Due to being a documentary filmmaker who is disappointed (but not surprised by) non-substantive or non-existent responses to my own work “Errors of the Catholics,” I am not going to return the favor to Pastor James Wallace’s “The Failure of Eastern Orthodoxy.”
The work is well done both aesthetically and from a conceptual viewpoint. It will regrettably be effective and unlike some of the anti-Orthodox apologetics coming out from the Protestant side, it contains substance and a serious interaction with Orthodox theology despite a few faux pas here or there (including Oriental Orthodox under the umbrella of Eastern Orthodox, invoking the wrong criteria for Ecumenical Councils, etcetera).
On the Charitable Apostolic Christians Discussion Discord I will release my notes for those who crave point-by-point rebuttals. Here, I will focus on what I think conceptually responds to the overall narrative of the film.
A Summary. The film’s thesis appears to be that the Scriptures are the only completely reliable documentation of Apostolic Doctrine. Interpreting these documents theoretically in isolation (something I believe 1. is impossible and 2. is not something Protestants actually do), the film conveys that accretions to this doctrine pop up, particularly after Saint Constantine and growing state control over the Church. Eastern Orthodoxy is simply the inheritor of these accretions.
This is a strong narrative, as it fits into pre-conceived notions and the fact that there is something cataclysmic that happens to Christianity during the fourth century. The number of documents, manuscripts, and art all explode. We start getting very specific ideas conveyed which, without a careful eye or encyclopedic mind, seem to be missing before then. Scholars agree.
The imagery of the film is good. The combination of strong production and a story line fitting popular imagination bombards the senses, including the viewer’s sixth sense (intuition). Like a well planned all out attack on an armed city, it’s designed to make the Protestant entertaining conversion Orthodoxy go the way of Jericho.
The Scriptures Must Come From a Reliable Source. I question the foundation the film is built upon, that being, the Scriptures can be understood divorced from the context that have preserved them. The very earliest complete and non-fragmentary manuscripts of the Scriptures are from the fourth century. To posit that everything in Christendom becomes hopelessly lost due to accretions during the same century demands (though I am sure this would not be conceded) a Great Apostasy theory. But, on what basis do we trust documents bequeathed to us by apostates of the highest order? These supposed apostates are idolaters and reject a faith-based Gospel. It seems more than a little peculiar that the Scriptures would be reliable when their textual existence is contingent solely upon their preservation by such a group.
Is this even possible? The Scriptures themselves state:
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Heb 4:12)
The idea that the “correct” Christian religion could be preserved by anti-Christian apostates as if the Scriptures are some sort of artifact with no power over anyone is simply not possible. They transform the minds of those who read and copy them. Contrary to the narrative of the film, one must presume the Scriptures, though perhaps not coming from a group of Christians that are categorically infallible as Orthodox and Roman Catholics claim, are preserved by Christians that are at least overall reliable and faithful. This being the case, I find the entire basis of the film impossible–that we can understand Christianity divorced from the fourth century context that mainly preserves the first extant Scriptural documents themselves, the majority of early canonical lists of those Scriptures, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and etcetera.
The film’s thesis also uncomfortably pushes the filmmaker outside the consciousness of the early Reformers who thought (wrongly) that the early fathers were in agreement with themselves. They did not view Saints Augustine, Ambrose, or Jerome as overall unreliable or dangerous (or why quote them?). The fact that Protestant apologetics in recent years had begun forfeiting claims to represent these saints to me indicates that they have been forced to move the goalposts due to essentially losing their initial historical case. Hence, similar to a trail-of-blood Baptists, even the Reformed appear to be laying claim to *only* the pre-Nicene Church.
Mary and Iconodulia: Arguments Against Pre-Nicene “Proto-Orthodoxy.“ I don’t believe moving the goal posts to pre-Nicea helps them either. Popularly, Protestant polemics focuses on the alleged “absence” of Marian doctrines and iconodulia as proof that the pre-Nicene Church was doctrinally different than what “became” the Orthodox Catholic Church.
The film, in my opinion, gave respectable presentations on the Protoevangelicum of James and on iconodulia which accord with somewhat dated scholarly views. However, I believe the work of Megan Nutzman to considerably undo the sort of minimizing of the former source, along with other scholars. This is why I think while the critique of this film is strong, the apologetic I have been giving for years in the fields of Mariology and iconodulia has pulled the rug under their feet before they have even tried (hence a lack of a serious, let alone professional, response to my work). There are numerous pre-Nicene icons (i.e. art that was venerated, I go through a list in my opening statement here in a debate). The film’s assertion that Marian doctrines or prayers to the saints are later accretions is untenable.
Getting Into the Historical Weeds. While I will let the debate linked beforehand speak to the issue of iconodulia, I will take some time to address in a similarly categorical way prayers to the saints and Marian doctrines. As follows are a list of pre-Nicene examples by their earliest scholarly dating (even if the dating for a few is too early by some scholars, the point is it is tenable to date these texts to such times):
Marian Doctrines (Perpetutal virginity, prayers, etcetera)
- Protoevangelicum of James, Paragraphs 19-20 (proto-Orthodox, 2nd century)
- Odes of Solomon, 19th Ode (proto-Orthodox according to most recent scholarship and despite somewhat juvenile treatments of some of its imagery, 2nd century)
- Hegesippus’ fragment (“There still survived of the kindred of the Lord grandsons of Jude, who according to the flesh was called His brother;” proto-Orthodox, 2nd century)
- Saint Melito of Sardis, Fragment 17 (Bodmer Payrus; proto-Orthodox, 2nd century)
- Gospel of Bartholomew 4:17 (Vienna Manuscript; proto-Orthodox, 2nd century)
- Ascension of Isaiah 11:12-14 (Gnostic, 2nd century; I personally date this text to the first century)
- Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book 7, Chapter 16 (part of the proto-Orthodox Church, 3rd century)
- Origen Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 1, Chapter 6 (part of the proto-Orthodox Church, 3rd century)
- Book of Mary’s Repose (Par 135; p. 349 in Shoemaker’s 2002 book; Gnostic, earliest scholarly dating is 2nd-3rd century)
- The Dormition/Assumption of Mary ascribed to Saint John (Pseudo-John) (Par 47, p. 396 in Shoemaker’s 2002 book; proto-Orthodox, earliest scholarly dating is 2nd-3rd century)
- Saint Hippolytus, Fragments (The Lord is My Shepherd) (proto-Orthodox, 3rd century)
- Saint Gregory the Illuminator, Concerning the Holy Mother of God, Paragraph 27 (proto-Orthodox, 3rd century)
- Grotto of Nazareth (proto-Orthodox, 3rd century)
- Sub Tuum Praesidum (proto-Orthodox, 3rd century)
- Six Books Apocryphon (proto-Orthodox, earliest scholarly dating is approximately about the time of Nicea)
- Anaphoras of Coptic/Egyptian Basil (proto-Orthodox, p. 395 in Shoemaker’s 2002 book; earliest scholarly dating is approximately about the time of Nicea)
Prayers to the Saints (including Jewish sources in order to show the doctrine did not arise in an intellectual vacuum)
- 1 Enoch 9:3, 15:1 in Laurence translation (Jewish, 1st century BC)
- 2 Enoch 7 (Jewish or proto-Orthodox, 1st century AD)
- Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs 3:5 in Roberts-Donaldson (proto-Orthodox, 2nd century)
- Acts of Andrew, verse 38 (proto-Orthodox, 2nd century)
- Acts of Paul 10:5 in MR James translation (proto-Orthodox, 2nd century)
- Shepherd of Hermas, Similitude 5:4 (proto-Orthodox, 2nd century)* (*This passage preserves what may be more of a conversational convention and not strictly a prayer)
- Saint Hippolytus, Commentary on Daniel, Book 2:30:1 (proto-Orthodox, 3rd century)
- Origen, On Prayer; Chap 6, 7, 10 (Origen was part of the proto-Orthodox Church, 3rd century)
- The Strasbourg Papyrus (GR.254) which is dated to ‘perhaps c. 200’ and invokes the prayers ‘of Your holy prophets, apostles, and martyrs. Receive their entreaties.’ (See Bryan Spinks, Do This in Remembrance of Me: The Eucharist from the Early Church to the Present Day. London: SCM Press, 2014, 59-60.)
- Zostrianos 4:6 in Turner’s translation (Gnostic, 3rd century)
- Berakhot AZ 17 A (Jewish, 3rd century–There are other early Jewish prayers to the saints, see Meir Bar-Llan, ‘Prayers of Jews to Angels and Other Intermediaries during the First Centuries CE’ in Marcel Poorthuis and Joshua J. Schwartz (eds.), Saints and Role Models in Judaism and Christianity, Boston: Brill, 79-96. Other sources, like 2 Macc 15:14, presume upon the intercession of saints but do not record a prayer.)
- Eusebius of Caesarea: “For we are accustomed to glorify their sepulchres, there to offer prayers and vows, and to venerate their blessed souls; and we declare that we are right in doing these things.” (proto-Orthodox, 4th century; quoted in Percival, Invocation of the Saints, p. 163; Praparatio Evang., lib. xiii. cap. ii (11). [Migne, Pair. Grac, tom, xxi, col. 1095.])
- Additional citations pertaining to (13) Gospel of Bartholomew, (14) Melito of Sardis, (15) Odes of Solomon, (16) Grotto of Nazareth, (17) Sub Tuum Praesidum, (18) Six Books Apocryphon, (19) Anaphoras of Coptic/Egytpian Basil are covered in the Marian section; (20-28) additional fragmentary catacombs inscriptions from catacombs asking Peter and Paul for prayers; (29-Hundreds) “Hundreds more graffiti were found on a wall under the early fourth-century church of S. Sebastiano…half of these messages are formulaic requests that the apostles [Peter and Paul] remember (‘bear in mind’).” (Dated “before 313” in Kinney, “Petition, Prostration, and Tears: Painting and Prayer in Roman Catacombs, 2″)
We are not talking about 1 or 2 orthodox mentions of these doctrines as the film may leave one to believe. There are many more than that. Mariology and prayers to the saints were evidently prevalent.
I can already anticipate what someone may say: “But, few of the sources are from known people, they are anonymous or pseudonymous.” Though I count seven “name brand” individuals above and after Nicea this list only grows, let’s concede the point as being generally true. Unless one expects that there was some sort of specific controversy, the idea that prayers and secondary doctrines would feature prominently in pre-Nicene treatises and letters (which were mostly apologetic and addressing practical needs) is not credible. However, one would expect they would come up in devotional sources–which as the above shows, they clearly do.
One major thing sticks out. The Gnostic sources are the minority, far below their proportion of extant early sources. Granted, people will often accuse a devotional source of being Gnostic, but recent scholarship has avoided doing this unless there is something flagrantly Gnostic in the text. The verdict is clear. The sort of pre-Nicene conception the film envisions would have been more defensible 100 years ago, but not anymore.
The Necessity of Hagiography. The preceding brings out something important concerning how Christians ought to understand Christian history. The video rightly is skeptical of the hagiographic gloss of history that the Church uses–presuming upon a materialist epistemology. Contrarily, even with a materialist epistemology it is possible that the history of saints and councils played out exactly as our hagiographies record. Spiritually, to think otherwise is spiritually harmful in my honest opinion. They are intended to be taken at face value. However, this is when I have to take my Orthodox hat off and put my impartial historian’s hat on–such a hat presumes upon a materialist epistemology. Sometimes the hagiographic conclusion is not by a neutral, materialistic study of history the most likely conclusion.
And so, the video rightly expresses skepticism about Saint Luke’s icons still existing and details in Saint Constantine’s vision changing from their earliest recorded narratives. The same would be true of his baptism, by the way, as he went from being baptized by the heretic Eusebius of Nicomedia (as recorded by multiple saints and trustworthy witnesses) to Saint Sylvester of Rome–the latter account read out as fact during an Ecumenical Council.
Yet, ought we be examining history with a materialist epistemology? The sort of critical eye here cast upon history by employing such an epistemology is no different than how atheists and textual liberals treat the Scriptures. Being that the Gospel of John literally cites those knowing the beloved Apostle as its author, logic would dictate John did not literally write it. Hebrews does not list an author and mystery surrounded who wrote it in the early Church. Several New Testament books lack wide, early adherence by most accounts. Moses theoretically wrote the Torah, but it records his death–leading to not just liberals, but even early Church authorities asserting it was re-constituted. The Scriptures contain numerous, explicit historical contradictions–such as differing genealogies and numbers between Kings and Chronicles. I am not asserting that I agree with some or all of the preceding, but rather with a neutral historian’s hat on, presuming upon a materialist epistemology, I can see how if I apply the same standard the video applies to hagiographies to the Scriptures, I forfeit the whole Christian religion. I understand that with a materialist epistemology, we can do all sorts of mental gymnastics to resolve these issues in the Scriptures. On what basis can we not do this with the hagiographies? God can do all things, their details can most certainly be true.
But, do we honestly have to? By this point, my dear reader, your head must be spinning. “Wait, the Scriptures have seeming issues with historicity, we have a multitude of sources on prayers for the dead and the Theotokos, these sources are devotional and not epistolary or apologetic–I can’t wrap my mind around all of this!” Precisely. This is why we need hagiographies. They take historical and doctrinal truths and distill them in an idealist, dare I say “iconified” way, so that we can digest the teachings of Apostolic Christianity.
To those outside the Church, I take my Orthodox hat off and with my materialist, historian’s hat on make the case that Sacred Tradition has compelling merit from the sources. However, we do not solely do this within the Church. To the Orthodox, I expect that citing hagiography and hymns will be treated with the respect and adherence they demand. Nevertheless, I hope the preceding lays out that hagiography is not quaint and ignorant. It by genre serves a most necessary purpose and it always turns out being correct in its contentions by any epistemic standard, even if this is not the case with every minor detail.
Geographic and Cultural Bias. The filmmaker, in my honest opinion, does his best to navigate through Orthodox history and come up with a coherent analysis of Orthodox teachings vis a vis what he knows to be true. However, I submit to you dear reader, what he thinks to be true is culturally conditioned. It is not as true as he thinks.
Some critiques, such as Orthodox bishops having varying views concerning this or that doctrine may seem hypocritical considering the differences of opinion within Presbyterianism, let along Protestantism as a whole. The reason why the film’s critique seems to carry more weight than it really should is because in the West, their differences on what would be Earth shattering issues in the East are considered not such a big deal. So, whether or not the sacrament of communion is Christ’s actual flesh and blood (or even a sacrament), the age to baptize someone, how to ordain clergy (if at all), the gender of specific clergy, etcetera–all of these things are “tomato/tomahto” issues to the Protestant. Yet, the film likens each Orthodox bishop to an infallible Pope of Rome where one contradiction between two of them on some seconary issue (such as how literal toll houses are) allegedly invalidates the whole system.
Sure, we have people who disagree, but we are much more cogent on everything that actually matters than Protestantism is. It’s not even a contest. However, the sheer size of the problem in Protestantism is hard to appreciate considering culture accepts intra-Protestant differences on crucial matters as no big deal.
The same goes for how Protestants of all stripes are convinced of how ideologically “Sola Scriptura” they are, when by my own honest analysis on the face of it the Orthodox Church is the only Church that actually follows everything the Scriptures state. Take obvious Scriptural prescriptions for female head coverings, healing with oil, and confessing sins to others (1 Cor 11:2-15 and James 5:13-20 respectively). I have a much longer list (interpretation of actual tongues/languages, the Scripturally normative expectation for Apostolic Succession, the Eucharist being called literally Christ’s flesh and blood, etcetera), but the preceding three are easy to wrap one’s mind around. The point is 99 percent of all Protestant sects do not do any of those three, let alone all of them.
You will hear hemming and hawing, with torturous appeals to the Greek, that the Scriptures simply don’t say what they say. Because Protestants are so used to doing this, due to their dozens of different sects, the fact that all of them ignore this or that clear Scripture in favor of their peculiar tradition lays bare they have their own traditions of men that are constantly evolving and defending eisegetically. It is no scandal to them because it is so common in the West that it becomes invisible to them.
Protestantism to this day is a geographically centered movement. Anglicanism is in England (and wherever they colonized). State Lutheranism in Scandinavia. Scotland and the Netherlands are Reformed. American ultra-competitive corporate Protestantism of all brands is exported, just like Coca Cola, wherever said country dominates foreign markets. Protestantism is a movement which is to this day inescapably linked to geographic origin and national interest.
Justification. The film’s treatment of the doctrine of justification is something I am sympathetic to. After all, ideal Orthodox fasting and asceticism is daunting. This is why almost no one does it. Even those of us who like Pharisees follow the letter of the Law, we are usually (I cannot speak for everyone) not really embracing the spirit of the fast–self deprivation. The average waist-line of the Orthodox Christian is the same as anyone else’s, so I think while ideologically the film takes issue with Orthodox spirituality, for all practical intents and purposes so do we Orthodox (though we shouldn’t)!
I think the film is wrong on two crucial counts as it pertains to justification. First, fasting and deprivation is Scriptural. Moses fasted, Jesus fasted, John the Baptist’s whole life was an exercise in asceticism–you try living on just honey and bugs! Saint Paul teaches: “And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.” (Gal 5:24) Just because the way these Scriptural ideals are practiced in Orthodoxy are according to a foreign “Eastern” culture, that does not make them automatically “unscriptural.”
Yet, how do we square these things with the Scriptures which state clearly that forbidding marriage is wrong, food does not commend us to God, etcetera? Ascetcism is not a means to earning heaven (the Protestant objection) or an end onto itself. Rather, it is a tool. Being a tool, it can be modified, discarded, or picked up according to usefulness. The Church prescribes fasts, but the way they are performed are according to one’s spiritual father. Furthermore, fasting is like spiritual exercise. The more “in shape,” the more one can do. If one is not growing in faith and humility, but rather the opposite, it is harmful. As our hagriographies attest (such as the “holy” elder and the thief recorded in The Prologue of Ochrid, June 26), pride can forfeit what a lifetime of spiritual exercise attains and humility and faith can acquire heaven after a lifetime of sin.
I suggest to those who want the nitty gritty to read my articles on Scriptural justification, the Patristic and conciliar statements of the Church on the question, and how it contrasts with Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. However, to distill the preceding, one must realize that we do not earn heaven through works. Rather, works are a manifestation of God’s grace. God’s grace is synonymous with God’s energies–they are part of a real (and not theoretical) union with God. Such a union is what Theosis is and said union is definitionally salvific. Therefore, to quote the Confession of Dositheus, “the faith which is in us, justifies through works, with Christ.” (Decree 13) How else can it be if indeed these works we do are literal experiences of grace from which we are righteous?
As an Orthodox Christian I can boast of “not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith.” (Phil 3:9) God’s righteousness is not theoretical. It is actually imparted to believers and experienced. Indeed this conflates justification and sanctification. So does Saint Paul. (1 Cor 6:9-11) The concept of “the sanctification process” as something mutually exclusive from justification is detailed nowhere in the Scriptures. Listen to the Reformed struggle with exegeting Rom 6. It’s a man-made Protestant tradition. Nothing more.
The filmmaker’s objection to Orthodox spirituality, due to its foreignness, is understandable. It is further justified by those in the West who explain our doctrines wrongly or akin to Roman Catholic doctrine. Nevertheless, where the rubber meats the road is our saints. New-martyr Daniel Sysoev wrote the following about 15 years ago:
Faith in the Trinity and the redeeming sacrifice of Jesus Christ the God-Man is the sole means of our justification. (Salvation Comes Not By Good Works Alone, p. 5)
Yet, if one reads the same book, he goes on to extol the ascetic ideals. This is because the Orthodox paradigm is not from the 1500s sourced in the Protestant Reformation or the Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation. It is sourced from the Patristics, which the Reformers (with what must have been confusion) searched for “faith alone” statements among fathers who otherwise extolled asceticism.
For where Orthodoxy really stands, I recommend reading a Russian Orthodox tract against the works-based teachings of Seventh Day Adventists. It helps situate how Orthodoxy views itself vis a vis those who espouse works-based justification. To quote the tract:
By mixing law and grace, we destroy both. We rob the law of its fear and condemnation, and rob grace of freedom, joy, and life. When we accept Jesus by faith, we accept the fact that He fully paid for sin and accept His life, and then our personality is no longer that of a dirty, wicked sinner, but of a new creature.
And so, I think Pastor Wallace simply does not know enough about the Orthodox teaching on justification–but the same would be true for many Orthodox who would be surprised reading the preceding. God is not looking for moral perfection. He is looking for a faithful and humble heart which is constantly repenting. Such a heart is a lightning rod for grace.
Conclusion. There is so much more I can get into. I did not even touch on original sin and the atonement. However, I think to get more detailed in reviewing the film would not be productive. I hope in writing this I laid bare the different foundational premises between the Orthodox and the Reformed. In so doing, hopefully people realize Orthodoxy has not really “failed” in anything of note and can be appreciated more than one may suspect.
Orthodox Christian Theology 
Thanks for the review.
As far as waistlines go I think that is pretty much a cultural phenomenon and a North American cultural phenomenon at that. When I lived in Russia and Ukraine overweight simply wasn’t an issue for the culture at large (regardless of personal piety) *except* amongst some of the younger folks who had embraced western fast food ways.
Yes Ive noticed Russians are starting to grow lol
The purpose of fasting has nothing to do with the size, or a change in the size, of one’s waistline.
No. But its about obedience and the culling of passions/an inclination to self-edification. So, if someone is big and heavy, chances are he/she is not fasting right or well–hence the link to the article about following the fast, but not successfully acquiring dispassion.
In the hagiographies the ascetics are often extolled for the success of their fasting (evidenced by small body mass).
I’m commenting in reply to your aforecited video The “Errors” of the “Catholics” [youtube.com/watch?v=Wfeo6A-5agE] (13th Quintilis 2023) in which you really got only 2 chapters right.
You’re already off to a bad start.
In part 1, you rely on either forgeries in Bishop Doctor Saint HippoLytus of Rome of Sardina’s name against Popes Saints Sophronius and Callistus for the “Modalism” apostasy or, if they’re legit and so are the accusations, neglect that Sophronius and Callistus were apostate AntiPopes and are apostate AntiSaints, refer to such apostates as Hieronymus as “Fathers”, and neglect that the apostate ExPope Liberius Ipso Facto Latæ Sententiæ AutoMatically DePosed himself from the Papacy and ExCommUnicated himself from Christianity when he made peace with the Arian apostates and was Succeeded by Pope Saint Felix II, Bishop Doctor Saint Augustinus of Hippo Regius clearly taught that, if you hold to single heresy, you’re not Catholic and, if you don’t teach that the Faith of the See of Rome is to be held, you’re not to be looked upon as having the Faith, Pope Saint Celestinus clearly taught the Dogmatic Fact that Nestorius lost his Office the moment he began to preach heresy, Pope Saint Silverius was Martyred by the apostate AntiPope “Vigilius” who thus was never Pope, Pope Pelagius I attended and ConFirmed the 2nd ConStantinoPolitan Ecumenical Synod which uniquely took place during a Papal InTerRegnum, almost noone knows who Columbanus was and who alleged Pope BoniFacius IIII to favor heretics and, if such an allegation were true, he wouldn’t be Pope as you can’t lead what you’re not even part of, the moment the apostate ExPope Honorius became a “MonoThelite”/”MonoPhysite” and a “Pope”, other “Bishop”, or other “Pastor” who errs cannot be Pope, other Bishop, or other Pastor which is how the Roman See is as Pope Saint Agatho DeClared and DeFined, without blemish.
In part 2, you neglect that the Fathers taught Divine Simplicity, the FilioQue which means “Through the Son”, and Single ProCession, this dispute came about because someone purposely mistransliterated the word “FilioQue” when writing in Greek so, of course, the Christians are gonna condemn “Double ProCession” which ironically apostate ConStantinoPolis teaches when you teach “an Eternal ProCession From the Father but Only a Temporal ProCession From the Son” but that’s what Palamism does kind of like Thomism, the apostate Maximus was a “scholastic”, and apostate ConStantinoPolis initially accepted apostate Rome’s apostate invalid Florence which not only teaches these Dogmas and Purgatory but also teaches the Pelagians’ “Limbo” heresy on the unBaptized, the “NC-7” heresy on ConFirmation and the “TranSubStantiation”, “2-in-1 Species”, “1 Species”, “Living Species”, and “NC-7” heresies on CommUnion.
In part 3, you neglect that Bishop Doctor Saint Augustinus had not just the “Marian peccability” heresy but also the “Baptism of blood/desire”, “nfp”, “divorce”, et cetera heresies forged “into” his works, Pope Doctor Saint Leo I the Great taught the TheoTokos gave her nature but not sin to the God-Man is because she had no sin to give to the God-Man Who Would never AdVent by any vessel ever tainted by any sin at any time in her existence, and Pope Adrian I at the 2nd Nicene Ecumenical Synod DeClared and DeFined both simultaneously the Immaculate ConCeption, Animation, and Nativity and the PerPetual Virginity with the words “ever without blemish” so the idea that the TheoTokos ever had original sin or committed any personal sin at anytime in her existence is a “white” man’s “heresy” and refers to such condemned apostates as “Origen AdaMantus”, Basil, Gregorius Nazianzus, “Ambrosiaster”, John GeoMetres, John Damascenes, and Maximus as “Fathers”.
I’m not surprised it actually took you until chapter 4 to actually name an actual heresy actually taught by apostate Rome but what he’s calling “indulgences” we call simony and the “Didache” and the “”Apostolic” “ConStitutions”” are modern forgeries.
I’m not surprised it went back to you condemning Dogmas as “errors” as of chapter 5 and laughable are your attempts to “explain” “away” the fact Bishop Doctor Saint Irenæus of LugDunum in his AdVersus Hæreses, Bishop Doctor Saint Cyprian of Carthage in his Tractate de Catholicæ Ecclesiæ, Bishop Doctor Saint Augustinus of Hippo Regius in his Sermon 120:13, Pope Saint Celestinus, ImPerator Valentinian III, Pope Doctor Saint Leo I the Great at the Chalcedonian Ecumenical Synod in Session 19 (A.D. 451) and Canon 29, Michael PalæoLogus in his Libellus ProFessionis Fidei as accepted by Pope Saint Hormisdas in his Dogmatica Epístola, InTer Ea Quæ a los Obispos Españoles, ImPerator Saint Justinian at the 2nd ConStantinoPolitan Ecumenical Synod in the Sentence Against the 3 Chapters, Pope Saint Agatho at the 3rd ConStantinoPolitan Ecumenical Synod in Session 1 in the Papal Oath of Coronation, Session 3 in the ExPosition of the Faith, and his Dogmatic Epistle to ImPerator ConStantinus IIII, Pope Adrian I at the 2nd Nicene Ecumenical Synod in Session 2 in his Dogmatic Epistle to ImPerator ConStantinus VI and ImPeraTrix Irene and his Dogmatic Epistle to PatriArchEpiscope TaraSios of Byzantine, and Session 8 in Canon 4, and Pope Adrian II at the 4th ConStantinoPolitan Ecumenical Synod all taught Papal Supremacy, Pope Saint Victor threatened to ExCommUnicate all the East over the celebration of Pascha, Pope Saint Sylvester gave ImPerator Saint ConStantinus I the Great his PreRogative to ConVoke and PreSide over the 1st Nicene Ecumenical Synod which clearly ConDemns the CæsaroPapism Statism heresy, Pope Saint Siricius Ordered all Priests to not defer Baptism on infants or, in case of emergency, CateChumens, Bishop Doctor Saint Augustinus of Hippo Regius merely quoted and debunked the Donatists’ own self-exaltation via their attacks against the Papacy, the apostate Nestorius Ipso Facto Latæ Sententiæ AutoMatically DePosed himself from the Clergy and ExCommUnicated himself from Christianity the moment he preached heresy thus to treat him otherwise for any reason would’ve been to also be an apostate, the apostate ExPatriArchs AntiSaint DiosCorus the Terrible DeFender of HeteroDoxy of Alexandria, Maximus II of AntiOch, and Juvenal of JeruSalem sided with the apostate EuTyches against Pope Doctor Saint Leo I the Great and PatriArch Saint Flavian of ConStantinoPolis over DyoThelitIsm/DyoPhysitIsm vs “MonoThelitism”/”MonoPhysitism” thus Alexandria, AntiOch, and JeruSalem are apostate thus the Alexandrian, AntiOchian, and JeruSalemite Sees are Vacant eversince the Chalcedonian Ecumenical Synod in A.D. 451, Pope Doctor Saint Leo I the Great had Sole DisCretion as to whether to Render the DeClaratory DeFinitive JudgMent or ConVoke an Ecumenical Synod. gave ImPerator Marcian his PreRogative to ConVoke the Chalcedonian Ecumenical Synod which clearly ConDemns the CæsaroPapism Statism heresy, and even Stipulated a ConDition by which the apostate EuTychian ExBishop were to retain their Rank as Bishops “with the ProSpect either of ReCeiving the Peace of the Total Church after True and necessary Signs of RePentance” otherwise “, which God ProHibit, they persist in their heresy of reaping the “reward” of their unBelief” in his Dogmatic Epistle 95:4 to Pulcheria Augusta, the apostate TimoThy Ware publicly admits apostate ConStantinoPolis has no valid criteria for an Ecumenical Synod, just because you think someone’s in communion with you doesn’t make it so, and all the apostate Roman, Greek, and Egyptian pseudoecclesiologies deny specially the 1st and 2nd but also the 3rd and 4th Ecclesiastical Marks.
I’m not surprised it actually took you until chapter 6 to actually name more than 1 actual heresy actually taught by apostate Rome of which the apostate Vincent De Lérins invented and the apostate John Henry NewMan popularized the “DeVelopMent of Doctrine” heresy yet both apostate Rome and apostate ConStantinoPolis gradually strayed from Christianity eversince the apostate Photian schism and the apostate invalid Cadaver AntiSynod. There was no incense used or golden items present at Mass during the 1st few centuries. There was incense and gold used as symbols after the 4th century. God allowed the Church to be founded and to grow upon their Sacred Blood in this manner to remind us of what the Faith is and what it would revert back to as it has in the last days which are here. None of God’s Priests of any Rank ever wore those black cassocks “to symbolize death”, collars “to symbolize celibacy”, white garments “to symbolize Christ”, or code-colored robes or jewels to signify Rank, even shaved (while they trimmed a little for hygienic purposes), styled themselves “Father”, “His ExCellency”, “His Eminence”, or “His HoliNess” [Matthew 23:5–6,9]. Those same Frankish Latin Roman AntiPapists and Photian-CerulArian Greco-Russian CæsaroPapists who created all this black cassock, white collar, and rings and crowns crap we see in both the East and the West for the past millennium just to be called “Father” [Matthew 23:5–6,9] also touched women, children of both sexes/genders, each other, themselves, and other men. That same black cassocks worn by both Frankish Latin Roman AntiPapist leaders and Nestorian-EuTychian Coptic-TewaHedo and Photian-CerulArian Greco-Russian CæsaroPapist leaders alike are also worn by Satanist leaders, other Masonic leaders, and other jew leaders (i.e. rabbis) and secular AntiJudges. Both apostate Rome and apostate ConStantinoPolis and even apostate Moscow have jew-Masonic Satanic symbols and Greco-Roman pagan idolatrous, pornographic, otherwise immodest, and otherwise grotesque images under the specious name of “ReLigious Art” on the interiors and exteriors of their meetinghouses eversince 1014.
Let’s face it. You both strayed.
He kept deleting my comments when I tried to direct people to this article. Lol
yt automatically deleted links
The were other instances in which my comments were deleted when mentioning you.
This is kind of on a related topic, not my reponse to your view of “The failure of Eastern Orthodoxy”, but to show you another criticism by Roman Catholics of Eastern Orthodoxy, and alleged weakness or problems of the Eastern Orthodox. Please read this site from ROKU YouTube player: “The Top Ten errors of Eastern Orthodox” 8:36 minutes “Top Ten Errors of the Eastern Orthodox”, Ascent of Mount Carmel, 4,900 views, 2 years ago (2023) 10. Ignoring Conctraception 9. Sketchy Saints 8. Epiclesis 7. Caesaropapism 6. Palamism 5. Denial of the Immaculate Conception 4. Denial of Purgatory 3. Denial of the Primacy of Peter 2. Divorce 1. Filioque: Here is an Orthodox reply: Top Ten Errors of Roman Catholics 10. Sketchy Saints 9. Denial of Epiclesis 8. Papocaesarism 7. Thomism 6. Affirmation of the Immaculate Conception 5. Affirmation of Purgatory 4. Denial of Conciliarity (Collegiality/Syndality) (Conciliar Nature of the One Church) Denial of Equality of All Church Bishops 3. Sedevacantism (Problem of Sedevacanticism), Multiple Popes, Avignon Schism/Vatican II schisms 2. Denial of Divorce engenders continuation of Adultery, Adulterous marriages (no repentance) 1. Affirmation of Filioque” Honorable mention: Using secular Jewish comedian David Letterman, television, Top Ten List, as an alleged epistemological criterion of doctrinal Christian analysis for evaluating alleged problems in Christianity (spurious tenfold criterion of judgment-analysis for truth claims).
Dear Craig Truglia: First word: Good success and God go with you in your Orthodox ministry to Cambodian peoples, whether of Buddhist or any spiritual backgrounds. (God save you all). Note here: Please respond when you have time, please, to my last post. And as well, please, if you can: compare Roman Catholicism (Thomism/Scotism/Bonavenfurianism/Scholasticism) with Greek Orthodoxy (Palamism/Photianism), Mark of Ephesus. If you can contrast the Greek Orthodox philosophy of Saint John Damascene, Saint Photius the Great, Saint Gregory Palamas, St. Mark Evgenikos (of Ephesus), with Western philosophy of Roman Catholicism [Scholasticism], whether Thomist or Scotist. (I have more sympathy with certain things in the West, Scotism, and among Protestantism, Arminianism, Wesleyanism), than I do for Thomism. I reject the Summa Theologiae of Thomas Aquinas, who I believe should not be called a Saint (But Saint Augustine should be called Blessed and a Saint). Also, I recommend we learn from Western post-schism modern philosophy: Cress, Donald A., trans. (1980). Rene Descartes (1596-1650), Discourse on Method (1637) and Meditations On First Philosophy (1641). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company. God save us all Amen. God bless you. All of you in your circle of family and church. God bless the Orthodox Church everywhere.
Note: I am not a Cartesian or a follow of Sartre’s nihilist-atheist take on Descartes in his diatribe post-modernist existentialist “Being and Nothingness”, which is just a more plausible form of existential phenomenology of Martin Heidegger, his surrender to death (& Nazi fascim), in “Being and Time”, which is incomprehensible! But I value Edmund Husserl and his phenomenology, which has Cartesian Meditations, though Husserl goes beyond Cartesianism, and phenomenology dove-tails with Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka and Max Schler and Karol Wojtyla, Pope John Paul II, “The Acting Person”, Analecta Husserliana, and Fides et Ratio, Papal Encyclical, which has some aspects that can be useful to Greek Orthodox philosophers, but I value “Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ” by Saint Justin Popovich, theology more than philosophy, and Constantine Cavarnos, Greek Orthodox philosopher, “Orthodoxy and Philosophy”.. God save us.
Here is some more info on the nature of Venerable Theodora (Sept 11) from the hagiography’s translator which pretty transparently states that historical details in hagiographies are not always literally true:
Trans. Note: One might find highly implausible a beardless monk dwelling in a monastery for so long a period of time unquestioned. But perhaps eunuch-castrates were still common at this time, and as such losing also the capacity to grow beards. The matter of cross-dressing in men’s monastic attire is a literary gendre occuring also in the lives of other women saints, usually only for the purposes of concealment and for but a short time. But as the “Redaction” account introducing the Russian original of our text indicates, the Saint-Lives reflect a broad spectrum of historical sources compiled with differing intended purposes, often other than the “modern” penchant for strict recording of historical facts. Which is to say, the account may have been embellished to in entertaining edify both the common man and woman, as well as the sophisticated. Certainly many a Saint-Vita contains an account of a virtually unhurtable and well-nigh unkillable martyr, – so that one is left to wonder that the persecution of Christians by the pagans of old, who in the torturing sometimes themselves dropped down dead, – should have taken so very long, to end. But beneathe any of these embellishments is an actual historical person, who witnessed to Christ our Lord. And to write the miraculous off as mere fable, – is foolish. The spiritual task herein is one of discernment between embellishment and fact. © 1996-2001 by translator Fr. S. Janos.
Having viewed ‘The Failure of Eastern Orthodoxy’ the biggest problem is that they judge Orthodoxy through criteria that they don’t use on themselves. The creators are from a Reformed background yet have absolutely no trouble with a limited atonement only turning up in the nineth century with Gottschalk of Orbais or justification being a one-off event from the time of the Reformation.
The video is great a dredging up obscure facts and embarrassing details (Church History is messy) but then the Orthodox Church is 2,000 years old. More and worse stuff could be said about the antics of the various Reformed/Presbyterian Churches.
I came across this site through an X link, perhaps posted by you. If so, I apologize for duplicating what I already posted in response to you on x, but I most object to essentially every source you have cited here as supposed proof of the antiquity of prayer to the saints. I hate to assume intentional misrepresentation, but this is dangerously close to it. I will address each source in turn:
1 Enoch 9:3 in Laurence translation (Jewish, 1st century BC)
“And now, [O] holy ones of heaven, the souls of people are putting their case before you pleading, “Bring judgment before the Most High.” (I have quoted the E. Issac translation in Charlesworth)
Here we have angels describing the souls of the deceased crying out for justice from God after being killed by the giants. I fail to see any relevance to later doctrines about the invocation of the saints. There is no precedent here for living people on earth invoking a deceased saint or angel. Furthermore, even the deceased are not making petitions to specific angels, they are described as crying out in mass to passing angels. This is far removed from anything resembling later Catholic/Orthodox doctrine.
Testament of the Patriarchs 3:5 (proto-Orthodox, 2nd century)
Your citation format is confusing here, but I assume you are referring to chapter 5 of the Testament of Levi (that is the only thing that makes sense). Verse 5 of that chapter has Levi speak to an angel and say:
“‘I beg you, Lord, teach me your name, so that I may call on you in the day of tribulation.’ And he said, ‘I am the angle who makes intercession for the nation of Israel, that they might not be beaten.'”
Here we have a typical Biblical conversation between a mortal and an angel. Levi asks that he might seek the angel’s intercession on the day of judgment, but there is no indication that he plans to make prayer to him or invoke him during his mortal life. The concept of an “advocate” on the day of judgment and certain angels advocating for Israel before God is completely separate from the issue of whether living human beings should make a regular practice of praying to angels and/or saints.
Acts of Andrew, verse 38 (proto-Orthodox, 2nd century)
Your citation here is odd. I can only assume you are referencing the outdated M.R. James “translation” (verse 38 in the Schneemlecher and Elliott editions does not have any relevance). The problem is M.R. James did not have actual copies of the Acts of Andrew to work with, he instead translating Gregory of Tour’s epitome. Today the epitome is referred to as “Miracles of Andrew.”
The colophon states: May Andrew on whose death day he was born intercede to save him.
Since this only appears in Gregory of Tour’s epitome, this line clearly dates to the 6th century, not the 2nd. It is not relevant to this survey
Acts of Paul 10:5 (proto-Orthodox, 2nd century)
The paragraphing of the Acts of Paul varies significantly from translation to translation. At first I thought you were referencing Thecla’s prayer for Falconilla (which would be a living person praying for a dead pagan rather than a living person praying to a dead saint). But I believe you must be referencing the martyrdom of Paul from the old M.R. James version. Section X.V of that version has Paul telling the soldiers:
“Come quickly unto my grave in the morning and ye shall find two men praying, Titus and Luke. They shall give you the seal in the Lord.”
This has nothing to do with praying to the dead, it merely indicates that TItus and Luke prayed by Paul’s grave.
Shepherd of Hermas, Similitude 5:4 (proto-Orthodox, 2nd century)
The paragraphing of Hermas is a mess between the different translations, but I believe you are referring to the following statement in Roberts Donaldson translation:
“I prayed him much that he would explain to me the similitude of the field, and of the master of the vineyard…”
This is simply Hermas asking an angel who has appeared to him to explain the vision he has been shown. This is no different than any conversation between a human and angel in the Bible. The fact Roberts Donaldson used “pray” as an archaic form of “ask” doesn’t make this relevant to intercessory prayer.
Saint Hippolytus, Commentary on Daniel, Book 2:30:1 (proto-Orthodox, 3rd century)
the passage in question reads: “Tell me, you three boys, remember me, I entreat you, that I also may obtain the same lot of martyrdom with you …”
However, in the same work, Hippolytus uses the “tell me _” rhetorical style to address Nebuchadnezzar! I’m sure you don’t believe Hippolytus was praying to him:
“Tell me, Nebuchadnezzar, on what account do you order these boys to be bound and cast into the fire? Lest they flee? Or being released they quench the fire with their feet? But you are not the one who does these things, but another in you, who works these things” 27.2
“Tell me, Nebuchadnezzar, for when did you see the Son of God, so that you confessed this one to be the Son of God? Who pricked your heart so that you plainly spoke such a word? With what sort of eyes were you able to see the light
of him?” 33.2
Hippolytus is merely engaging in poetic rhetoric, this is not sincere prayer.
Origen, On Prayer; Chap 6, 7, 10 (Origen was part of the proto-Orthodox Church, 3rd century)
This is too long to quote, but the chapters in question merely describe the dead in heaven praying for the living. It is silent on whether the living should actively pray to the dead. Thus these chapters are not relevant to
The Strasbourg Papyrus (GR.254) which is dated to ‘perhaps c. 200’ and invokes the prayers ‘of Your holy prophets, apostles, and martyrs. Receive their entreaties.’ (See Bryan Spinks, Do This in Remembrance of Me: The Eucharist from the Early Church to the Present Day. London: SCM Press, 2014, 59-60.)
I can’t find anything that dates this papyrus to 200. Wikipedia is giving dates from the 4th to 5th centuries. I’ll have to check the source you cited.
Zostrianos verse 13 (Gnostic, 3rd century)
I’m really confused why you’ve included this to begin with. The only relevant portion I see is:
“I called upon the Child of the Child, Ephesech. He stood before me and said, “O angel of god, O son of the father, […] the perfect man. “
However, this appears to be a divine being addressing the author as an angel. I really don’t see how this is relevant to this topic at all.
Berakhot AZ 17 A (Jewish, 3rd century–There are other early Jewish prayers to the saints, see Meir Bar-Llan, ‘Prayers of Jews to Angels and Other Intermediaries during the First Centuries CE’ in Marcel Poorthuis and Joshua J. Schwartz (eds.), Saints and Role Models in Judaism and Christianity, Boston: Brill, 79-96. Other sources, like 2 Macc 15:14, presume upon the intercession of saints but do not record a prayer.)
I really don’t know what you’re referencing here. Berakhot 17A mentions that angels minister to specific nations, but I don’t see anything there that woul be relevant. I’ll have to check the book you recommended.
Eusebius of Caesarea: “For we are accustomed to glorify their sepulchres, there to offer prayers and vows, and to venerate their blessed souls; and we declare that we are right in doing these things.” (proto-Orthodox, 4th century; quoted in Percival, Invocation of the Saints, p. 163; Praparatio Evang., lib. xiii. cap. ii (11). [Migne, Pair. Grac, tom, xxi, col. 1095.])
I’m not sure what translation you’re quoting here. The E.H. Gifford translation has the following:
These customs also may fitly be adopted on the death of those beloved of God, whom you would not do wrong in calling soldiers of the true religion. Hence comes also our custom of visiting their tombs, and offering our prayers beside them, and honouring their blessed souls, believing that we do this with good reason. (13.11).
The Gifford translation states that Christians pray at the tombs of saints and honor them, but does not indicate that prayers are made to the dead.
Additional citations pertaining to (12) Gospel of Bartholomew, (13) Melito of Sardis, (14) Odes of Solomon, (15) Grotto of Nazareth, (16) Sub Tuum Praesidum, (17) Six Books Apocryphon, (18) Anaphoras of Coptic/Egytpian Basil are covered in the Marian section; (19-27) fragmentary catacombs inscriptions from catacombs asking Peter and Paul for prayers.
Since you haven’t provided specific citations, I can’t address these. However, I am utterly baffled as to what passages of Melito or the Odes of Solomon you think support intercession of the saints. I see you cited “Fragment 17” of Melito elsewhere above. If this is the passage of Melito you intended, this fragment appears following a portion of Peri Pascha in Bodmer 12, but John Behr notes in his translation for St. Vladimir’s that “this does not mean it is necessarily the work of Melito.” (p. 78) It’s date is obviously highly uncertain.
Sub Tuum Praesidium (P. Ryl. 740) almost certainly dates from the 6th century or later. Hans Forster dated it to 8th-9th centuries (Zum alesten Uberlieferung). Theodore De Bruyn has argued for a date in the 6th-7th centuries (Appeal to the Intercession of Mary in Greek Liturgical & Paraliturgical Texts from Egypt). Agnes Mihalyko also argues for a late date (The Christian Liturgical Papyrus: An Introduction). Roger Pearse has a good overview on his site
Aside from the two sources I could not locate, none of the examples you have cited clearly depict prayer of the living to deceased saints or prayer. There are also no examples of the living praying to angels. A conversation with an angel who appears to you is completely different. Most of these aren’t even relevant to the issue.
It’s funny, I actually find the idea of intercession of the saints somewhat appealing, but I just don’t think the evidence holds up. Still, I find the list you’ve provided here more than a little misleading. Regards
Thank you for your comment. In trying to “debunk” the citations, what you reveal are the lengths one must take to debunk the evidence–vindicating the list here.
“I object to essentially every source you have cited here as supposed proof of the antiquity of prayer to the saints. I hate to assume intentional misrepresentation, but this is dangerously close to it.”
I hate to infer this, but it appears you have an agenda. My claim was never that every scholar dates such texts to said times, but that I include in the list the earliest possible scholarly dating. The contents of the sources can all be read as prayers, and as your dispute shows, only with some contorting or with an uncharitable reading can be read as something else.
1 Enoch 9:3 in Laurence translation (Jewish, 1st century BC)
**Here, you accuse me of “intentional misrepresentation,.” The translation where I read the prayer (Lawrence) which is: “O ye holy ones of heaven, the soulsof men complain, saying, Obtain Justice for us with the Most High.” 1 Enoch 8:9 implies they are alive–“And men, being destroyed, cried out; and their voicereached to heaven.” If they are dead in heaven, how does the voice reach to heaven? This seems to connect to 1 Encoh 7:13-15 which is those being destroyed on Earth reproving the giants. In 1 Enoch 15:1 it states, “Go, say to the Watchers of heaven, who have sent theeto pray for them, You ought to pray for men, and notmen for you.” So as I said, with some contorting you can claim they are dead (and in Hades and not in heaven, or something, inferring beyond the text states.) But the simplest interpretation is a prayer to angels. 2 Enoch 7 (a separate, related text a century later) flat out says, ““Who am I, a mortal man, that I should pray for angels?” That’s sufficient on this topic.
Testament of the Patriarchs 3:5 (proto-Orthodox, 2nd century)
“Here we have a typical Biblical conversation between a mortal and an angel. Levi asks that he might seek the angel’s intercession on the day of judgment, but there is no indication that he plans to make prayer to him…”
**He petitions the angel for something–this is considered prayer. As a Protestant, you likely consider when John prostrates to the angel as proof one shouldn’t venerate angels. But, by your logic, “this is a typical conversation” so this convention wouldn’t apply there. I infer inconsistency on your behalf. As for the objection to prostrations, Dan 10:15 has a prostration to an angel (I know, out of “astonishment” or whatever, but it shows that the action depends on context and cannot be categorically discounted).
Acts of Andrew, verse 38 (proto-Orthodox, 2nd century)
“Your citation here is odd. I can only assume you are referencing the outdated M.R. James “translation” (verse 38 in the Schneemlecher and Elliott editions does not have any relevance). The problem is M.R. James did not have actual copies of the Acts of Andrew to work with, he instead translating Gregory of Tour’s epitome. Today the epitome is referred to as “Miracles of Andrew.” The colophon states: May Andrew on whose death day he was born intercede to save him. Since this only appears in Gregory of Tour’s epitome, this line clearly dates to the 6th century, not the 2nd. It is not relevant to this survey.”
**First, how am I misrepresenting a text if by quoting the readily available open source version, I have a rendering not available from a later edition? If I am wrong, it simply shows good faith on my part and bad faith on yours for inferring “intentional misrepresentation.” Further, the most recent scholarship openly depends of Gregory of Tours in reconstructing the fragments of this text. Hence, quoting some fragmentary surviving version from a 1950s find can be missing items that Gregory had access to in his time. And, of course it could be the addition of himself or some scribe (the latter is more likely). The point is, we have a 6th century attestation to the contents of the book and it states we have this prayer in it.
Acts of Paul 10:5 (proto-Orthodox, 2nd century)
“This has nothing to do with praying to the dead, it merely indicates that TItus and Luke prayed by Paul’s grave.”
**Keep reading the verse: “in his prayer he conversed in the Hebrew tongue with the fathers, and then stretched forth his neck without speaking…” He was praying to the saints before his martyrdom. He went from speaking Greek to his friends to Hebrew prayer. Slam dunk text honestly.
Shepherd of Hermas, Similitude 5:4 (proto-Orthodox, 2nd century)
“This is simply Hermas asking an angel who has appeared to him to explain the vision he has been shown. This is no different than any conversation between a human and angel in the Bible.”
**It is a direct form of communication to an angel, but being that the term “prayer” is used as a form of request than particular petition, I will concede this one for the sake of conversation. I know others who have cited it, but I am ambivalent so I will asterisk it for now and give it more careful thought over time.
Saint Hippolytus, Commentary on Daniel, Book 2:30:1 (proto-Orthodox, 3rd century)
“…the passage in question reads: “Tell me, you three boys, remember me, I entreat you, that I also may obtain the same lot of martyrdom with you …”
However, in the same work, Hippolytus uses the “tell me _” rhetorical style to address Nebuchadnezzar!…Hippolytus is merely engaging in poetic rhetoric, this is not sincere prayer.”
**I can see your reading, but I disagree. With Nebuchadnezzar, he is using the rhetoric in addressing him to rebuke him. When Satan is not in the room with us, we may say things that rebuke him (I suppose we shouldn’t, “the Lord rebuke thee,” but I think we have all done this at some point). This presumes their spirit can hear it. With the three boys (an extremely popular icon in the 3rd century BTW), he is petitioning for salvific prayer. So, I am definitely going to call shenanigans on this one. What is the rhetorical device of “pray for my salvation X saint?” Do you ever speak this way? Your objection is not serious when exactly to modest scrutiny.
Origen, On Prayer; Chap 6, 7, 10 (Origen was part of the proto-Orthodox Church, 3rd century)
“This is too long to quote, but the chapters in question merely describe the dead in heaven praying for the living.”
**Chap 10 contains an explicit petition to Peter and Paul “to benefit us by making us worthy” contrasting this with a prohibition of asking living men for such things. It then connects this explicitly to their veneration, which shows this is the holistic “dulia” of the saints being invoked.
Chap 6: “But these pray along with those who genuinely pray—not only the high priest [Jesus] but also the angels…and also the souls of the saints already at rest.” (Origen then cites Tobit and 2 Macc 13, the latter being a conversation with )Chap 7: “I believe the words of the prayer of the saints to be full of power”Chap 10: “Now request and intercession and thanksgiving, it is not out of place to offer even to men “—the two latter, intercession and thanksgiving, not only to saintly men but also to others. But request to saints alone, should some Paul or Peter appear, to benefit us by making us worthy to obtain the authority which has been given to them to forgive sins…Yet if we are offer thanksgiving to men who are saints, how much more should we give thanks to Christ…!”
The Strasbourg Papyrus (GR.254)
**So you concede this text is a prayer. As for dating, see Bryan Spinks, Do This in Remembrance of Me: The Eucharist from the Early Church to the Present Day. London: SCM Press, 2014, 59-60.
Zostrianos verse 13 (Gnostic, 3rd century)
“However, this appears to be a divine being addressing the author as an angel. I really don’t see how this is relevant to this topic at all.”
**This appears to be a typo on my behalf. It is 4:6 in Turner’s translation. “Then I 14 [stood at rest] upon my spirit, 15 praying fervently to the great 16 luminaries by 17 thought. I was calling 18 upon Salamex and Se[m]en 19 and the all-perfect 20 [Ar]mê.” It is gnostic, as I disclose, and ironically the first of all these texts that is gnostic. Also ironically, it is LATER than the other texts which implies the Gnostics borrowed this from Judaism and Christianity.
Berakhot AZ 17 A
“I really don’t know what you’re referencing here. Berakhot 17A mentions that angels minister to specific nations, but I don’t see anything there that woul be relevant. I’ll have to check the book you recommended.”
**You need the quotation in the article, it is very clear.
Eusebius of Caesarea: “The Gifford translation states that Christians pray at the tombs of saints and honor them, but does not indicate that prayers are made to the dead.”
**The translation was from the Anglican translator of the councils, Henry Percival, who explicitly interpreted the passage (rightly) to be prayers to these saints–as the holistic doctrine of dulia is clearly what is being discussed here.
Additional citations pertaining to…
“Since you haven’t provided specific citations, I can’t address these.”
**The citations were in the preceding section on Marian doctrines, which you moments later seem to have no problem finding.
“However, I am utterly baffled as to what passages of Melito or the Odes of Solomon you think support intercession of the saints. I see you cited “Fragment 17” of Melito elsewhere above. If this is the passage of Melito you intended, this fragment appears following a portion of Peri Pascha in Bodmer 12, but John Behr notes in his translation for St. Vladimir’s that “this does not mean it is necessarily the work of Melito.” (p. 78) It’s date is obviously highly uncertain.”
**Your comment is very biased. He dates the same passage, even if not from Melito, as from his era which is relevant to our discussion here. Being that the only ascribed offer is Melito, there is no reason *not* to ascribe it to him or his church. As for Ode 19, Shoemaker likewise infers “mother witrh great mercIES,” plural, as evidence of intercession.
“Sub Tuum Praesidium (P. Ryl. 740) almost certainly dates from the 6th century…”
**Again, I framed my discussion with “earliest scholarly dating,” not that all scholars agree. You goalpost changed here.
“It’s funny, I actually find the idea of intercession of the saints somewhat appealing, but I just don’t think the evidence holds up.”
Forgive, but this appears disingenous or you just have an extremely uncharitable reading of the evidence, as the above shows. The fact I can point to published scholarship (like Shoemaker) and you at one point concede there is a prayer, but quibble with dating (when I admit diversity of dating) makes it that even if your are not dishonest, you have same ax to grind here.
I wish you the best!
The sad reality is this. The Gospel of the Kingdom is SIMPLE. Believe upon and call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved. That’s what St. Paul said.
Jesus said, “My yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” But he reproved the Pharisees for added to people’s burden in trying to follow the Lord, and not lifting a finger to help them.
I think almost EVERYONE would agree that those who were contemporaries of Jesus, either His direct 11 Apostles (or St Paul or Barnabas), or were directly associated with the Apostles would be the best source of information and writings. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Acts of the Apostles. Romans, Hebrews, etc. These are the DEFINING books of Christianity. Without them, we who are centuries past Jesus’s and His Apostles time on earth would be completely lost.
Why do I say that? Because, while Orthodox and Catholics love to quote Church Fathers on things, the reality is, the Church Fathers often don’t agree among themselves in their writings. Some say one thing, other’s say another thing. You get nonsense like the bishop is the church, and the church is the bishop. Really? I thought that the church is all who believe in Jesus Christ. This shows you already the corruption being sown in the early Church. This is why Church Tradition is INFERIOR to what the OT and NT have to say. Church tradition is simply a way of doing things, and often a personal opinoin, and a commentary on Scripture in many way.
Do you know what writings agree with themselves? The Old and New Testaments. God used early Church Leaders (or Fathers) at the Councils to select the books that He wanted the Church to use.
I don’t doubt that many (if not all) Church Fathers were Godly men. Certainly. And yet, I’m sure some were not. Let’s remember that Satan loves to put his wolves in among the sheep. And what better way to try to destroy any Church than to sow false ideas and portray them as “religious” or “pious”.
The statement the Church is the bishop and the bishop is the Church is not wrong. It is just incomplete. The Church is only the Orthodox bishops Orthodox priests Orthodox deacons and Orthodox laity. Nothing less. If there are other Christian Sheep outside the visible Orthodox Church that is for Christ Himself alone to judge.
it is,wrong to say some Church Father’s are wolves. Judge not less ye be judged.
it begins with oneself. I find I am a sinner. So it is better to say about others “I’m sure some were not” (godly men). It is a trap to say such a thing. None of us are godly men. The Church Fathers all of them were godly men, more so than all of us who use social media to make easy judgments. Americans are all postmodernism sinners for the most part there seem to be fewer Orthodox Saints in America than in Russia. But we must hope America comes to Orthodoxy and not worry about what Putin or Zelensky may do. God bless us everyone. When I am aware of distracting thoughts I am sure Church Father’s are what we need their Orthodox prayers to guide us away from our shadows.
Church Tradition is NOT inferior to the self-made subjective ever changing ever reforming self contradictory hypocritical opinions of Protestant. As a sinful convert to Holy Orthodoxy, I have hypocrisy in me of my own not to judge the Protestant tradition who so glibly and simply makes the Protestant mistake that Scripture alone is easy and simple for all true Christians to understand. Does America really mostly know anything about what true Christianity is? It would not seem so.