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.

Age of Accountability in the Book of Deuteronomy

For those who say that the Catholic concept of the "age of accountability" isn't a Biblical concept,..

Israel was given chance after chance to stay faithful to God, but the first generation of Israelites which Moses led out of Egypt were finally told by God that, because of their disobedience, they would not enter into the promised land.

However, there were certain exceptions which were mentioned:

Not one of these men of this evil generation shall see the good land which I swore to give to your fathers, except Caleb the son of Jephun′neh; he shall see it, and to him and to his children I will give the land upon which he has trodden, because he has wholly followed the Lord!’ The Lord was angry with me also on your account, and said, ‘You also shall not go in there; Joshua the son of Nun, who stands before you, he shall enter; encourage him, for he shall cause Israel to inherit it. Moreover your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who this day have no knowledge of good or evil, shall go in there, and to them I will give it, and they shall possess it. But as for you, turn, and journey into the wilderness in the direction of the Red Sea.’
(Deuteronomy 1:35-40, emphasis on verse 29 mine)

The Bible itself says that children can be too young to understand good and evil, and this passage illustrates that they do not share in the condemnation which fall upon evil doers.

A Closer Look: St. Gregory the Great's Contention with “Universal Bishop”

It was towards the tail end of the sixth century. John IX, or John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople, given that he was Patriarch of the Byzantine empire's capital, attributed to himself the title of "Universal Patriarch," "Universal Bishop" and "Universal Priest." His contemporary, Gregory I, Pope of Rome, did not react with much joy at the situation... but not for the reasons which those unfamiliar with Church history might assume. For those unfamiliar with this episode of history, especially if they are faithful Catholics, his reaction may come across as deeply confusing and even shocking.

[W]hat will you say to Christ, who is the Head of the universal Church, in the scrutiny of the last judgment, having attempted to put all his members under yourself by the appellation of Universal? Who, I ask, is proposed for imitation in this wrongful title but he who, despising the legions of angels constituted socially with himself, attempted to start up to an eminence of singularity, that he might seem to be under none and to be alone above all?
(Letter 5:18)

Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others.
(Letter 7:33 emphasis mine)

,

These are some strong words. Pope Gregory imputes to the one who would appropriate the title "universal" for themselves a fatal pride, one which even precursors the Antichrist. What does the Catholic, who believes in, according to the definition of the First Vatican Council “the universal and immediate jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff over the whole church,” make of them? Do they undermine the veracity of Catholic dogma? Do they, coming from one of the papacy’s most famous occupants, constitute a historical witness against its current claims to power?

Protestants and Orthodox have often seized upon these words from Pope St. Gregory and answered an affirmative “yes” to this question. In their mind, it presents a swift "checkmate" against the claims of Roman Catholicism. Yet I would argue that to simply take them at face value, without historical context, quite obscures the picture. There are some very intriguing nuances which should be held in mind when assessing the situation.

In response to their criticism, it is commonly argued by papal apologists (and I am increasingly inclined to think correctly) that he perceived the phrase of “universal bishop” as more or less equating to an unique, only, singular, exclusive, all-encompassing bishop. Calling someone a “universal bishop” would be, in Gregory’s mind, be the same as calling them the only bishop, with the whole universal Church on earth as their diocese. This would reduce the other bishops to simply being the pope’s subsidiaries, his vicars, his agents, and not true bishops at all. Their authority to govern would be purely and unqualifiedly derivative.

For, having confessed yourself unworthy to be called a bishop, you have at length been brought to such a pass as, despising your brethren, to covet to be named the only bishop.
(Letter 5:18, to John IX, emphasis mine)

[T]his thing is being done to the injury and rendering asunder of the whole Church, and, as we have said, to the contemning of all of you. For if one, as he [John the Faster] supposes, is universal bishop, it remains that you are not bishops.
(Letter 6:98, to bishop Eusebius of Thessaloniki, emphasis mine)

Contrary to this understanding is the doctrine held by the Roman Church. The very council which formally promulgated the papacy as a dogma of the Catholic faith, Vatican I, itself affirmed that the office of bishop is a divine institution, that is, an office immediately appointed by God by having Christ as its founder, with its own integrity and carrying its own dignity. The council fathers cited the The Book of Acts (of the Apostles) , in which St. Paul says said “the Holy Ghost hath made thee overseers (bishops).” (Acts 20:20).

Further, it should be noted that the papal office should not be understood as above the episcopate, but as within the episcopate, as part of it, and as the episcopate's own principle of unity and integrity. As St. Cyprian of Carthage and other fathers would convey, the episcopal charism is a Petrine charism; Peter was the first to be made bishop, to be given the authority to bind and loose, and the apostles would later also be made to share in what Peter was given. In a like manner, the Pope is entrusted with the care of all Christians, and all the bishops proportionately share in this same responsibility. The papacy shares an identity as Church, as Teacher, as Vicar of Christ, with the episcopate, so that the Pope functions as the episcopate’s figurehead, its governmental and moral summation, its unifying force and its charismatic foundation.

So, the connotations of the term “universal bishop” held by Pope Gregory and by later popes would thus in fact appear to differ from one another; they present to us two different concepts. One usage communicates the responsibility due to the whole Church which is uniquely held by the Bishop of Rome; the other as a restrictive and singular government to the exclusion of those others with a valid, innate right to perform their proper duties. Therefore, seeing that they meant two different things when using it, it presents no contradiction to see Pope Gregory I denounce the title and later popes apply it. 

However, let’s set aside this interpretation of the event, and cede for the sake of argument that the title did in fact mean “universal” as the Popes would later intend. Seeing a Pope of Rome describe the operations as diabolical and a prelude to Antichrist constitute a devastating blow to the claims of the papacy — or does it?

The pontificate of Gregory I is a very historically noteworthy one — he is not known as Gregory “the Great” for nothing, after all. It is a marked by a concerted display of power and influence. The Encyclopedia Britannica [link: here] notes him as "'founder' of the medieval papacy, which exercised both secular and spiritual power" and as "the first exponent of a truly medieval, sacramental spirituality." 

He not only denied the title when it was applied to John the Faster, patriarch of Constantinople, but also rejected the title when others applied to himself.

"... you have thought fit to make use of a proud appellation, calling me Universal Pope. But I beg your most sweet Holiness to do this no more..."
(Letter 8:30)

In this letter, the Patriarch of Alexandria, Eulogios, referred to him as “Universal Pope.” This is truly significant because as Patriarch of Alexandra, Eulogius was, via St. Mark's commission from Peter to found and rule over the Church of Alexandria, also a successor of St. Peter. (The Pope had even acknowledged this in the letter which solicited Eulogius' initial compliments of him being "Universal Pope!") This demonstrates other bishops, even Eastern bishops such as Eulogios, evidently saw the papal office as functioning at a universal level. He even returned the Pope's letter with a spirit of subordination, replying that he had done “as you [Pope Gregory] had commended.”

Further, Gregory himself admitted that the title “univeral” was offered to Rome at the council of Chalcedon over one hundred years prior, demonstrating an antiquity of the attestation to this recognition by Eastern bishops. In his written chastisements of John IV of C'nple,

Was it not the case, as your Fraternity knows, that the prelates of this Apostolic See which by the providence of God I serve, had the honor offered them of being called universal by the venerable Council of Chalcedon. But yet not one of them has ever wished to be called by such a title, or seized upon this ill-advised name, lest if, in virtue of the rank of the pontificate, he took to himself the glory of singularity, he might seem to have denied it to all his brethren
(Letter 5:18)

Certainly, in honour of Peter, Prince of the apostles, it was offered by the venerable synod of Chalcedon to the Roman pontiff. But none of them has ever consented to use this name of singularity, lest, by something being given peculiarly to one, priests in general should be deprived of the honour due to them. How is it then that we do not seek the glory of this title even when offered, and another presumes to seize it for himself though not offered?
(Letter 5:20)

And Pope St. Gregory, though not appropriating the term "universal" to himself, certainly did ascribe to himself and to his see an incontestable headship over the whole Church.

For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See (i.e. Rome), as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. For he is foolish who thinks himself first in such a way as to scorn to learn whatever good things he may see.(Letters 9:12, emphasis mine)

If, however it is stated in opposition to this, that he has neither metropolitan nor patriarch, it must also be said that the case must then be heard and settled by the Apostolic See, which is the head of all the churches.
(Letters 13:50)

Inasmuch as it is manifest that the Apostolic See is, by the ordering of God, set over all Churches, there is, among our manifold cares, special demand for our attention, when our decision is awaited with a view to the consecration of a bishop.  . . . you are to cause him to be consecrated by his own bishops, as ancient usage requires, with the assent of our authority, and the help of the Lord; to the end that through the observance of such custom both the Apostolic See may retain the power belonging to it, and at the same time may not diminish the rights which it has conceded to others.
(Letters 3:30)

To John the Faster, Gregory writes the following:

For, having confessed yourself unworthy to be called a bishop, you have at length been brought to such a pass as, despising your brethren, to covet to be named the only bishop. And indeed with regard to this matter, weighty letters were addressed to your Holiness by my predecessor Pelagius of holy memory; in which he annulled the acts of the synod, which had been assembled among you in the case of our once brother and fellow bishop Gregory, because of that execrable title of pride, and forbade the archdeacon whom he had sent according to custom to the threshold of our lord, to celebrate the solemnities of mass with you. But after his death, when I, unworthy, succeeded to the government of the Church, both through my other representatives and also through our common son the deacon Sabinianus, I have taken care to address your Fraternity, not indeed in writing, but by word of mouth, desiring you to restrain yourself from such presumption. And, in case of your refusing to amend, I forbade his celebrating the solemnities of mass with you; that so I might first appeal to your Holiness through a certain sense of shame, to the end that, if the execrable and profane assumption could not be corrected through shame, strict canonical measures might be then resorted to.
(Letters 5:18, emphasis mine)

And, he connected this primacy with the Apostle Peter, from whom he believed that he, as bishop of Rome, inherited. 

For to all who know the Gospel it is apparent that by the Lord’s voice the care of the whole Church was committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of all the Apostles, Peter... Lo, he received the keys of the heavenly kingdom, and power to bind and loose is given him, the care and principality of the whole Church is committed to him, and yet he is not called the universal apostle... Certainly, in honour of Peter, Prince of the apostles, it was offered by the venerable synod of Chalcedon to the Roman pontiff. But none of them has ever consented to use this name of singularity...
(Letters 5:20)

Finally, and perhaps more significantly, we should address how Gregory has been assessed and understood in our own day.  This very same Pope, who we are supposed to believe denounced any inclination, is reported by historians and theologians, even those Protestant in creed, to be the first modern Pope, the first to exercise his office in a form recognizable to the perceptions of later generations. The same man who could not stomach the patriarch of Constantinople being referred to as “universal bishop” had no scruples in the Pope of Rome (himself) being called “the servant of the servants of God.” He was in fact the first to do so.

In the words of Reformed scholar Phillip Schaff,

Gregory, while he protested in the strongest terms against the assumption by the Eastern patriarchs of the antichristian and blasphemous title of universal bishop, claimed and exercised, as far as he had the opportunity and power, the authority and oversight over the whole church of Christ, even in the East... he was clearly inconsistent in disclaiming the name, and yet claiming the thing itself. The real objection is to the pretension of a universal episcopate, not to the title. If we concede the former, the latter is perfectly legitimate.
(History of the Christian Church, Volume IV: Mediaeval Christianity. A.D. 590-1073, 51. Gregory and the Universal Episcopate)

And Jaroslav Pelikan, Lutheran at the time when he authored this, writes:

The bishop of Rome had the right of his own authority to annul the acts of a synod. In fact, when there was talk of a council to settle controversies, Gregory asserted the principle that ‘without the authority and consent of the Apostolic See, none of the matters transacted have any binding force’. …he was already beginning to formulate a doctrine of the dogmatic authority of Rome, based on the primacy of Peter and corroborated by a record and reputation for doctrinal orthodoxy.
(The Christian Tradition, Vol. 1- page 354)

Finally, reputable Oxford scholar and Church historian J.N.D. Kelly asseses that, as far as Gregory the Great was conscerned, "St. Peter’s commission made all churches, Constantinople included, subject to Rome" (Oxford Dictionary of Popes, p. 67)

So, on the one hand, when it came to the title of “Universal Bishop”, Gregory himself likely didn’t mean what later popes would understand by it, meaning what he rejected and they accepted are two different things. He rejected it on grounds that it should exclude the other bishops; later popes accepted it and did not see it as excluding other bishops. On the other hand, even though he rejected the title, it seems odd that he should have. He himself recognized an authoritative primacy held by himself and the Roman Church, the term "universal" was in fact applied to himself within his own lifetime by another Petrine patrirarch, and his overall papacy operated in a way which (consistent with its usage by later popes) was very consistent with the meaning intended by the title.

In closing, with all due respect not only to our dear Pope St. Gregory, but also to our dear Orthodox and Protestant dissenters who wish to use his words to undermine the papal office , I think, in light of the evidence, but this may not be a checkmate after all.Actions speak louder than words, so perhaps his actions show forth a more informed, truer attitude and understanding in regards to his office as Pope of Rome. The impression he left upon his contemporary brother bishops and patriarchs, and upon later historians of our own day, show us this: whatever be his understanding of and attitude towards the title itself, Pope Gregory’s  administration of the papal office is certainly reflective of the description of “universal bishop,” in the sense which is consistent with the utterances of later popes.