John Cassian’s Response to Augustinianism

John Cassian was a zealous monk whose theology (unfortunately, one might say) has been massively influential on the church’s understanding of the whole of the gospel since the fifth century. His particular theology (commonly known as semi-Pelagianism), which was developed largely in response to Augustine’s doctrines of predestination, grace, and free will, has been adopted by many Christians—academics, clergy and lay people alike—throughout the centuries.Two major influences were at work in Cassian’s life and teachings. First, Greek neo-platonic philosophical theology shaped his understanding of anthropology in a way that prevented him from being able to engage Augustine on the level that he should have. And second, his intense devotion to the ascetic chastity of the monastery created a platform upon which his theology could develop, yet in a way that was almost entirely sub-biblical. The result of Cassian’s theological contributions to the church has been the obscuring of the God of the Bible in the vision of His people.

Cassianus was born (probably in Provence) around 360 A.D., and most likely assumed the name “Iohannes” (John) at his baptism or admittance to the monastic life. [1] He died in Massilia of Gaul (present-day Marseilles, France), where he had spent his most productive years as a monk, in 435. [2] His birthplace is uncertain, and little is known about his parents, education, or childhood, primarily because of his own silence regarding these in his writings.

It is known, however, that he had a rigorous education, as evidenced by his fluent bilingualism and familiarity with church fathers. Western-born, Latin was probably his native tongue; yet much of his thought is influenced by Greek writers, and much of his life was spent in the East, where he derived his perspective on monasticism. “[H]is entire achievement was built on” his bilingualism, [3] as it offered him access to all major writers, and undoubtedly enabled him to address any major audience. Much exposure to Greek philosophical theology, together with his zeal for ascetic chastity, would figure prominently in Cassian’s response to Augustine, as shall be discussed later.

Cassian spent many years as a monk with his companion, Germanus, in Bethlehem of Palestine and various places in Egypt with the desert fathers before they went to Constantinople. There Cassian studied under Bishop Chrysostom, until the teacher was banished from Constantinople. Cassian and Germanus then carried a petition on his behalf from the clergy of Constantinople to Pope Innocent in Rome, where Cassian made the acquaintance of one Archdeacon Leo, later to become Pope Leo the Great. [4] Eventually Cassian removed to Massilia, where monastic life had become increasingly popular during more recent years, in order to develop monasticism—he established two new monasteries—and to write. [5]

In Massilia Cassian, now an abbot, wrote his three major works: 1) his Institutes (De Institutis Coenobiorum et de Octo Principalium Vitiorum Remediis Libri XII), which detail rules for the monastic life; 2) his Conferences (Collationes XXIV), which record conversations with abbots during his time in Egypt; [6] and 3) On the Incarnation against Nestorius (De Incarnatione Domini contra Nestorium), a work of seven books written at the request of Pope Leo. [7] In this last writing Cassian is the first to point out similarities between Nestorianism and Pelagianism. Of certain Nestorians he writes, “in saying that Jesus Christ lived as a mere man without any stain of sin, they actually went so far as to declare that men could also be without sin if they liked.” [8] The high estimation of man’s sufficiency and strength of will that is pervasive in Pelagian writings is applied to the Jesus of Nestorianism, who was supposed to have overcome sin by the sheer power of His merely human will, becoming Christ only at His baptism. [9] This section of De Incarnatione clearly indicates Cassian’s desire to distance himself from “the teaching or rather the evil deeds of Pelagius.” [10]

Augustine’s influence and authority had been growing since the official defeat of Pelagianism, which was condemned in 418 at the 16th Council of Carthage. [11] The ‘initial spark’ was provided for the Cassian controversy when one of Augustine’s letters, concerning predestination and prevenient (and therefore irresistible) grace, came into the possession of monks at Adrumetum. Dispute arose among them over these doctrines, and they eventually sent a dispatch to Hippo to ask Augustine about the fuller meaning of his writings. [12] So Augustine wrote De Gratia et Libero Arbitrii (On Grace and Free Will) and De Correptione et Gratia (On Rebuke and Grace) in 426, with the hope of clarifying the matter. [13]

Of course, though this may have settled the matter for the monks at Adrumetum, the doctrines were not so easily incorporated into the life of thought at Massilia. The monks there, of whom Cassian can be considered chief, agreed with Augustine on many issues—even against Pelagianism. But they distrusted his teachings on predestination, grace and free will as a result of his letters to the monks at Adrumetum. [14] “They said that what Augustine taught as to the calling of God’s elect according to His own purpose was tantamount to fatalism, was contrary to the teaching of the fathers and the true Church doctrine, and, even if true, should not be preached, because of its tendency to drive men into indifference or despair.” [15]

Augustine taught that original sin had left humanity in a state of death (not just weakness), which necessitated the symmetrical actual giving of life in salvation by God. The will is alive and free, but its only function is to manifest the desire of a corrupt heart in a choice. So, in a sense, the will is utterly bound to sin, since men always and without exception love the darkness rather than the light, and this is death for them. The life came as God—of His own good pleasure, not motivated by anything He saw in sinners—regenerated the hearts of sinners, causing them to love God more than sin, by His Spirit (c.f. Ezek. 11:19-20; 36:22-28; Jer. 31:33-34; 32:38-41; 1 John 4:19). “This grace, therefore, which is hiddenly bestowed in human hearts by the Divine gift, is rejected by no hard heart, because it is given for the sake of first taking away the hardness of the heart.” [16] Augustine explained that God did this for some and not for others by referring to Romans 9, where God says that He is willing to exert His wrath, yet has patience in order to display the glory of His grace toward His elect. [17] These are the doctrines of predestination, grace and free will that Cassian felt jeopardized important truth about God and humanity. And though Augustine wrote convincing treatises on these doctrines in response to the complaint of the Massilians (De Praedestinatione Sanctorum and De Dono Perseverantiae; On the Predestination of the Saints and On the Gift of Perseverance [18] ), they would not be persuaded, and continued in their efforts to correct the doctrines they perceived as a threat to the life of the church.

Most of Cassian’s relevant arguments are laid out in the 13th book of his Conferences, which is a record of a conversation with Abbot Chaeremon entitled “On the Protection of God,” though he does touch upon the same doctrines, to lesser extents, in several other places. Methodologically, it must be said—to his commendation—that he uses Scripture with great frequency. For Cassian, and others in opposition to strong Augustinianism, it seems there were two factors of primary concern in the debate. First, being a monk whose daily life consisted of disciplined asceticism for the sake of chastity (moral purity), Cassian feared that Augustine’s doctrines would give an overwhelming sense of powerlessness and despondence in such pursuits. This, in turn, might lead to ethical irresponsibility (the lack of the feeling of accountability). [19]

It is of utmost importance to note that Cassian “positions his analyses of grace and free will within his discussions of chastity.” [20] The crucial issue for him was the empowerment for the pursuit of holiness. So great was his concern for chastity, in fact, that earlier in his life Cassian gave up the solitary life of an Anchorite monk in Egypt for that of a Coenobite in community with other monks, “in order that he might have the opportunity of practicing the virtues of obedience and subjection, which seemed out of the reach of the solitary.” [21] Quite unlike Pelagius, however, Cassian insisted that divine grace was absolutely necessary for spiritual progress. “How foolish and wicked then it is to attribute any good action to our own diligence and not to God’s grace and assistance, is clearly shown by the Lord’s saying, which lays down that no one can show forth the fruits of the Spirit without His inspiration and co-operation.” [22] Instead, he sought some middle ground of cooperation between man’s willful initiative and God’s enabling grace (libero arbitrio semper co-operatur).

In order to maintain his position that man must be capable of some motion toward God, he proposed that the will was not dead in sin. Instead, the free will was only severely weakened (infirmitas liberi arbitrii) as a result of the fall. Man was indeed capable of generating a small spark of initiative toward the good by the power of his own will, which must be then strengthened and aided by God to produce any actual good. Having a decidedly Eastern anthropology, it is understandable that Cassian would be more open to “natural possibility” than the Western Augustine. [23] Strangely enough, Cassian saw examples in Scripture of both monergistic (i.e. Matthew and Paul) and synergistic (i.e. Zacchaeus) beginnings of faith without any apparent difficulty. This is interesting, since, as R. C. Sproul observes, “The difference between Augustine and Cassian is the difference between monergism and synergism at the beginning of salvation.” [24] Nevertheless, Cassian was able to write, “when He sees in us some beginnings of a good will, He at once enlightens it and strengthens it and urges it on towards salvation, increasing that which He Himself implanted or which He sees to have arisen from our own efforts.” [25] This kind of assertion is common in his Conferences, and betrays his lack of understanding, at some level, of the issues at hand.

Second, and to a lesser degree, Cassian was concerned that the Augustinian view of particular (electing) grace stood in blatant opposition to the “clear” biblical truth of the universal availability of salvation. [26] He saw God’s love being extended to all in the universal offering of salvation, and could not stand the idea that God’s love would be so arbitrarily selective. “For if He willeth not that one of His little ones should perish, how can we imagine without grievous blasphemy that He does not generally will all men, but only some instead of all to be saved?” [27]

As a result, Cassian’s theology of God’s love required something of a fair chance for all people. If God really loved people (in the way Cassian thought), He would not permit the unfairness of a completely disabled will while demanding moral perfection. So original sin could not really have had the effect that Augustine claimed. Concordantly, prevenient grace would really be quite unnecessary, if people had the ability to initiate their own faith. And if prevenient grace were not a reality, then neither would be an Augustinian understanding of predestination. If people could really turn themselves toward God by their own will (as they must be able to do, if God is really fair and wants all to be saved), then God would only have to see (or foresee) who would create in themselves the spark of faith, and predestine them to eternal life on that basis.

Having ascertained Cassian’s main reasons for disagreeing with Augustine in these matters, a few presuppositions or foundations of his perspective become evident which warrant critique. First, it is most apparent from his great concern for the advance of disciplined chastity that Cassian’s view of salvation is more sanctification-oriented than justification- or reconciliation-oriented. Whereas Augustine is generally arguing for a specific soteriological position (i.e., who makes the first move to restore relationship between God and men?), Cassian seems not to be able to think in the same category. Columba Stewart attributes this to the fact that Western skills were honed by the Pelagian controversy, while Cassian—being an Eastern thinker—has simply not been so influenced. [28] Thinking so much as he does about chastity, he almost seems to treat God as a means to the end of the perfection of holiness. This is a major fault, as it fosters a fundamentally more anthropocentric view of salvation than theocentric.

Second, and closely related to the first, is the weak view of sin and grace in Cassian. Sin for him seems to be only a violation of command and conscience. For Augustine, and in Scripture, the essence of sin is more than this—it is a rejection of the supremacy of the glory of God for delight in things of infinitely less worth… and therefore much more dishonoring to God. Accordingly, Cassian’s view of grace is more Pelagian than Augustinian. For him grace is merely an agent of enabling unto holiness (seeing Christ more as an instructor than a savior). He would likely have a low view of the substitutionary atonement of Christ.

Third, there seems to be in Cassian the attempt to maintain some level of autonomy from God in the process of salvation. This is perhaps the point where Augustine sees Cassianism “as necessarily implying the basal idea of Pelagianism,” [29] thereby referring to it as “semi-Pelagianism.” Indeed, prior to regeneration we are all born Pelagians, [30] at our religious “best” hoping to commend ourselves to God by some means other than Christ and the total reliance upon the sovereign grace of God.

Fourth, and more commonly ignored among historical and systematic theologians than the other points, is the pernicious error of an unexamined, confused, unbiblical anthropology. It is obvious from Cassian’s Conferences that he sees the will as self-moved, self-initiated, and able to incline itself (albeit only slightly and weakly) toward the good. Also, he muddles the functions of the faculties of the soul in various places, not demonstrating any clear understanding of the will as a function of the heart, or of the desires as determining the direction of the will. For him, a man’s being and doing are reversed from the biblical perspective: “for each man must incline to one side or the other in accordance with the character of his actions.”

Prosper of Aquitaine, lay friend of Augustine, took up the defense of monergism against Cassian’s synergism from the beginning. He had alerted Augustine to the trouble in Massilia, motivating the bishop to write the two last works of his life against semi-Pelagianism (De Praedestinatione Sanctorum and De Dono Perseverantiae). And shortly after Augustine’s death he, with his (otherwise unknown) companion, Hilary, petitioned Pope Celestine to condemn Cassian’s teachings. However, they encountered difficulty in

Semi-Pelagianism experienced some small official successes in Gaul at the Synods of Arles and Lyons in 472, but in 496 “Pope Gelasius I sanctioned the writings of Augustine and Prosper and condemned those of Cassian….” [33] Eventually, at the Council of Arausiacum (Orange: 529) semi-Pelagianism was officially condemned, and the church adopted a mostly-Augustinian stance. [34]

Tragically for the church, Augustinianism was being softened by the bishop’s successors before semi-Pelagianism was even officially condemned. [35] It was not held to strongly enough for the fundamental tenets of Augustine’s theology to take deeper root in the church. The resulting influence of Cassian has been widespread and long lasting. For, while it is true that the Council of Orange was a triumph over the “semi-Pelagian denial of the necessity of prevenient grace for salvation,” Robert L. Reymond observes,

And so the more complete majesty of God’s work in saving a people for Himself out of sin has gone through the centuries half-veiled, until the Day when the last vestiges of our self-reliance are stripped away, and all the earth trembles at the total sovereignty of the God whose pleasure it was to save some, sola gratia.

[1] Edgar C. S. Gibson, preface to The Works of John Cassian, by John Cassian, trans. Edgar C. S. Gibson, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd ser., vol. 11, ed. Philip Schaff, accessed through The Master Christian Library, ver. 8 (Rio, WI: AGES Software, Inc., 2000), 375. [2] The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1954), s.v. “Cassianus Johannus,” http://www.ccel.org/php/disp.php?authorID=schaff&bookID=encyc02&page=435&view= [3] Columba Stewart, Cassian the Monk, Oxford Studies in Historical Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 5. [4] Gibson, 383. [5] Stewart, 5. [6] The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1908 ed., s.v. “John Cassian,” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03404a.htm [7] Gibson, 383. [8] John Cassian, On the Incarnation against Nestorius, in The Works of John Cassian, trans. with preface Edgar C. S. Gibson, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd ser., vol. 11, ed. Philip Schaff, accessed through The Master Christian Library, ver. 8 (Rio, WI: AGES Software, Inc., 2000), 1:3. [9] Gibson., 387. [10] Cassian., Against Nestorius, 1:4. [11] Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 2d ed. rev. & updated (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 468-9. [12] B. B. Warfield, introduction to Saint Augustine’s Anti-Pelagian Works, by St. Augustine, trans. Peter Holmes & Robert Ernest Wallis, rev. B. B. Warfield, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1st ser., vol. 5, ed. Philip Schaff, accessed through The Master Christian Library, ver. 8 (Rio, WI: AGES Software, Inc., 2000), 89-90. [13] Gibson, 388. [14] Ibid., 389. [15] Warfield, 97-8. [16] St. Augustine, The Predestination of the Saints, in Saint Augustine’s Anti-Pelagian Works, by St. Augustine, trans. Peter Holmes & Robert Ernest Wallis, rev. with intro. B. B. Warfield, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1st ser., vol. 5, ed. Philip Schaff, accessed through The Master Christian Library, ver. 8 (Rio, WI: AGES Software, Inc., 2000), ch. 13, emphasis mine. [17] Ibid., ch. 14. See Rom. 9:22-23. For an excellent treatment of the righteousness of God in His sovereign election based on this passage, see John Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical & Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993), especially pp. 183-216. [18] Gibson, 389 [19] Earle E. Cairns, Christianity through the Centuries, 3rd ed. rev. & expanded (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 132. [20] Stewart, 76. [21] Gibson, 378. [22] Cassian, The Conferences of John Cassian, in The Works of John Cassian, 3:16. [23] Stewart, 19. [24] R. C. Sproul, Willing to Believe (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997), 73. [25] Cassian, Conferences, 13:8. [26] Sproul, 70. [27] Cassian, Conferences, 13:7. [28] Stewart, 78. [29] Warfield, 93. [30] Reymond, 469. [31] Stewart, 20-21. [32] Gibson, 390-391. [33] Sproul, 75. [34] J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, rev. ed. (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1978), 371-2. [35] Sproul, 75. [36] Reymond, 469

If Catholics are correct and salvation comes through the church and the sacraments and by works, then I have no problem with a Pope

Do the Catholics say salvation comes through the sacraments? Or do they say God imparts grace through the sacraments? That's a criticial difference.

As regards justification by works, the Catholics do not teach that. They teach that works are a necessary condition for salvation, because their use of the term "salvation" is not transactional, but is a process that takes a lifetime and includes the concept of sanctification. That does not make works a necessary element to justificiation.

Sola Ecclesia Romanus might one day be your signature friend

Ex ecclesia nulla salus has a better ring to it - and the endorsement of Cyprian ;-). But you mistake me. Just because I have found greater common ground between orthodox Roman Catholics and orthodox Reformed Christianity than you have found does not mean I ever intend to convert to Roman Catholicism. There are still too many deal-breakers. But, I go where the text tells me too, I read and cite as authority the Early Church Fathers and the ecumenical councils, and I subject myself to the authority of the Church Magisterium. I am a Magesterial Protestant. I define the Church more broadly than the Catholics, but still subject myself to its authority.

You mistake me as a Magesterial Protestant as showing precursors to conversion to Catholicism. I assure you that is not likely to happen.

I acknowlege such a position is out of sinc with the Westminster standards...so how is it you are still OP???

I, too agree and I too adhere to the Westminster standards as a Presbyterian. But that doesn't mean I fully agree with every detail within the Westminster standards. They - until recently - said that the Pope was Antichrist. I don't believe that, nor does the OPC, BPC, or PCA. The Westminster standards are subject to interpretation and revision. Thus, if the WCF were to be interpeted as prohibiting icons as teaching-tools, than I would repudiate that interpretation.

That said, WCF 21.1 does not prohibit iconography, but rather says "[God] may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture." Any Eastern Orthodox worth his salt will tell you those icons are not used to "worship God" via a "visible representation." I personally, in conjunction with the WCF, have no problem with visual representations of Christ that are not intended to be worshipped, but as teaching tools. It's when we start equating God with that crucifix on the wall, or Jim Cavaziel on The Passion of the Christ that the icon has became an idol.

(I also recognize that my position is in violation of the 2d Helvetic Confession of Faith. Too bad ;-).)

We don't have the faintest idea who really wrote the dictatus papae or what their intention was--we have a half dozen different speculative theories. They certainly never exercised any doctrinal or ecclesial authority. Any who claims to know that they represent the position of Gregory VII is talking through his hat. They might be a papal document, but no one knows for sure, one way or another.

Through them the "Church" is not claiming anything at all because they were never promulgated by any authoritative ecclesial office--we simply don't know whether they ever got past some papal secretary's nightstand. They stand out like a sore thumb against the entire rest of Gregory VII's assertions of papal authority, which stop short of claiming any temporal power. He claims the right to depose the emperor on the basis of spiritual power. He does not claim temporal authority or power--the whole point of the Gregorian Reform was the Church's spiritual independence from control by the temporal rulers.

Innocent III is sometimes portrayed as claiming temporal authority, but I don't think he comes close. There are a number of good discussions of this by historians, including a recent reader giving the various interpretations, ed. by James Powell, if I recall correctly.

Read current scholarship on the Gregorian Reform on the dictatus papae. The best book is the massive biography by John Cowdrey a respected professor at Oxford. IT's simply titled Gregory VII. He shows that one can't build a case for anything on the dictatus papae.

the Reformed view is neither western nor eastern thinking but it is historical theocratic thinking coming from the Old Testament Jews. They always held that God was fully in control of their lives

Ecclus. 14 God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel. (Free Will) 15 He added his commandments and precepts.

16 If thou wilt keep the commandments and perform acceptable fidelity for ever, they shall preserve thee. 17 He hath set water and fire before thee: stretch forth thy hand to which thou wilt. (Free Will) 18 Before man is life and death, good and evil, that which he shall choose ( Free Will) shall be given him: 19 For the wisdom of God is great, and he is strong in power, seeing all men without ceasing. 20 The eyes of the Lord are towards them that fear him, and he knoweth all the work of man.

21 He hath commanded no man to do wickedly, and he hath given no man license to sin:

At least in part, D, I was kidding; That's why I put a :) after the comment.

I appreciate the fairness of your comments, but I guess I have to disagree that the Dictatus don't represent the thinking of the likes of Gregory VII or, for that matter, of Boniface VIII and as you know, my opinion is shared by a number of Catholic writers of some note...and not particularly leftist ones at that. But whether or not they do isn't really the point, as a practical matter. The real point is that Orthodox Christians, especially theologians, believe that they do reflect a type of thinking which was perfectly acceptable in the Roman Church perhaps even to this day, certainly within the living past. I myself remember being told by one of my Sister of Mercy teachers that unless the Orthodox "submitted" to the Pope we were all bound for hell. Massive biographies by Oxford dons will do little or nothing to calm the quite justified concerns of not only Orthodox theologians, but also, and in the end more importantly, Orthodox laity.

On a micro level, by the way, I don't think the Dictatus Papae are really of much consequence. Unam Sanctam, on the other hand, has of late been subject to all sorts of revisionist writing in an attempt to make it consistent with modern Latin theology, especially in the area of the possibility of theosis outside The Church. To pretend that the likes of Boniface VIII, as some now do, was a good pope only concerned with saving souls, the role of The Church in that work and that when he spoke of submission to the pope, that meant something different in the Middle Ages, something more gentle and spiritual, than it does now is absurd. refusal to submit to Boniface VIII meant the death of 6000 people at Palestrina. Unam Sanctam was part of the pope's feud with Philip the Fair and gave a theological justification for precisely the behavior that history has condemned him for.

I must say that pretending a document like Unam Sanctam shouldn't give Orthodox Christians pause seems at best disingenuous and does the position of the Latin Church in any discussions about the proper role of the Pope no good at all.

Dan 4:35 "All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, But He does according to His will in the host of heaven And among the inhabitants of earth; And no one can ward off His hand Or say to Him, 'What have You done?'

Pro 16:9 The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.

Luk 1:46-48 And Mary said: "My soul exalts the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave; For behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed.

Rth 1:12-13 "Return, my daughters! Go, for I am too old to have a husband. If I said I have hope, if I should even have a husband tonight and also bear sons, would you therefore wait until they were grown? Would you therefore refrain from marrying? No, my daughters; for it is harder for me than for you, for the hand of the LORD has gone forth against me."

Num 16:5 and he spoke to Korah and all his company, saying, "Tomorrow morning the LORD will show who is His, and who is holy, and will bring him near to Himself; even the one whom He will choose, He will bring near to Himself.

Jos 10:8 The LORD said to Joshua, "Do not fear them, for I have given them into your hands; not one of them shall stand before you."

There's far more all showing God directs our paths. Sorry, you should know I don't consider the Apocrypha inspired. Neither did the Jews.

I'm sorry if you understood me to be saying Unam Sanctam should give you no pause. I was insisting that it did not claim absolute temporal power (which was the way it was being portrayed) and that such temporal authority as it claimed was grounded in the pope's pastoral authority.

I do not defend Unam Sanctam as having been a wise move by Boniface. He was, however, provoked and seeking to respond to a real problem.

And Unam Sanctam does not have dogmatic authority for the West, nor could it.

So, I can understand that it gives Orthodox pause and probably greater pause than it gives me but it does give me some pause--not a lot.

And honestly, I do not think we can say that the dictatus papae represent Gregory's thinking. But we'll have to agree to disagree.

"What kind of icons do you have? If I wanted to get icons for my apartment or office, where would I find them?"

Oh, we have a number of them here, at the cottage and at the office; a number of The Theotokos; The Navitity; The Resurrection; The Visitation, +Alexios, +Athanasius, +Euphrosynos the Cook, +John Chrysostomos, ++Jude and Paisios, +Nektarios and +Patrick, that I can recall off hand. There are probably more. The best place to get them is Greece or elsewhere in Eastern Europe or the Middle East, but there are several good online sources. Here's a link to a fellow who is excellent to deal with, has a large inventory and does some wonderful ministry too.

www.comeandseeicons.com

Remember, though, these are not decorating articles!

Do the Catholics say salvation comes through the sacraments? Or do they say God imparts grace through the sacraments? That's a criticial difference.

..all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is hisBody: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teachesthat the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation:... Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Churchwas founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

It is in the Church that `the fulness of the means of salvation' has been deposited. It is in her that `by the grace of God we acquire holiness. Verification: Pg 218, #824

In her subsists the fulness of Christ's body united with its head; this impliesthat she receives from him the fulness of the means of salvation... Verification: Pg. 220, #830 Verification: Pg. 224, #846

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. ... The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism..

980 It is through the sacrament of Penance that the baptized can be reconciled with God and with the Church: "Penance has rightly been called by the holy Fathers `a laborious kind of baptism.' This sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation for those who have fallen after Baptism, just as Baptism is necessary for salvation for those who have not yet been reborn" (Council of Trent (1551): DS 1672; cf. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 39, 17: PG 36,356)..

1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. ... The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Saviour.

Ex ecclesia nulla salus has a better ring to it - and the endorsement of Cyprian ;-). But you mistake me. Just because I have found greater common ground between orthodox Roman Catholics and orthodox Reformed Christianity than you have found does not mean I ever intend to convert to Roman Catholicism. There are still too many deal-breakers. But, I go where the text tells me too, I read and cite as authority the Early Church Fathers and the ecumenical councils, and I subject myself to the authority of the Church Magisterium. I am a Magesterial Protestant. I define the Church more broadly than the Catholics, but still subject myself to its authority.
You mistake me as a Magesterial Protestant as showing precursors to conversion to Catholicism. I assure you that is not likely to happen.

Jude I am will to take all bets on that . The truth is you do not know what you believe or why. You read the words men and ignore the words of Christ. Perhaps it is your assumption that no one understands the word of God and so the "magistrum" must do it for them and you . But if you can not find the truth in the word of God, what makes you think you can discern doctrinal truths?

I submit myself to Jesus Christ and the elders of MY CHURCH as his representatives.

Sola Ecclesia Romanus

Do you honestly think that the icons I have in my home and office are idols?

No.

Do I think the distinction made within Catholic/Orthodox on veneration of saints verse veneration to God leads to idolotry? Yes, and there is ample evidence to this.

I can find only a hair-breathe difference in Catholic doctrine that distinguishes between venerating to saints and to God. Great pains are made to distance the two when there really is no substantial differences.

All the fuss and expense that goes into these manmade things is far more than history. The true mark of an idol in my mind is whether to revere an object or you don't. A case in point is the return of the Black Madonna to Polland which I believe we discussed on another thread. Heck, let mold grow in a NJ tunnel in the likeness of Mary and see the flowers and tributes.

Some people may think this is an "intellectually" correct policy of the Church to "revere" these objects. They claim it's really not worshipping them even when provided countless examples and illustrations of people bowing down to mold on a wall or even an artifact. I'm afraid I simply don't see the distinction after looking through the Church's records on this no matter how "pious" I may appear. There is only one place in scripture where someone "prayed" to the dead and that was Saul calling up Samuel to intercede for him before God. We know the outcome of that.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.