Note proven most accounts of romans killing

thousands of christians unfounded.[below from catholic online encyclopedia.

And unfortunately the Roman martyrs are not the only ones whose Acta are unreliable. Of the seventy-four separate Passions included by Ruinart in his Acta Sincera, the Bollandist Delehaye places only thirteen in the first or second class, as original documents. Further study of particular Acta may, of course, raise this number; and other original Acta may be discovered. The labours of such critics as Gebhardt, Aub, Franchi de Cavalieri, Le Blant, Conybeare, Harnack, the Bollandists, and many others, have in fact, not infrequently issued in this direction, while at the same time they have gathered an extensive bibliography around the several Acta. These must therefore be valued on their respective merits. It may, however, be noticed here that the higher criticism is as dangerous when applied to the Acts of the Martyrs as it is for the Holy Scripture The writers of the Middle Ages are responsible for a very large element of the fictitious in the stories of the martyrs; they did not even make a proper use of the material they had at their disposal. Gregory of Tours was the first of these medieval hagiographers with his "De virtutibus S. Martini", "De gloria Confessorum", and "De vitis Sanctorum". Simeon Metaphrastes is even less reliable; it has even been questioned whether he was notconsciously deceitful. See, however, the article on METAPHRASTES. But the most famous collection of the Middle Ages was the "Golden Legend" of Jacopo de Soragine, first printed in 1476. All these medieval writers include saints as well as martyrs in their collections. So doMombritius (Milan, 1476), Lipomanus (Venice, 1551), and Surius (Cologne, 1570). source http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09742b.htm . Acts of the Martyrs (Acta Martyrum) wikipedia Besides these, there are romances, either written around a few real facts which have been preserved in popular or literary tradition, or else pure works of the imagination, containing no real facts whatever. Still, as they were written with the intention of edifying and not deceiving the reader, a special class must be reserved for hagiographical forgeries. To this must be relegated all those Acts, Passions, Lives, Legends, and Translations which have been written with the express purpose of perverting history, such, for instance, as the legends and translations falsely attaching a saint's name to some special church or city.

patrology greaca.forgeries
Spurious writing attributed to athanasius. An entire volume in patrology greaca.

Source The Blackwell Companion to the Theologians - Page 32 - Google Books Result books.google.com.au/books?isbn=1405135077 Ian S. Markham - 2009 - Religion ... attributed to Athanasius. There is an entire volume (Patrologiae Graeca, 28) ofspurious works, in addition to those found in other volumes in the same series. Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works - Page 11 - Google Books Result books.google.com.au/books?isbn=0809128381

Pseudo-Dionysius (the Areopagite.), Colm Luibhid, Paul Rorem - 1987 - Body, Mind & Spirit ... successive volumes of J. P. Migne's Patrologia Latino and Patrologia Graeca as "spurious" or as "dubious," together with those purportedly authentic writings ...

VII. Writings Spurious and Dubious.

The Greek editions had been preceded by a Latin version at Rome, by Raphael Volaterranus in 1515, of which the autograph manuscript is in the British Museum, and by another at Paris in 1525, and by a third Latin edition issued at Cologne in 1531. These were followed by other editions printed at Paris, Antwerp, and Cologne. In 1618 Fronton du Duc, commonly known as Ducaeus, published, in conjunction with Frederic Morel, an edition in two folio volumes containing a Latin version as well as the Greek. The edition of the French Dominican Father Francis Combefis, was published shortly after his death in 1679. The most important step in the direction of accuracy and completeness was taken by Julian Gamier, a Bendictine Father of the Congregation of St. Maur. He revised and corrected the Greek text of earlier editions on the authority of a number of manuscripts in Paris, Italy, and England, and issued the first of his three folio volumes at Paris, at the press of John Baptist Coignard, in 1721. The third volume did not appear till 1730, five years after Gamier's death. In the meanwhile the editorial work had been taken up by Prudent Maran, another Benedictine, to whom are due a careful and voluminous biographical notice, many notes, and a chronological arrangement of the Letters. This was reissued in three 4 volumes in Paris in 1889, and is the basis of the edition published, with additions, by the Abb Jacques Paul Migne, in the Patrologia Graeca , in 1857.

more references to the dubious authenticity and spuriousness of patrologia greaca

Women and faith: Catholic religious life in Italy from late ... - Page 306 - Google Books Result books.google.com.au/books?isbn=0674954785 Lucetta Scaraffia, Gabriella Zarri - 1999 - History Patrologia Graeca hereafter cited PG. Pelagia of Antioch is commemorated in an authentic homily, PG, 50:579-584, and a spurious one, PG, 50:585ff. by ...

1. NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of ...

www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.iii.ii.ii.html XXIV. of Migne's Patrologia Grca). This edition omits the works which are extant only ... Spurious or doubtful works. The classification is necessarily somewhat ...

1. Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works Classics of Western ...

www.amazon.co.uk ... History Religious History Christianity ... successive volumes of J. P. Migne's Patrologia Latina and Patrologia Graeca as 'spurious' or as 'dubious,' together with the purportedly authentic writings that ...

1. Spurious works Patrologia

plgo.org/?cat=109 29 Jul 2010 Filed under Graeca, Patrologia, Rare and curious books, Spuriousworks. Tagged Greek, Internet Archive, Latin, Patristic's related theme

Another famous forgery from the ninth century was The Donation of Constantine. It claimed that Emperor Constantine gave the western provinces of the Roman Empire to the Bishop of Rome. The Pope used it to claim authority in secular matters. [Note 5] When Greek Christians tried to discuss issues with the Church in Rome, the popes often used forged documents to back their claims. This happened so frequently that for 700 years the Greeks referred to Rome as the home of forgeries. [Note 6] For three hundred years, the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals and other forgeries were used by Roman Popes to claim authority over the Church in the East. The Patriarch of Constantinople rejected these false claims of primacy. This resulted in the separation of the Orthodox Church from the Roman Catholic Church. [Note 7 gives addresses of on-line articles.] In the middle of the twelfth century, a monk named Gratian wrote the Decretum, which became the basis for Canon Law (the legal system for running the Roman Catholic Church). It contained numerous quotations from forged documents. Gratian drew many of his conclusions from those quotations. Gratian quoted 324 passages which were supposedly written by popes of the first four centuries. Of those passages, only eleven are genuine. The other 313 quotations are forgeries. [Note 8] In the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas wrote the Summa Theologica and numerous other works. His writings are the foundation for scholastic theology. Aquinas used Gratian s Decretum for quotations from church fathers and early popes. [Note 9] Aquinas also used forged documents which he thought were genuine. [Note 10] The importance of Thomas Aquinas theology can be seen in the encyclical of Pope Pius X on the priesthood. In 1906, Pius said that in their study of philosophy, theology, and Scripture, men studying for the priesthood should follow the directions given by the popes and the teaching of Thomas Aquinas. [This papal encyclical is available online. Note 11 gives addresses.] William Webster is the author of The Church of Rome at the Bar of History . (I recommend this book.) His web site has an article entitled Forgeries and the Papacy: The Historical Influence and Use of Forgeries in Promotion of the Doctrine of the Papacy. The article gives detailed information about the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals and other forged documents, showing their influence on the papacy and on the Catholic Church. Four quotations from his article are below. (They are used by permission.) In addition to the Pseudo Isidorian Decretals there were other forgeries which were successfully used for the promotion of the doctrine of papal primacy. One famous instance is that of Thomas Aquinas. In 1264 A.D. Thomas authored a work entitled

 Against the Errors of the Greeks . This work deals with the issues of theological debate between the Greek and Roman Churches in that day on such subjects as the Trinity, the Procession of the Holy Spirit, Purgatory and the Papacy. In his defense of the papacy Thomas bases practically his entire argument on forged quotations of Church fathers. These spurious quotations had enormous influence on many Western theologians in succeeding centuries. The authority claims of Roman Catholicism ultimately devolve upon the institution of the papacy. The papacy is the center and source from which all authority flows for Roman Catholicism. Rome has long claimed that this institution was established by Christ and has been in force in the Church from the very beginning. But the historical record gives a very different picture. This institution was promoted primarily through the falsification of historical fact through the extensive use of forgeries as Thomas Aquinas apologetic for the papacy demonstrates. Forgery is its foundation. I strongly encourage you to read William Websters article. It has an abundance of valuable historical information. The address of the article is: http://www.christiantruth.com/forgeries.html source-http://www.bereanpublishers.com/forged-documents-and-papal-power/ st john chyrsostom letters to innocent forgeries.

THE FORGED LIBER PONTIFICALIS forgery

This famous, or infamous, official fabrication, The Book of the Popes, is notorious for its spurious accounts of the early and mythical successors of St. Peter. The Liber Pontificalis purports to be a history of the popes, beginning with St. Peter and continued down to the fifteenth century, in the form of biographies of their respective Holinesses of Rome. (CE. ix, 224.) It is an official papal work, written and kept in the papal archives, and preserves for posterity the holy lives and wonderful doings of the heads of the Church universal. Historical criticism, says CE., has for a long time dealt with this ancient text in an exhaustive way ... especially in recent decades. The Liber starts off in a typically fraudulent clerical manner: In most of its manuscript copies there is found at the beginning a spurious correspondence between Pope Damasus and St. Jerome. These letters were considered genuine in the Middle Ages. ... Duchesne has proved exhaustively and convincingly that the first series of biographies, from St. Peter to Felix III (IV, died 530) were compiled at the latest under Felixs successor, Boniface II (530-532). ... The compiler of the Liber Pontificalis utilized also some historical writings, a number of apocryphal fragments (e.g. the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions), the Constitutum Sylvestri, the spurious Acts of the alleged Synod of the 275 Bishops under Sylvester, etc., and the fifth century Roman Acts of Martyrs. Finally, the compiler distributed arbitrarily along his list of popes a number of papal decrees taken from unauthentic sources, he likewise attributed to earlier popes liturgical and disciplinary regulations of the sixth century. ... The authors were Roman ecclesiastics, and some were attached to the Roman Court. (CE. ix, 225.) The general falsity of the Liber is again shown and the fraudulent use made of it by the later Church forgers, thus indicated: For

instances, in the Liber it is recorded that such a pope issued a decree that has been lost, or mislaid, or perhaps never existed at all. Isidore seized the opportunity to supply a pontifical letter suitable for the occasion, attributing it to the pope whose name was mentioned in the Liber. (CE. v. 774.) Thus confessed forgery and fraud taint to the core this basic record for some five centuries of the official histories and Acts of Their Holinesses of the primitive and adolescent years of the Holy Church. Pope Peter and his Successors for a century or more are thus again proven pious fictions and frauds. http://www.thenazareneway.com/Forgery%20in %20Christianity/forgery_in_christianity_chapter_6.htm

Fake Catholic literature (Part 1) www.vatileaks.com/_blog/Vati.../Fake_Catholic_literature_(Part_1)/ 28 Feb 2012 The Vatican's 'Book of the Popes' entirely fictitious ... 'Several of thesefake books are frequently cited and applied to the defence of Christianity ...

1. Fake Catholic literature Part 2

www.vatileaks.com/_blog/Vati.../Fake_Catholic_literature__Part_2... 26 Mar 2012 There are hundreds of such books, and in Part 1 of this series, the fictitious nature of the lineage of popes presented in the Vatican's 'Book of ...

The Donation of Constantine was originally an 8th-century forgery which gave the pope
temporal power and possessions, and regal honors and privileges. Pope Sylvester (1000 A.D.) declared it a forgery. Pope Leo IV (1054) rewrote the text and used it to prove his primacy. . .As early as the fifteenth century its falsity was known. Yet, the document was further used to authenticate the papacy. The Apostolic Constitutions, The Donation of Constantine, The Clementine Forgeries, The Liber Pontificals (Biographical book of the popes), The Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore, and hundreds of other works are either spurious or have been mutilated. It is upon these that the bulk of Roman traditions originated. Catholic scholars admit one forgery after the other, but the Council of Trent upheld these forgeries as genuine traditions to which the written Word of God is not superior. Roman Catholic theologians even admit that they themselves falsified the sacred books of other religions in order to win converts. As neither the majority of the people nor the lower clergy could read or write in the early Middle Ages, it is clear that the Roman hierarchy itself corrupted and falsified the true traditions. It is clear that Romes traditions did not originate from the lips of Christ or the apostles! Source Ex Jesuit Testimony - Romanism Build Upon Forgeries! www.remnantofgod.org/x-jesuit.htm The Apostolic Constitutions, The Donation of Constantine, The ClementineForgeries, The Liber Pontificals (Biographical book of the popes), The Decretals of

note-- all this covers pope martin and the monophyletism.

13 April is the optional memorial of St Martin I.[1] He is also venerated as a saint and martyr in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Fully man and fully human. --almost gnostic and ayrianism mixed up. Pushed by dubious armenians monothelitism teaches that Jesus Christ had two natures but only one will. This is contrary to the more contemporarily accepted Christology that Jesus Christ has two wills (human and divine) corresponding to his two natures (dyothelitism)

recall also I have information that contradicted versions of st maximos confessor fate recall dubious bede. Historian.

Against science as idols. Abtract. Porphyios ? Paisios nafpatos

Elder Porphyrios: Overcoming Depression A selection from "Wounded by Love: The Life and the Wisdom of Elder Porphyrios" transl. by John Raffan (Limni, Evia, Greece: Denise Harvey, 2005), p.178-179.

"Nowadays people often feel sadness, despair, lethargy, laziness, apathy, and all things satanic. They are downcast, discontent and melancholy. They disregard their families, spend vast sums on psychoanalysts and take antidepressants. People explain this as 'insecurity.' Our religion believes that these states derive from satanic temptation. Pain is a psychological power which God implanted in us with a view to doing us good and leading us to love, joy, and prayer. Instead of this, the devil succeeds in taking this power from the battery of our soul and using it for evil. He transforms it into depression and brings the soul into a state of lethargy and apathy. He torments us, takes us captive and makes us psychologically ill. There is a secret. Turn the satanic energy into good energy. This is difficult and requires some preparation. The requisite preparation is humility. With humility you attract the grace of God. You surrender yourself to the love of God, to worship and to prayer. But even if you do all in the world, you achieve nothing if you haven't acquired humility. All the evil feelings, insecurity, despair and disenchantment, which come to take control of the soul, disappear with

humility. The person who lacks humility, the egotist, doesn't want you to get in the way of his desires, to make any criticism of him or tell him what to do. He gets upset, irritated and reacts violently and is overcome by depression. This state is cured by grace. The soul must turn to God's love. The cure will come when we start to love God passionately. Many of our saints transformed depression into joy with their love for Christ. That is, they took this power of the soul which the devil wished to crush and gave it to God and they transformed it into joy and exultation. Prayer and worship gradually transform depression and turn it into joy, because the grace of God takes effect. Here you need to have the strength to attract the grace of God which will help you to be united with Him. Art is required. When you give yourself to God and become one with him, you will forget the evil spirit which drags at you from behind, and this spirit, when it is disdained, will leave. And the more you devote yourself to the Spirit of God, the less you will look behind to see the spirit that is dragging at you. When grace attracts you, you will be united with God. And when you unite yourself to God and abandon yourself to Him, everything else disappears and is forgotten and you are saved. The great art, the great secret, in order to rid yourself of depression and all that is negative is to give yourself over to the love of God. Something which can help a person who is depressed is work, interest in life. The garden, plants, flowers, trees, the countryside, a walk in the open air -- all these things tear a person away from a state of inactivity and awake other interests. They act like medicines. To occupy oneself with the arts, with music and so on, is very beneficial. The thing that I place top of the list, however, is interest in the Church, in reading Holy Scripture and attending services. As you study the words of God you are cured without being aware of it. Let me tell you about a girl who came to me. She was suffering from dreadful depression. Drugs had no effect. She had given up everything -- her work, her home, her interests. I told her about the love of Christ which takes the soul captive because the grace of God fills the soul and changes it. I explained to her that the force which takes over the soul and transforms the power of the soul into depression is demonic. It throws the soul to the ground, torments it and renders it useless. I advised her to devote herself to things like music which she had formerly enjoyed. I emphasized, however, most of all her need to turn to Christ with love. I told her, moreover, that in our Church a cure is to be found through love for God and prayer, provided this is done with all the heart."

Forgeries and the Papacy The Historical Influence and Use of Forgeries in Promotion of the Doctrine of the Papacy By William Webster

In the middle of the ninth century, a radical change began in the Western Church, which dramatically altered the Constitution of the Church, and laid the ground work for the full

development of the papacy. The papacy could never have emerged without a fundamental restructuring of the Constitution of the Church and of mens perceptions of the history of that Constitution. As long as the true facts of Church history were well known, it would serve as a buffer against any unlawful ambitions. However, in the 9th century, a literary forgery occurred which completely revolutionized the ancient government of the Church in the West. It provided a legal foundation for the ascendancy of the papacy in Western Christendom. This forgery is known as the PseudoIsidorian Decretals, written around 845 A.D. TheDecretals are a complete fabrication of Church history. They set forth precedents for the exercise of sovereign authority of the popes over the universal Church prior to the fourth century and make it appear that the popes had always exercised sovereign dominion and had ultimate authority even over Church Councils. Nicholas I (858867) was the first to use them as the basis for advancing his claims of authority. But it was not until the 11th century with Pope Gregory VII that the these decretals were used in a significant way to alter the government of the Western Church. It was at this time that the Decretals were combined with two other major forgeries, The Donation of Constantine and the Liber Pontificalis, along with other falsified writings, and codified into a system of Church law which elevated Gregory and all his successors as absolute monarchs over the Church in the West. These writings were then utilized by Gratian in composing his Decretum. TheDecretum, which was first published in 1151 A.D., was intended as a collection of everything that Gratian could find which could give historical precedent to the teaching of papal primacy, and therefore the authority of tradition, which could then carry the force of law in the Church. It had such success that it became the standard work of the law of the Roman Church and thus the basis of all canon law and Scholastic theology. Some Roman Catholic apologists claim that though there were forgeries in the Church, these really had very little impact upon the advancement and development of the papacy, since it was already an established reality by the time the forgeries appeared. Karl Keating, for example, states that practically all the commentators, with the exception of fundamentalists, agree with this assessment. But this is completely false. The historical facts reveal that the papacy was never a reality as far as the universal Church is concerned. There are many eminent Roman Catholic historians who have testified to that fact as well as to the importance of the forgeries, especially those of Pseudo-Isidore. One such historian is Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dllinger. He was the most renowned Roman Catholic historian of the last century, who taught Church history for 47 years as a Roman Catholic. He makes these important comments: In the middle of the ninth centuryabout 845there arose the huge fabrication of the Isidorian decretals...About a hundred pretended decrees of the earliest Popes, together with certain spurious writings of other Church dignitaries and acts of Synods, were then fabricated in the west of Gaul, and eagerly seized upon Pope Nicholas I at Rome, to be used as genuine documents in support of the new claims put forward by himself and his successors. That the pseudoIsidorian principles eventually revolutionized the whole constitution of the Church, and introduced a new system in place of the oldon that point there can be no controversy among candid historians. The most potent instrument of the new Papal system was Gratians Decretum, which issued about the middle of the twelfth century from the first school of Law in Europe, the juristic teacher of the whole of Western Christendom, Bologna. In this work the Isidorian forgeries were combined with those of the other Gregorian (Gregory VII) writers...and with Gratias own additions. His work displaced all the older collections of canon law, and became the manual and repertory, not for canonists only, but for the scholastic theologians, who, for the most part, derived all their knowledge of Fathers and Councils from it. No book has ever come near it in its influence in the Church, although there is scarcely another so chokeful of gross errors, both intentional and unintentional (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dllinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), pp. 76-77, 79, 115-116). The Protestant historian, George Salmon, explains the importance and influence of PseudoIsidore: In the ninth century another collection of papal letters...was published under the name of Isidore, by whom, no doubt, a celebrated Spanish bishop of much learning was intended. In these are to be found precedents for all manner of instances of the exercise of sovereign dominion by the pope over other Churches. You must take notice of this, that it was by furnishing precedents that these letters helped the growth of papal power. Thenceforth the popes could hardly claim any privilege

but they would find in these letters supposed proofs that the privilege in question was no more than had been always claimed by their predecessors, and always exercised without any objection...On these spurious decretals is built the whole fabric of Canon Law. The great schoolman, Thomas Aquinas, was taken in by them, and he was induced by them to set the example of making a chapter on the prerogatives of the pope an essential part of the treatises on the Church...Yet completely successful as was this forgery, I suppose there never was a more clumsy one. These decretal epistles had undisputed authority for some seven hundred years, that is to say, down to the time of the Reformation. If we want to know what share these letters had in the building of the Roman fabric we have only to look at the Canon Law. The Decretum of Gratia quotes three hundred and twenty-four times the epistles of the popes of the first four centuries; and of these three hundred and twentyfour quotations, three hundred and thirteen are from the letters which are now universally known to be spurious (George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church (London: John Murray, 1914), pp. 449, 451, 453). In addition to the Pseudo Isidorian Decretals there were other forgeries which were successfully used for the promotion of the doctrine of papal primacy. One famous instance is that of Thomas Aquinas. In 1264 A.D. Thomas authored a work entitled Against the Errors of the Greeks. This work deals with the issues of theological debate between the Greek and Roman Churches in that day on such subjects as the Trinity, the Procession of the Holy Spirit, Purgatory and the Papacy. In his defense of the papacy Thomas bases practically his entire argument on forged quotations of Church fathers. Under the names of the eminent Greek fathers such as Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria and Maximus the Abbott, a Latin forger had compiled a catena of quotations interspersing a number that were genuine with many that were forged which was subsequently submitted to Pope Urban IV. This work became known as the Thesaurus of Greek Fathers or Thesaurus Graecorum Patrum. In addition the Latin author also included spurious canons from early Ecumenical Councils. Pope Urban in turn submitted the work to Thomas Aquinas who used many of the forged passages in his work Against the Errors of the Greeks mistakenly thinking they were genuine. These spurious quotations had enormous influence on many Western theologians in succeeding centuries. The following is a sample of Thomas argumentation for the papacy using the spurious quotations from the Thesaurus: Chapter thirty-four That the same (the Roman Pontiff) possesses in the Church a fullness of power. It is also established from the texts of the aforesaid Doctors that the Roman Pontiff possesses a fullness of power in the Church. For Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria, says in his Thesaurus: As Christ coming forth from Israel as leader and sceptre of the Church of the Gentiles was granted by the Father the fullest power over every principality and power and whatever is that all might bend the knee to him, so he entrusted most fully the fullest power to Peter and his successors. And again: To no one else but Peter and to him alone Christ gave what is his fully. And further on: The feet of Christ are his humanity, that is, the man himself, to whom the whole Trinity gave the fullest power, whom one of the Three assumed in the unity of his person and lifted up on high to the Father above every principality and power, so that all the angels of God might adore him (Hebr. 1:6); which whole and entire he has left in sacrament and power to Peter and to his Church. And Chrysostom says to the Bulgarian delegation speaking in the person of Christ: Three times I ask you whether you love me, because you denied me three times out of fear and trepidation. Now restored, however, lest the brethren believe you to have lost the grace and authority of the keys, I now confirm in you that which is fully mine, because you love me in their presence. This is also taught on the authority of Scripture. For in Matthew 16:19 the Lord said to Peter without restriction: Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven.

Chapter thirty-five That he enjoys the same power conferred on Peter by Christ. It is also shown that Peter is the Vicar of Christ and the Roman Pontiff is Peters successor enjoying the same power conferred on Peter by Christ. For the canon of the Council of Chalcedon says: If any bishop is sentenced as guilty of infamy, he is free to appeal the sentence to the blessed bishop of old Rome, whom we have as Peter the rock of refuge, and to him alone, in the place of God, with unlimited power, is granted the authority to hear the appeal of a bishop accused of infamy in virtue of the keys given him by the Lord. And further on: And whatever has been decreed by him is to be held as from the vicar of the apostolic throne. Likewise, Cyril, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, says, speaking in the person of Christ: You for a while, but I without end will be fully and perfectly in sacrament and authority with all those whom I shall put in your place, just as I am also with you. And Cyril of Alexandria in his Thesaurus says that the Apostles in the Gospels and Epistles have affirmed in all their teaching that Peter and his Church are in the place of the Lord, granting him participation in every chapter and assembly, in every election and proclamation of doctrine. And further on: To him, that is, to Peter, all by divine ordinancebow the head, and the rulers of the world obey him as the Lord Jesus himself. And Chrysostom, speaking in the person of Christ, says: Feed my sheep (John 21:17), that is, in my place be in charge of your brethren" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Against the Errors of the Greeks. Found in James Likoudis, Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism (New Rochelle: Catholics United for the Faith, 1992), pp. 182184). With the exception of the last reference to Chrysostom all of Thomas references cited to Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom and the Council of Chalcedon are forgeries. The remainder of Aquinas treatise in defense of the papacy is similar in nature. Edward Denny gives the following historical summary of these forgeries and their use by Thomas Aquinas: As the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals were by no means the first, so they were not the last forgeries in the interests of the advancement of the Papal system. Gratian himself, in addition to using the forged Decretals and the fabrications of others who preceded him, had incorporated also into theDecretum fresh corruptions of his own with that object, but amongst such forgeries a catena of spurious passages from the Greek Fathers and Councils, put forth in the thirteenth century, had probably, next to the Pseudo-lsidorian Decretals, the widest influence in this direction. The object of this forgery was as follows: The East had been separated from the West since the excommunication by Pope Leo IX of Michael Cerularius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and that of the former by the latter in July 1054, in which the other Eastern Patriarchs concurred. The Latins, especially the Dominicans, who had established themselves in the East, made strenuous efforts to induce the Easterns to submit to the Papacy. The great obstacle in the way of their success was the fact that the Orientals knew nothing of such claims as those which were advanced by the Roman Bishops. In their belief the highest rank in the Hierarchy of the Church was that of Patriarch. This was clearly expressed by the Patrician Babanes at the Council of Constantinople, 869. God, he said, hath placed His Church in the five patriarchates, and declared in His Gospel that they should never utterly fail, because they are the heads of the Church. For that saying, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, meaneth this, when two fall they run to three; when three fall they run to two; but when four perchance have fallen, one, which remains in Christ our God, the Head of all, calls back again the remaining body of the Church. They were ignorant of any autocratic power residing jure divino in the Bishop of Rome. They regarded Latin authors with suspicions as the fautors of the unprimitive claims of the Bishop of Old Rome; hence if they were to be persuaded that the Papalist pretensions were Catholic, and thus induced to recognise them, the only way would be to produce evidence provided ostensibly from Greek sources. Accordingly a Latin theologian drew up a sort of Thesaurus Graecorum Patrum, in which, amongst genuine extracts from Greek Fathers, lie mingled spurious passages purporting to be taken from various Councils and writings of Fathers, notably St. Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and Maximus the Abbot. This work was laid before Urban IV, who was deceived by it. He was thus able to use it in his

correspondence with the Emperor, Michael Palaeologus, to prove that from the Apostolic throne of the Roman Pontiffs it was to be sought what was to be held, or what was to be believed, since it is his right to lay down, to ordain, to disprove, to command, to loose and to bind in the place of Him who appointed him, and delivered and granted to no one else but him alone what is supreme. To this throne also all Catholics bend the head by divine law, and the primates of the world confessing the true faith are obedient and turn their thoughts as if to Jesus Christ Himself, and regard him as the Sun, and from Him receive the light of truth to the salvation of souls according as the genuine writers of some of the Holy Fathers, both Greek and others, firmly assert. Urban, moreover, sent this work to St. Thomas Aquinas...The testimony of these extracts was to him of great value, as he believed that he had in them irrefragable proof that the great Eastern theologians, such as St. Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and the Fathers of the Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon, recognised the monarchical position of the Pope as ruling the whole Church with absolute power. Consequently he made use of these fraudulent documents in all honesty in setting forth the prerogatives of the Papacy. The grave result followed that, through his authority, the errors which he taught on the subject of the Papacy were introduced into the schools, fortified by the testimony of these fabrications, and thus were received as undoubted truth, whence resulted consequences which can hardly be fully estimated. It was improbable that the Greeks, who had ample means of discovering the real character of these forgeries, should finally accept them and the teaching based on them; but in the West itself there were no theologians competent to expose the fraud, so that these forgeries were naturally held to be of weighty authority. The high esteem attached to the writings of St. Thomas was an additional reason why this should be the case (Edward Denny, Papalism (London: Rivingtons, 1912), pp. 114117). Von Dllinger elaborates on the far reaching influence of these forgeries, especially in their association with the authority of Aquinas, on succeeding generations of theologians and their extensive use as a defense of the papacy: In theology, from the beginning of the fourteenth century, the spurious passages of St. Cyril and forged canons of Councils maintained their ground, being guaranteed against all suspicion by the authority of St. Thomas. Since the work of Trionfo in 1320, up to 1450, it is remarkable that no single new work appeared in the interests of the Papal system. But then the contest between the Council of Basle and Pope Eugenius IV evoked the work of Cardinal Torquemada, besides some others of less importance. Torquemadas argument, which was held up to the time of Bellarmine to be the most conslusive apology of the Papal system, rests entirely on fabrications later than the pseudo-Isidore, and chiefly on the spurious passages of St. Cyril. To ignore the authority of St. Thomas is, according to the Cardinal, bad enough, but to slight the testimony of St. Cyril is intolerable. The Pope is infallible; all authority of other bishops is borrowed or derived frorn his. Decisions of Councils without his assent are null and void. These fundamental principles of Torquemada are proved by spurious passages of Anacletus, Clement, the Council of Chalcedon, St. Cyril, and a mass of forged or adulterated testimonies. In the times of Leo X and Clement III, the Cardinals Thomas of Vio, or Cajetan, and Jacobazzi, followed closely in his footsteps. Melchior Canus built firmly on the authority of Cyril, attested by St. Thomas, and so did Bellarmine and the Jesuits who followed him. Those who wish to get a birdseye view of the extent to which the genuine tradition of Church authority was still overlaid and obliterated by the rubbish of later inventions and forgeries about 1563, when the Loci of Canus appeared, must read the fifth book of his work. It is indeed still worse fifty years later in this part of Bellarmines work. The difference is that Canus was honest in his belief, which cannot be said of Bellarmine. The Dominicans, Nicolai, Le Quien, Quetif, and Echard, were the first to avow openly that their master St. Thomas, had been deceived by an imposter, and had in turn misled the whole tribe of theologians and canonists who followed him. On the one hand, the Jesuits, including even such a scholar as Labbe, while giving up the pseudoIsidorian decretals, manifested their resolve to still cling to St. Cyril. In Italy, as late as 1713, Professor Andruzzi of Bologna cited the most important of the interpolations of St. Cyril as a conclusive argument in his controversial treatise against the patriarch Dositheus(Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dllinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), pp. 233-234).

The authority claims of Roman Catholicism ultimately devolve upon the institution of the papacy. The papacy is the center and source from which all authority flows for Roman Catholicism. Rome has long claimed that this institution was established by Christ and has been in force in the Church from the very beginning. But the historical record gives a very different picture. This institution was promoted primarily through the falsification of historical fact through the extensive use of forgeries as Thomas Aquinas' apologetic for the papacy demonstrates. Forgery is its foundation. As an institution it was a much later development in Church history, beginning with the Gregorian reforms of pope Gregory VII in the 11th century and was restricted completely to the West. The Eastern Chruch never accepted the false claims of the Roman Church and refused to submit to its insistence that the Bishop of Rome was supreme ruler of the Church. This they knew was not true to the historical record and was a perversion of the true teaching of Scripture, the papal exegesis of which was not taught by the Church fathers (For an analysis of the church father's interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16:18 please refer to the article on that subject on this web page) Dr. Aristeides Papadakis is an Orthodox historian and Professor of Byzantine history at the University of Maryland. He gives the following analysis of the Eastern Churchs attitude towards the claims of the bishops of Rome especially as they were formulated in the 11th century Gregorian reforms. He points out that on the basis of the exegesis of scripture and the facts of history, the Eastern Church has consistently rejected the papal claims of Rome: What was in fact being implied in the western development was the destruction of the Churchs pluralistic structure of government. Papal claims to supreme spiritual and doctrinal authority quite simply, were threatening to transform the entire Church into a vast centralized diocese...Such innovations were the result of a radical reading of the Churchs conciliar structure of government as revealed in the life of the historic Church. No see, regardless of its spiritual seniority, had ever been placed outside of this structure as if it were a power over or above the Church and its government...Mutual consultation among Churchesepiscopal collegiality and conciliarity, in short had been the quintessential character of Church government from the outset. It was here that the locus of supreme authority in the Church could be found. Christendom indeed was both a diversity and a unity, a family of basically equal sister-Churches, whose unity rested not on any visible juridical authority, but on conciliarity, and on a common declaration of faith and the sacramental life. The ecclesiology of communion and fraternity of the Orthodox, which was preventing them from following Rome blindly and submissively like slaves, was based on Scripture and not merely on history or tradition. Quite simply, the power to bind and loose mentioned in the New Testament had been granted during Christs ministry to every disciple and not just to Peter alone...In sum, no one particular Church could limit the fulness of Gods redeeming grace to itself, at the expense of the others. Insofar as all were essentially identical, the fulness of catholicity was present in all equally. In the event, the Petrine biblical texts, cherished by the Latins, were beside the point as arguments for Roman ecclesiology and superiority. The close logical relationship between the papal monarchy and the New Testament texts, assumed by Rome, was quite simply undocumented. For all bishops, as successors of the apostles, claim the privilege and power granted to Peter. Differently put, the Saviors words could not be interpreted institutionally, legalistically or territorially, as the foundation of the Roman Church, as if the Roman pontiffs were alone the exclusive heirs to Christs commission. It is important to note parenthetically that a similar or at least kindred exegesis of the triad of Matt. 16:18, Luke 22:32 and John 21:15f. was also common in the West before the reformers of the eleventh century chose to invest it with a peculiar Roman significance. Until then, the three prooftexts were viewed primarily as the foundation of the Church, in the sense that the power of the keys was conferred on a sacerdotalis ordo in the person of Peter: the power granted to Peter was symbolically granted to the whole episcopate. In sum, biblical Latin exegetes before the Gregorian reform did not view the New Testament texts unambiguously as a blueprint for papal sovereignty; their understanding overall was nonprimatial. The Byzantine indictment against Rome also had a strong historical component. A major reason why Orthodox writers were unsympathetic to the Roman restatement of primacy was precisely because it was so totally lacking in historical precedent. Granted that by the twelfth century papal theorists had become experts in their ability to circumvent the inconvenient facts of history. And yet, the Byzantines were ever ready to hammer home the theme that the historical evidence was quite different. Although the Orthodox may not have known that Gregorian teaching was in part drawn from the forged decretals of pseudoIsidore (850s), they were quite certain that it was not

based on catholic tradition in either its historical or canonical form. On this score, significantly, modern scholarship agrees with the Byzantine analysis. As it happens, contemporary historians have repeatedly argued that the universal episcopacy claimed by the eleventhcentury reformers would have been rejected by earlier papal incumbents as obscenely blasphemous (to borrow the phrase of a recent scholar). The title universal which was advanced formally at the time was actually explicitly rejected by earlier papal giants such as Gregory I. To be brief, modern impartial scholarship is reasonably certain that the conventional conclusion which views the Gregorians as defenders of a consistently uniform tradition is largely fiction. The emergence of a papal monarchy from the eleventh century onwards cannot be represented as the realization of a homogenous development, even within the relatively closed circle of the western, Latin, Church (R.A. Marcus, From Augustine to Gregory the Great (London: Variorum Reprints, 1983), p. 355). It has been suggested that the conviction that papatus (a new term constructed on the analogy ofepiscopatus in the eleventh century) actually represented a rank or an order higher than that of bishop, was a radical revision of Church structure and government. The discontinuity was there and to dismiss it would be a serious oversight (Aristeides Papadakis, The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy (Crestwood: St. Vladimirs, 1994), pp. 158-160, 166-167). source-- http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/forgeries.html

The most influential book ever written by a Catholic, the Code of Canon Law known as the Decretum, was written in the mid-1100s by a Benedictine monk named Gratian. He quoted from popes 324 times, but only eleven of those are genuine. He not only depended on 3rd century forgeries and his own faulty conclusions from them, but he also used the 9th century forgeries known as the Isidorian and Cyril Decretals, which contained hundreds of supposed quotes from early church fathers and popes, none of which were legitimate. Now...we go to Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. He writes his Summa Theologica, the second most renown work by a Catholic. He bases all his conclusions on the work of Gratian. This doesnt include all the other authors, who throughout the centuries, quoted from both these mens works. All of them based on lies.