The Fathers on the Necessity of Communion with Rome

"All the churches of God salute you."
Romans 16:16b

The Papacy, as it functions in the modern day, is a development. In the first millennium, its role can be compared to a Supreme Court, whereas in the second millenium it behaves more like a CEO. But, true to its name, the Papacy has always been positioned as a father, and as a rock to the whole church.

This means the Papacy’s outward framework, the pragmatic method by which it operates, has evolved as time has gone on, but that its interior animating principle, its theological purpose, is consistent with what came before it and is in harmony with its past.

The early Fathers may not utter in any explicit fashion such things that the Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, or that he holds universal and immediate jurisdiction over the whole church. But they do refer to his see as having always maintained the apostolic faith and never suffering its corruption, and that it is preeminent among and head over all the churches. They admonish that there is no unity in the Church except through unity with Rome. They record in that no theological dispute can be counted as settled, nor universal church law set into motion, without his approval.

The Pope's universal primacy over the Church serves to maintain and manifest the universal unity of faith (Eph 4:13) and bond of peace (4:3). He is the direct and preeminent successor of St. Peter, chief and head of the Apostles, the rock upon whom Christ built his Church (Mt 16), whom He commissioned to feed His sheep (Jn 21), for whom He prayed for unfailing faith and indicated that he was to strengthen the brethren (Lk 22.) Thus, the role Peter serves as established by Christ, is the one which the Pope and the Church of Rome continue to exercise.

These excerpts from the Fathers will highlight a common theme which adds weight to the papal claims.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. AD 130 - 200)

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who... assemble in unauthorized meetings by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul...  For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those who exist everywhere.
(Against Heresies 3:3:2)

Every church should agree with the church of Rome "on account of its preeminent authority", inasmuch as that church has continuously preserved the apostolic tradition.

St. Cyprian of Carthage (c. AD 210 - 258)

After such things as these, moreover, they still dare — a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics— to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.
(Letter 58:14)

It is from the Roman Church "whence priestly unity takes its source"

St. Optatus of Milevis (c. AD 397)

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Chair [Cathedra], on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Chair, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim--each for himself--separate Chairs, so that he who should set up a second Chair against the unique Chair would already be a schismatic and a sinner.
(On the Schism of the Donatists 2:2)

The Chair of Peter is the chair against which all other chairs are held, "in this one Chair, unity should be preserved by all," "he who should set up a second Chair against the unique Chair would already be a schismatic and a sinner."

St. Ambrose of Milan (c. 340 - 397)

Your grace must be besought not to permit any disturbance of the Roman Church, the head of the whole Roman world and of the most holy faith of the Apostles, for from thence flow out to all [churches] the bonds of sacred communion.
(Letter 11:4)

It is from the Roman Church "from thence flows out of all the bonds of sacred communion." It is "the head of... the most holy faith of the Apostles."

St. Jerome (AD 347-420)

My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! (Matthew 16:18) This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. (Exodus 12:22) This is the Ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. (Genesis 7:23)
(Letter 15:2)

As he follows Christ, so he communes with the pope.

St. Maximus the Confessor*

For the extremities of the earth and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of the sacred dogmas of our fathers, according to what the six inspired and holy councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For from the coming down of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the Churches in every part of the world have possessed that greatest Church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ our Saviour, the gates of Hell do never prevail against it, that it possesses the keys of a right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks injustice against the truth. 

If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus, anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God.

St. Theodore the Studite
According to the Fathers, the right hand of fellowship must be exchanged with the Church of Rome if one wishes to be considered to be part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is the Bride and Body of Christ. Of this church, distinct from all others, St. Paul gives the unique farewell "all the churches of God salute you," (Romans 16:16) and the churches of God through the centuries have recognized the import of this salutation.

Eastern Church Fathers: "Meditate on the Sufferings of Christ"

Worth mentioning, only because modern Orthodox sometimes oppose to the notion of meditating upon the Passion of Christ because it's so associated with Western Christendom. Here are some witnesses from Early Church Fathers from the East.

St. Ephrem the Syrian, On the Passion

Learn well, brother, what it is you hear:
God who is without sin, Son of the Most High,
for you was given up.
Open your heart, learn in details His sufferings and say to yourself:
God who is without sin
today was given up,
today was mocked,
today was abused,
today was struck,
today was scourged,
today wore a crown of thorns,
today was crucified,
he, the heavenly Lamb.
Your heart will tremble, your soul will shudder.
Shed tears everyday by this meditation on the Master's sufferings.
Tears become sweet (for) the soul is enlightened that always meditates on Christ's sufferings.
Always meditating thus, shedding tears every day,
giving thanks to the Master for the sufferings that he suffered for you,
so that in the day of his Coming your tears may become your boast and exaltation before the judgment seat.
Endure as you meditate on the loving Master’s sufferings,
endure temptations, give thanks from your soul.
Blessed is the one who has before his eyes
the heavenly Master and his sufferings,
and has crucified himself from all the passions
and earthly deeds,
who has become an imitator
of his own Master. 

St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on St. Matthew 87

These things then let us read continually; for indeed great is the gain, great the advantage to be thence obtained. For when thou seest Him, both by gestures and by deeds, mocked and worshipped with so much derision, and beaten and suffering the utmost insults, though thou be very stone, thou wilt become softer than any wax, and wilt cast out of thy soul all haughtiness.
...Hearing then these things, let us arm ourselves against all rage, against all anger. Shouldest thou perceive thy heart swelling, seal thy breast setting upon it the cross. Call to mind some one of the things that then took place, and thou wilt cast out as dust all rage by the recollection of the things that were done. Consider the words, the actions; consider that He is Lord, and thou servant. He is suffering for thee, thou for thyself; He in behalf of them who had been benefited by Him and had crucified Him, thou in behalf of thyself; He in behalf of them who had used Him despitefully, thou oftentimes at the hands of them who have been injured. He in the sight of the whole city, or rather of the whole people of the Jews, both strangers, and those of the country, before whom He spake those merciful words, but thou in the presence of few; and what was more insulting to Him, that even His disciples forsook Him. For those, who before paid Him attention, had deserted Him, but His enemies and foes, having got Him in the midst of themselves on the cross, insulted, reviled, mocked, derided, scoffed at Him, Jews and soldiers from below, from above thieves on either side: for indeed the thieves insulted, and upbraided Him both of them. How then saith Luke that one “rebuked?” Both things were done, for at first both upbraided Him, but afterwards one did so no more. For that thou mightest not think the thing had been done by any agreement, or that the thief was not a thief, by his insolence he showeth thee, that up on the cross he was a thief and an enemy, and at once was changed...
Considering then all these things, control thyself. For what sufferest thou like what thy Lord suffered? Wast thou publicly insulted? But not like these things. Art thou mocked? yet not thy whole body, not being thus scourged, and stripped. And even if thou wast buffeted, yet not like this.

[Sources from the blog Western Rite Orthodoxy:

http://westernorthodox.blogspot.com/2008/03/st-ephrem-syrian-meditate-on-passion-of.html

http://westernorthodox.blogspot.com/2008/04/st-john-chrysostom-meditate-on.html?m=1

Purgatorial Fire in the Early Church Fathers

For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— the work of each builder will become visible, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each has done. If what has been built on the foundation survives, the builder will receive a reward. If the work is burned up, the builder will suffer loss; the builder will be saved, but only as through fire.

1 Corinthians 3:11-15

The Catholic doctrine of Purgatory is elaborated from a passage of St. Paul's first letter to the Church at Corinth. He speaks of a man's works being gold, silver, precious stones (good works) or wood, hay, stubble (bad works), and that the fire of God's judgment tests the man's works as such, revealing their true nature. The former three materials do not perish in fire: they are righteous works. The latter three materials are burned up by it, for they are sinful blemishes which compromise the integrity of Christian life, yet are not so spiritually damaging as to forfeit salvation. The man himself, though he has works of the latter, is not condemned along with them and is saved, yet he still must pass through the fire himself. He is "... saved, but only as through fire."

The Scriptures speak of God and his Kingdom being pure and undefiled, for nothing unholy or unclean can enter heaven (Rv. 21:27). Heaven is inhabited not merely by the just, but specifically by the just made perfect. (Hb. 12:23), for without a certain level of holiness, no one sees God (cf. Hb. 12:14.)

Sin effects us both in eternity and in the here-and-now. While the eternal consequences, that is, our guilt and separation from God, having already been done washed awayin His mercy, the temporal effects of those sins often still remain upon our souls. So what should happen if someone dies having been a true Christian, and yet his process of sanctification was incomplete at the time of his departure, and still had remnants of sin in his heart? Is such a person, whom God justified, not admitted into the Kingdom? By no means! However, still not yet being perfected in his regenerated human nature, there needs to be a purgation which cleanses the man of his imperfection. This is precisely what Purgatory is: the consuming fire of God which burns away the defects of our earthly moral lives and prepares us for the eternal joys of heaven.

A useful image is that of the prophet Isaiah, who was filled with dread upon beholding the presence of God, because he knew he was guilty of blasphemy, having lived among a blasphemous people. What happened to him? A seraph approached him, carrying a burning hot coal from the altar of God, and applied it to Isaiah's lips, saying "Now that this has touched your lips, your sin has departed and your guilt is blotted out." (Isaiah 6:1-7) His guilt had to be purged away by the divine ember in order to stand worthily in the presence of God.

This understanding, though it was not given the name "Purgatory" until later, was familiar and well utilized among the fathers of the early Christian church. Though the first quote in this post comes from the mid 3rd century, it is certainly not the earliest Christian writing to comment on the concept of chastisement in the afterlife prior to entry into heaven: late 2nd/3rd century writers Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria both speak of it, as well as such documents such as the mid-late 2nd century The Acts of Paul and Thecla, and the later Martyrdom of Felicity and Perpetua, reasonably predate it.

This post will hone in on the imagery of post-mortem fire in the understanding of the Early Church. This will show that the same concept in the medieval Latin West can be found within an earlier form of Christianity: that a Christian's post-baptismal imperfections, should any remain after death, will need to be 'burned away" in order to step foot into the Kingdom of Heaven.


Origen of Alexandria (AD 184-253), Homilies on Jeremiah, c. AD 244

For if on the foundation of Christ you have built not only gold and silver and precious stones; but also wood and hay and stubble, what do you expect when the soul shall be separated from the body? Would you enter into heaven with your wood and hay and stubble and thus defile the kingdom of God; or on account of these hindrances would you remain without and receive no reward for your gold and silver and precious stones; Neither is this just. It remains then that you be committed to the fire which will burn the light materials; for our God to those who can comprehend heavenly things is called a cleansing fire.

St. Cyprian of Carthage (AD c. 200-258), Letters 51:20

For to adulterers even a time of repentance is granted by us, and peace is given. Yet virginity is not therefore deficient in the Church, nor does the glorious design of continence languish through the sins of others. The Church, crowned with so many virgins, flourishes; and chastity and modesty preserve the tenor of their glory. Nor is the vigour of continence broken down because repentance and pardon are facilitated to the adulterer. It is one thing to stand for pardon, another thing to attain to glory: it is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing; another thing at once to receive the wages of faith and courage. It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering. It is one thing, in fire, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the day of judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord.

St. Ambrose of Milan (AD 340-397), Explanation of Psalm 118, 3:14-17

There is not one baptism only. One is that which the Church administers here by water and the Holy Ghost. Another is the baptism of suffering, whereby each is cleansed by his own blood. There is also a baptism at the entrance of Paradise. This last baptism did not exist in the beginning; but after the sinner was driven out of Paradise, God set there a fiery sword…. But though there be a purgation here, there must be a second purification there, that each of us, burnt but not burnt up by that fiery sword, may enter into the delight of Paradise. But this fire whereby involuntary and casual sins are burnt away… is different from that which the Lord assigned to the devil and his angels, of which he says, Enter into everlasting fire.

St. Jerome (AD 347-420), Against Jovinianus 2:22

To the Corinthians he says: (1 Cor. 3:6-15) "I have planted, Apollos watered: but God gave the increase. So then, neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth: but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. For we are labourers together with God, ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building." And again elsewhere: "According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise master-builder I laid a foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let each man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay, than thai which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. But if any man buildeth on the foundation, gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay, stubble: each man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall reveal it, because it is revealed in fire: and the fire itself shall prove each man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work shall abide which he built thereon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as through fire." If the man whose work is burnt and is to suffer the loss of his labour, while he himself is saved, yet not without proof of fire: it follows that if a man's work remains which he has built upon the foundation, he will be saved without probation by fire, and consequently a difference is established between one degree of salvation and another .

St. Augustine of Hippo (AD 354-430), Expositions on the Psalms 38[37]:2

"O Lord, rebuke me not in Your indignation; neither chasten me in Your hot displeasure." For it will be that some shall be chastened in God's "hot displeasure", and "rebuked in His indignation". And haply not all who are "rebuked" will be "chastened"; yet are there some that are to be saved in the chastening. So it is to be indeed, because it is called chastening, but yet it shall be "so as by fire". But there are to be some who will be "rebuked", and will not be corrected. For he will at all events "rebuke" those to whom He will say, "I was an hungred, and you gave me no meat." "Neither chasten me in Your hot displeasure;" so that You may cleanse me in this life, and make me such, that I may after that stand in no need of the cleansing fire, for "those who are to be saved, yet so as by fire."Why? Why, but because they "build upon the foundation, wood, stubble, and hay." Now they should "build on it, gold, silver, and precious stones"; and should have nothing to fear from either fire: not only that which is to consume the ungodly for ever, but also that which is to purge those who are to escape through the fire. For it is said, "he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire." And because it is said, "he shall be saved", that fire is thought lightly of. For all that, though we should be saved by fire, yet will that fire be more grievous than anything that man can suffer in this life whatsoever.

St. Caesarius of Arles (AD 470-543), Sermon 179

Although the Apostle has mentioned many grevious sins, we nevertheless, lest we seem to promote despair, will state briefly what they are. Sacrilege, murder, adultery, false witness, theft, robbery, pride, envy, avarice, and, if it is of long standing, anger, drunkenness, if it persistent, and slander are reckoned in their number. For if anyone knows that any of these sins dominates him, if he does not do penance worthily and for a long time, if such time is given him, and if he does not give abundant alms and abstain from those same sins, he cannot be purged in that transitory fire of which the Apostle spoke [1 Cor 3], but the eternal flames will torture him without any remedy. But since the lesser sins are, of course, known to all, and it would take too long to mention them all, it will be necessary for us only to name some of them. As often as someone takes more than is necessary in food or drink, he knows that this belongs to the lesser sins. As often as he says more than he should or is silent more than is proper; as often as he rudely exasperates a poor beggar; as often as he wills to eat when others are fasting, although he is in good physical health, and rises too late for church because he surrendered himself to sleep; as often as he knows his wife without a desire to have children….without a doubt he commits sin. There is no doubt that these and similar deeds belong to the lesser sins which, as I said before, can scarcely be counted and from which not only all Christian people, but even all the Saints, could not and cannot always be free. We do not, of course, believe that the soul is killed by these sins; but still, they make it ugly by covering it as if with some kind of pustules and, as it were, with horrible scabs, which allow the soul to come only with difficulty to the embrace of the heavenly Spouse, of whom it is written: ‘He prepared for Himself a Church having neither spot nor blemish’…If we neither give thanks to God in tribulations nor redeem our own sins by good works, we shall have to remain in that purgaotrial fire as long as it takes for those above-mentioned lesser sins to be consumed like wood and straw and hay. But someone is saying: ‘It is nothing to me how long I stay there, so long as I go finally to eternal life’. Let no one say that, beloved brethren, because that purgatorial fire itself will be more difficult than any punishments that can be seen or imagined or felt in this life

St. Gregory the Great (AD 540-604), Dialogues Bk 4, chp 39

But yet we must believe that before the day of judgment there is a Purgatory fire for certain small sins: because our Saviour saith, that he which speaketh blasphemy against the holy Ghost, that it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. Out of which sentence we learn, that some sins are forgiven in this world, and some other may be pardoned in the next: for that which is denied concerning one sin, is consequently understood to be granted touching some other. But yet this, as I said, we have not to believe but only concerning little and very small sins, as, for example, daily idle talk, immoderate laughter, negligence in the care of our family (which kind of offences scarce can they avoid, that know in what sort sin is to be shunned), ignorant errors in matters of no great weight: all which sins be punished after death, if men procured not pardon and remission for them in their lifetime: for when St. Paul saith, that Christ is the foundation: and by and by addeth: And if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble: the work of every one, of what kind it is, the fire shall try. If any man’s work abide which he built thereupon, he shall receive reward; if any mans work burn, he shall suffer detriment, but himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. For although these words may be understood of the fire of tribulation, which men suffer in this world: yet if any will interpret them of the fire of Purgatory, which shall be in the next life: then must he carefully consider, that the Apostle said not that he may be saved by fire, that buildeth upon this foundation iron, brass, or lead, that is, the greater sort of sins, and therefore more hard, and consequently not remissible in that place: but wood, hay, stubble, that is, little and very light sins, which the fire doth easily consume. Yet we have here further to consider, that none can be there purged, no, not for the least sins that be, unless in his lifetime he deserved by virtuous works to find such favour in that place.

St. Maximus the Confessor (AD 580-662), Questions and Doubts, Question 10

This purification does not concern those who have arrived at a perfect love of God, but those who have not reached complete perfection, and whose virtues are mixed in with sins. These latter will appear before the tribunal of judgment, and, following an examination of their good and evil actions, they will be tried as by fire; their bad works will be expiated by just fear and pain.

Nicholas Cabasilas on the Heart of Christ

EXCERPTS FROM THE LIFE IN CHRIST by NICHOLAS CABASILAS

Yet we are such wretched material that the seal cannot remain unaffected, “for we have this treasure in earthen vessels” (2 Cor. 4:7). We therefore partake of the remedy not once for all, but constantly. The potter must constantly sit by the clay and repeatedly restore the shape which is being blurred. We must continually experience the Physician’s hand as He heals the decaying matter and raises up the failing will, lest death creep in unawares. For it says, “even when we were dead through trespasses He made us alive together with Christ” (Eph. 2:5), and “the blood of Christ shall purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God” (Heb. 9:14). The power of the holy table draws to us the true life from that blessed Heart, and there we become able to worship God purely.

                If, then, the pure worship of God consists in being subject to Him, obeying Him, doing all things as He moves us , I know not how we are capable of being subject to God more than by becoming His members. Who, more than the head, can command the members of the body? While every other sacred rite makes its recipients into members of Christ, the Bread of Life effects this most perfectly. For, as the members live because of the head and the heart, so, He says, “he who eats Me will live because of Me” (Jn. 6:57).

So also man lives because of food, but not the same way in this sacred rite. Since natural food is not itself living it does not of itself infuse life into us, but by aiding the life which is in the body it appears to those who to eat the cause of life. But the Bread of Life is Himself living, and through Him those to whom He imparts Himself truly life. While natural food is changed into him who feeds on it, and fish and bread and any other kind of food become human blood, here it is entirely opposite. The Bread of Life Himself changes him who feeds on Him and transforms and assimilates him into Himself. As He is the Head and the Heart, we depend on Him for loving and living since He possesses life.

This the Savior Himself reveals. He does not sustain our life in the same way as food; but since He Himself has by nature He breathes it into us, just as the heart or the head imparts life to the members. So He calls Himself “the living Bread” (Jn. 6:51) and says, “he who eats Me will live because of me” (Jn. 6:57). [The Life in Christ 4:8]

It follows, therefore, that he who has chosen to live in Christ should cling to that Heart and that Head, for we obtain life from no other source. But this is impossible for those who do not will what He wills. It is necessary to train one’s purpose, as far as it is humanly possible, to conform to Christ’s will and to prepare oneself to desire what He desires and to enjoy it, for it is impossible for contrary desires to continue in one and the same heart. As he says, “the evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart knows how to produce nothing but evil” (cf. Lk. 6:45), and the good man that which is good.

The faithful in Palestine, since they desired the same things, “were,” as it says, “of one heart and soul” (Acts: 4:32). In the same way, if one does not share in Christ’s purpose but goes against that which He commands, he does not order his life according to Christ’s heart but is clearly dependant on a different heart. In contrast, God found David to be according to His heart, for he said, “I have not forgotten Thy commandments” (Ps. 119:16, 61, etc.). Since it is impossible, then, to live [in Christ] unless we depend on His heart, and one cannot depend on Him without willing what He wills, let us examine how we may love the same things as Christ and rejoice at the same things as He, in order that we may be able to live. 

[The Life in Christ 6:2]

Latin Influence on the Byzantine Liturgy

When I was attending an Orthodox Church, having walked away from the Roman Church for about a year, there were a few prayers in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom that stood out to be on account of their beauty and profundity. One of them in particular had always really moved me, as I found it resonated with my Catholic background. 

After the Institution Narrative, but before the Epiklesis, the priest lifts up the elements and prays thus:

Thine own of Thine own we offer unto Thee, on behalf of all and for all.

There exists somewhat of a disagreement between the two Churches pertaining to exactly when and how the bread and wine is changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. The Catholic Church has settled this question dogmatically: it is by the utterance of the Christ's own words "This is my body... this is my blood," by the priest, who stands in the person of Christ, that the bread and wine become that which they signify. For the Orthodox, this answer has never been universally settled, but the common "high point" of the Eucharistic liturgy is usually said to be the epiclesis, where the Holy Spirit is invoked to descend upon the gifts offered. Generally speaking, the words of institution, as well as the priestly blessing, are deemed necessary and important as well, though some have restricted the essential aspect to the epiclesis alone.

Well, as it turns out, that prayer was actually influenced by Catholicism! Reading up on the debate concerning the Words of Institution, I found and read a great article by Michael Zheltov, entitled "The Moment of Eucharistic Consecration in Byzantine Thought." In addressing this subject and ones related to it, he mentions how the Latin dogma of consecration actually found its way into the Orthodox liturgies for a time.

Another influence, this time unquestionable, resulted in the appearance in the Byzantine rite of a ritual of elevating the discos (paten) and the chalice during the ekphonesis “offering You your own” after the words of institution and before the epiclesis. This ritual is an imitation of the latin elevation of the host and the chalice, performed after the priest has pronounced the words of institution. It was instituted in the West in order to give the catholic believers a chance to participate in the sacrament with their eyes.

In the Orthodox milieu this ritual emerged in early seventeenth-century Ukraine. The rubrics of the printed ukrainian Leitourgika of this time have undergone some reworking. In particular, the revised rubrics instructed the priest to point at the bread and the wine during the words of institution, holding his fingers in a blessing gesture (or just to bless the gifts at this moment), and to elevate the discos and the chalice thereafter (i.e., precisely during the ekphonesis “offering You your own”). This was a clear sign of a strong influence of catholic theology, including the belief in the consecration through the words of institution.

In 1655 these “cryptocatholic” Ukrainian rubrics found their place in the revised Moscow edition of the Leitourgikon. The editions of 1656, 1657 (the first), 1657 (the second), 1658 (the first), 1658 (the second), 1667, 1668, 1676, and 1684, as well as the 1677 edition of the Archieratikon, also contain them. The obvious contradiction between the views held by the Ukrainian editions and the late- and post-Byzantine Greek theological thinking concerning the moment of consecration resulted in a controversy, which emerged in Moscow in the last third of the seventeenth century and which ended only in 1690, when an official refutation of the belief in the consecratory power of the words of institution was promulgated. In the 1699 Moscow edition of the Leitourgikon the appropriate rubrics were reworked, and the prescription to bless the bread and the wine during the words of institution was omitted. Still, the ritual of pointing at the bread and the wine during the words of institution (without holding the fingers in a specific gesture) remained—as did the ritual elevation after their recitation, which is now performed by orthodox everywhere, including Greece, Georgia, etc., although its original meaning is totally forgotten.

It really makes sense. What is the Church offering to God? His own... of His own? This is of course a reference to Jesus, His only begotten Son. But had the Spirit not yet descended upon the gifts, how could the Church be offering to the Father the precious body and blood of the Son? The inclusion of this prayer implies there is a consecratory value in the part which preceded it, namely, the Institution Narrative.

This doesn't serve as an apologia for the orthodoxy of the West's position -- i just thought this was interesting.

A Closer Look: Did Jesus Have Siblings?

The one who first states a case seems right, 

until the other comes and cross-examines. 

Proverbs 18:17

One's mind cannot step forward into the doorway of truth when the door itself remains locked and unopened. The truth of Mary's perpetual virginity is a door which cannot be stepped through while the notion of Christ Our Lord having uterine siblings serves to lock it shut. If it can be adequately demonstrated that these figures, so named to be the Lord's brethren, are not actually Mary's children, then the lock is no longer fastened, and the door is there for those to open it and pass through it.

The Word "Brothers"

Let it first be said: from the Scriptures themselves, it is shown that the word "brother", even when used in reference to family, does not always denote the relationship of sharing the same parent(s). In its ancient Hebraic sense, the word does not exclusively designate those with shared parents, but is also used to refer to more generic, extended kinsman.  We can fashion multiple examples, but let this suffice: In Genesis 13:8, when peacefully dividing land for livestock between the two of them, Abram addresses his nephew Lot by saying "Let there be no strife between you and me... for we are brothers"  (as rendered in: KJV, NAS, ERV, DRA.)

Now, let's turn to the main passage in contention, the one which explicitly mentions Jesus having brothers and sisters:

He [Jesus] came to his hometown and began to teach the people in their synagogue, so that they were astounded and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these deeds of power? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Jude? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this?” And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “Prophets are not without honor except in their own country and in their own house.”
Matthew 13:54-57

"Are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" This is a good passage to utilize, insofar as the Scriptures actually tells us more about some of these men, besides them merely being mentioned the Lord's brothers. Let's delve into some of their identities, as recorded in the Bible. James and Jude are particularly notable; not only are they counted among the Lord's brothers, they are also numbered among the Twelve. James, for example, is mentioned by St. Paul in Galatians 1:19 as being the Lord's brother, as Paul reports: But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.

Fast-forward fourteen chapters in Matthew's Gospel to the crucifixion and death of the Lord, certain women are counted as those who were present as witnesses, who cared for Him.

There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among whom were Mary Mag′dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zeb′edee.
Matthew 27:55-56

Is Jesus' mother Mary one of the women listed in the passage? It is of reasonable certainty that the Mary being here referred to is not Jesus' mother, given that everywhere else she is mentioned in the Bible, she is explicitly mentioned as "the mother of Jesus" (eg: Jn 19:25.) Being His mother is a pretty noteworthy fact, and, being the most biologically relevant, would therefore be the simplest indication as to who she is. Given that there are quite a few Mary's in the life of Jesus, wouldn't it just be more straightforward to single her out as his mother specifically? Yet this other Mary is identified as "the mother of James and Joseph", not as Jesus' mother.

In Luke's account of Jesus calling the Twelve, it lists that two apostles were named James: James, son of Zebedee (whose mother was also mentioned in Matthew's account,) and...

and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot,
Luke 6:15

Here we have it --- James, the brother of Jesus, is NOT the son of Joseph, but the son of Alphaeus! 

This Mary in Matthew 27 is said to be mother to James and Joseph, and James is said to be the Lord's brother, right? Jude was also mentioned as having been the Lord's brother, though this verse did not say that this mother of James and Joseph was also his mother. Yet in the introduction to Jude's epistle, he himself states that he is "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James. But who’s related to whom, and in which way? Looking at a different account of the crucifixion narrative, in the Gospel according to John, the list of women is recorded as follows:

But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag′dalene.
John 19:25

This Mary, this time explicitely distinguished from Christ's mother, is reported to be her sister. (This very fact that Mary is recorded as having a sister also named Mary actually further vouches for use of word "brother/sister" as applying wider than simply the immediate family. It would be highly unlikely that Mary's parents had two daughters whom were both named Mary.) This means that James and Joseph, her children, were at the most, cousins of Jesus Christ, for their mother was Mary's sister.

You might be wondering: if James the Apostles is this Mary's son, is his father Alphaeus, or Clopas? On the one hand, the exact identity isn't quite relevant, because this has sufficiently demonstrated that this Mary is not Christ's mother, and thus James is not his uterine brother. On the other hand, it is hard not to wonder.

Fortunately, the early Christians had enough pious concern for Christ and his legacy that they actually detailed this for us. An important witness comes from a quintessential work, the Ecclesastical History by Eusebius of Caesarea. We are indebted to Eusebius for taking it upon himself to record the history of the Christian church, from Christ and his apostles up to his own time. In several different places throughout the work, he makes several references to St. James, one of the twelve and the first pastor (bishop) of Jerusalem. In Book IV, chp. 22, par 4, he records

after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord's uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was another cousin of the Lord.

This passage even identifies Simon, listed among Christ's brethren in Mt. 13, as being the son of Clopas, and being Jesus' cousin.

Now we turn to a work very late and apocryphal, but only for the sake of clarifying exactly who's mentioned in the Gospels. This text is assigned to an apostolic father, St. Papias. It is from this reference that we are really able to break down the who's-who when referring to the many Mary's in the Bible:

(1.) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2.) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphæus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and (Judas)Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3.) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4.) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord's. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord's. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphæus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason
(Papias, Fragment #10) emphasis mine)

St. Phillip & St. James (the brother of the Lord)

Some may object by arguing that identifying these brethren of the Lord Christ's brothers as not being his immediate brothers, it somehow betrays the plain sense of the Inspired texts. But it has been shown that this criticism is really unsustainable, because the Bible itself refers to the apostles James and Jude as "the Lord's brothers" and even sets them within familial contexts that include His mother. Yet it is proved, from the Scriptures themselves, that Jesus' mother is not their mother, and, furthermore, that Joseph is not their father. The historic witness of Church tradition actually does furnish us with their exact identity, but even were the testimony of tradition to not be accepted, the Biblical data alone suffices to vouch for us that they are not the offspring of Mary.


. . . And thus, off falls the lock.

Nicholas Cabasilas on the Words of Consecration

I won't pretend that Cabasilas was a Latinist in his theology of the Eucharist. However, he certainly has more similarities with the Roman Church than many contemporary Orthodox do on this matter.

Commentary on the Divine Liturgy 32:

The priest recites the story of that august Last Supper, telling how, before He suffered, He gave to the disciples this sacrament, and took the bread and the chalice, and having given thanks said those words which expressed the mystery; repeating those words, the celebrant prostrates himself and prays, while applying to the offerings these words of the Only-Begotten, our Savior, that they may, after having received his most Holy and All-Powerful Spirit, be transformed-- the Bread into his holy Body, the wine into his most precious and Sacred blood. 

When these words have been said, the whole sacred rite is accomplished, the offerings are consecrated, the sacrifice is complete; the splendid Victim, the Divine oblation, slain for the salvation of the world, lies upon the altar. For it is no longer the bread, which until now has represented the Lord's Body, nor is it a simple offering, bearing the likeness of the true offering, carrying as if engraved on it the symbols of the Saviour's Passion; it is the true Victim, the most holy Body of the Lord, which really suffered the outrages, insults and blows; which was crucified and slain, which under Pontius Pilate bore such splendid witness; that Body which was mocked, scourged, spat upon, and which tasted gall. In like manner the wine has become the blood which flowed from that Body. It is that Body and Blood formed by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, which was buried, which rose again on the third day, which ascended into heaven and sits on the right hand of the Father.