John Chrysostom

2,250 Views | 44 Replies | Last: 6 yr ago by swimmerbabe11
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This is to follow up a tangent that popped up on the other thread, which has now rightfully returned to it's Prot v Cath roots.

K2 and I were arguing a bit about whether John Chrysostom is a good role model. Here is a note from Socrates, the Church historian regarding him.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26016.htm

Quote:

I have alluded to this circumstance, because many have affirmed that what he suffered was a judgment upon him for his calumnious aspersions of John, whom he so often designated as arrogant and inexorable, as I have already said. Furthermore as on the 30th of September, in the last-mentioned consulate, there was an extraordinary fall of hail of immense size at Constantinople and its suburbs, it also was declared to be an expression of Divine indignation on account of Chrysostom's unjust deposition: and the death of the empress tended to give increased credibility to these reports, for it took place four days after the hail-storm. Others, however, asserted that John had been deservedly deposed, because of the violence he had exercised in Asia and Lydia, in depriving the Novatians and Quartodecimans of many of their churches, when he went to Ephesus and ordained Heraclides. But whether John's deposition was just, as his enemies declare, or Cyrinus suffered in chastisement for his slanderous revilings; whether the hail fell, or the empress died on John's account, or whether these things happened for other reasons, or for these in connection with others, God only knows, who is the discerner of secrets, and the just judge of truth itself. I have simply recorded the reports which were current at that time.

So again I'll say that he was twice deposed. He was the Bishop of the second most important city in Christendom at the time. To compare that Synod with the power to strip away the title of bishop to a straw poll of lay Christians is ridiculous. Either the Church was so corrupt that synods with real power were erring, or John deserved it. And if he didn't, then how are we to judge the actions of the Church regarding other defrocked bishops such as Nestor? Both continued to have massive followings both in and outside the Church after their exile.

Secondly, the passage specifically state that many people felt he deserved being deposed because of violence he had used deposing those other groups. As I have stated before, to me the term Quartodecimian is code for Torah observant Christians, and I identify with them. So when I say that John would have used violence against me if I lived under him, that is to what I am referring. There is evidence he used violence to take churches away from people that in my mind are just like me.

I only have a minute, but I'll go over his homily "Against Jews" in a bit. Anyone who wants to glance over it can find it here.

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/chrysostom_adversus_judaeos_01_homily1.htm
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Violence doesn't mean he beat people. It means he put them out of the churches.

Quartodecimians is not code for Torah followers. It is only about the timing of the celebration of Pascha.

As for the nature of the synod that deposed him, let's just refer to the same source (Socrates)


Quote:

When Epiphanius had gone, John was informed by some person that the Empress Eudoxia had stimulated Epiphanius against him. And being of a fiery temperament, and of a ready utterance, he soon after pronounced a public invective against women in general. The people readily took this as uttered indirectly against the empress and so the speech was laid hold of by evil-disposed persons, and reported to those in authority. At length on being informed of it the empress immediately complained to her husband, telling him that the insult offered to herself was equally an insult against him. The emperor therefore authorized Theophilus to convoke a Synod without delay against John; Severian also co-operated in promoting this, for he still retained his grudge against Chrysostom. Not long time accordingly intervened before Theophilus arrived, having induced several bishops from different cities to accompany him; these however had been summoned by the emperor's orders also. Many of the bishops in Asia John had deposed when he went to Ephesus and ordained Heraclides. Accordingly they all by previous agreement assembled at Chalcedon in Bithynia. Cyrinus was at that time bishop of Chalcedon, an Egyptian by birth, who said many things to the bishops in disparagement of John, denouncing him as 'the impious,' 'the haughty,' 'the inexorable.' They indeed were very much satisfied at these denunciations. But Maruthas bishop of Mesopotamia having involuntarily trod on Cyrinus' foot, he was severely hurt by it and was unable to embark with the rest for Constantinople, but remained behind at Chalcedon. The rest crossed over. Now Theophilus had so openly avowed his hostility to John, that none of the clergy would go forth to meet him, or pay him the least honor; but some Alexandrian sailors happening to be on the spot for at that time the grain transporting vessels were there greeted him with joyful acclamations. He excused himself from entering the church, and took up his abode at one of the imperial mansions called 'The Placidian.' Then on this account a torrent of accusations began to be poured forth against John; for no mention was now made of Origen, but all were intent on urging a variety of criminations, many of which were ridiculous. Preliminary matters being thus settled, the bishops were convened in one of the suburbs of Chalcedon, a place called 'The Oak,' and immediately cited John to answer the charges which were brought against him. He also summoned Serapion the deacon; Tigris the eunuch presbyter, and Paul the reader, were likewise summoned to appear there with him, for these men were included in the impeachments, as participators in his guilt. And since John taking exception to those who had cited him, on the ground of their being his enemies, refused to attend, and demanded a general council, without delay they repeated their citation four times in succession; and as he persisted in his refusal to meet them as his judges, always giving the same answer, they condemned him, and deposed him without assigning any other cause for his deposition but that he refused to obey the summons. This decision on being announced towards evening, incited the people to a most alarming sedition; insomuch that they kept watch all night, and would by no means suffer him to be removed from the church, but cried out that his cause ought to be determined in a larger assembly. A decree of the emperor, however, commanded that he should be immediately expelled, and sent into exile; which as soon as John was apprised of, he voluntarily surrendered himself about noon unknown to the populace, on the third day after his condemnation: for he dreaded any insurrectionary movement on his account, and was accordingly led away.

The people then became intolerably tumultuous; and as it frequently happens in such cases, many who before were adversely disposed against him, now changed their hostility into compassion, and said of him whom they had so recently desired to see deposed, that he had been traduced. By this means therefore they became very numerous who exclaimed against both the emperor and the Synod of bishops; but the origin of the intrigue they more particularly referred to Theophilus. For his fraudulent conduct could no longer be concealed, being exposed by many other indications, and especially by the fact of his having held communion with Dioscorus, and those termed 'the Tall Monks,' immediately after John's deposition. But Severian preaching in the church, and thinking it a suitable occasion to declaim against John, said: 'If John had been condemned for nothing else, yet the haughtiness of his demeanor was a crime sufficient to justify his deposition. Men indeed are forgiven all other sins: but God resists the proud, as the Divine Scriptures teach us.' These reproaches made the people still more inclined to opposition; so that the emperor gave orders for his immediate recall.

Yeah, that sounds like real valid grounds.

Byzantine court politics were nasty.
chuckd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

So when I say that John would have used violence against me if I lived under him, that is to what I am referring. There is evidence he used violence to take churches away from people that in my mind are just like me.
I have no dog in this fight, but "violence" used in this context is "compulsion" or "coersion", not physical violence. This is even seen if you click the link for the word in your quote.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Selected quotes from the homily "Against Jews"

Quote:

What is this disease? The festivals of the pitiful and miserable Jews are soon to march upon us one after the other and in quick succession: the feast of Trumpets, the feast of Tabernacles, the fasts.

if I should fail to cure those who are sick with the Judaizing disease. I am afraid that, because of their ill-suited association and deep ignorance, some Christians may partake in the Jews' transgressions; once they have done so, I fear my homilies on these transgressions will be in vain

But do not be surprised that I called the Jews pitiable. They really are pitiable and miserable. When so many blessings from heaven came into their hands, they thrust them aside and were at great pains to reject them.

Christ said: "It is no fair to take the children's bread and to cast it to the dogs". Christ was speaking to the Canaanite woman when He called the Jews children and the Gentiles dogs. But see how thereafter the order was changed about: they became dogs, and we became the children. Paul said of the Jews: "Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the mutilation. For we are the circumcision". Do you see how those who at first were children became dogs?

Stephen was right in calling them stiff-necked.

But what is the source of this hardness? It come from gluttony and drunkenness.

Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter.

Many, I know, respect the Jews and think that their present way of life is a venerable one. This is why I hasten to uproot and tear out this deadly opinion.

But the synagogue is not only a brothel and a theater; it also is a den of robbers and a lodging for wild beasts.

But at any rate the Jews say that they, too, adore God. God forbid that I say that. No Jew adores God!

If, then, the Jews fail to know the Father, if they crucified the Son, if they thrust off the help of the Spirit, who should not make bold to declare plainly that the synagogue is a dwelling of demons? God is not worshipped there. Heaven forbid! From now on it remains a place of idolatry.

A brutal, unfeeling man, reputed to be a Christian (for I would not call a person who would dare to do such a thing a sincere Christian) was forcing her to enter the shrine of the Hebrews and to swear there an oath about some matters under dispute with him

The Jews frighten you as if you were little children, and you do not see it. Many wicked slaves show frightening and ridiculous masks to youngsters-the masks are not frightening by their nature, but they seem so to the children's simple minds-and in this way they stir up many a laugh. This is the way the Jews frighten the simpler-minded Christians with the bugbears and hobgoblins of their shrines. Yet how could their ridiculous and disgraceful synagogues frighten you? Are they not the shrines of men who have been rejected, dishonored, and condemned?

But the Jews neither know nor dream of these things. They live for their bellies, they gape for the things of this world, their condition is not better than that of pigs or goats because of their wanton ways and excessive gluttony. They know but one thing: to fill their bellies and be drunk, to get all cut and bruised, to be hurt and wounded while fighting for their favorite charioteers.

Let me get the start on you by saying this now, so that each of you may win over his brother. Even if you must impose restraint, even if you must use force, even if you must treat him ill and obstinately, do everything to save him from the devil's snare and to free him from fellowship with those who slew Christ.

So it is that I exhort you to flee and shun their gatherings. The harm they bring to our weaker brothers is not slight; they offer no slight excuse to sustain to the folly of the Jews

You must apply the same argument to the synagogue. Even if there is no idol there, still demons do inhabit the place.

So the godlessness of the Jews and the pagans is on a par. But the Jews practice a deceit which is more dangerous. In their synagogue stands an invisible altar of deceit on which they sacrifice not sheep and calves but the souls of men.

Do you see that demons dwell in their souls and that these demons are more dangerous than the ones of old? And this is very reasonable

Wild beasts oftentimes lay down their lives and scorn their own safety to protect their young. No necessity forced the Jews when they slew their own children with their own hands to pay honor to the avenging demons, the foes of our life. What deed of theirs should strike us with greater astonishment? Their ungodliness or their cruelty or their inhumanity? That they sacrificed their children or that they sacrificed them to demons? Because of their licentiousness, did they not show a lust beyond that of irrational animals? Hear what the prophet says of their excesses. "They are become as amorous stallions. Every one neighed after his neighbor's wife". He did not say: "Everyone lusted after his neighbor's wife", but he expressed the madness which came from their licentiousness with the greatest clarity by speaking of it as the neighing of brute beasts.

What else do you wish me to tell you? Shall I tell you of their plundering, their covetousness, their abandonment of the poor, their thefts, their cheating in trade? the whole day long will not be enough to give you an account of these things.

Tell me this. If a man were to have slain your son, would you endure to look upon him, or accept his greeting? Would you not shun him as a wicked demon, as the devil himself? They slew the Son of your Lord; do you have the boldness to enter with them under the same roof?

I think the quotes speak for themselves, and I think any reasonably minded person would say this entire homily is horrible. You can speak of time periods, culture, or scripture, but there is no justification for any person, much less a saint, to speak this way of other human beings.

I bolded some of the more terrible ones.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

I have no dog in this fight, but "violence" used in this context is "compulsion" or "coersion", not physical violence. This is even seen if you click the link for the word in your quote.

And yet some people of the time thought John's exile was justified due to that "violence". Seems odd that a well-beloved Bishop who was either the 2nd or 3rd most powerful person in Christendom (behind the Roman Bishop and maybe the Emperor) was considered justifiably defrocked for being "coersive".

Here is one of the quotes above. He is speaking of Christians who observe Jewish festivals (like me).
Quote:

Let me get the start on you by saying this now, so that each of you may win over his brother. Even if you must impose restraint, even if you must use force, even if you must treat him ill and obstinately, do everything to save him from the devil's snare and to free him from fellowship with those who slew Christ.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Yeah, that sounds like real valid grounds.

Byzantine court politics were nasty.

And why would Byzantine court politics matter when it comes to the discipline of a Bishop? Sounds to me like you're saying that the Church was following the will of the Byzantine court and not the will of Christ, but I've also heard you say that such things are impossible because the Church is perfect. Or was that particular part of the Church not really part of the Church and could therefore be errant while some other part of the Church was the real Church and therefore inerrant? I get confused.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:


So the godlessness of the Jews and the pagans is on a par. But the Jews practice a deceit which is more dangerous. In their synagogue stands an invisible altar of deceit on which they sacrifice not sheep and calves but the souls of men.

What is wrong with this other than an emphatic resounding cry that to deny Christ is to deny God?

Why did you highlight that, but not this?

Quote:

If, then, the Jews fail to know the Father, if they crucified the Son, if they thrust off the help of the Spirit, who should not make bold to declare plainly that the synagogue is a dwelling of demons? God is not worshipped there. Heaven forbid! From now on it remains a place of idolatry.

Shut it down
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ramblin_ag02 said:

Selected quotes from the homily "Against Jews"

Quote:

What is this disease? The festivals of the pitiful and miserable Jews are soon to march upon us one after the other and in quick succession: the feast of Trumpets, the feast of Tabernacles, the fasts.

if I should fail to cure those who are sick with the Judaizing disease. I am afraid that, because of their ill-suited association and deep ignorance, some Christians may partake in the Jews' transgressions; once they have done so, I fear my homilies on these transgressions will be in vain

But do not be surprised that I called the Jews pitiable. They really are pitiable and miserable. When so many blessings from heaven came into their hands, they thrust them aside and were at great pains to reject them.

Christ said: "It is no fair to take the children's bread and to cast it to the dogs". Christ was speaking to the Canaanite woman when He called the Jews children and the Gentiles dogs. But see how thereafter the order was changed about: they became dogs, and we became the children. Paul said of the Jews: "Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the mutilation. For we are the circumcision". Do you see how those who at first were children became dogs?

Stephen was right in calling them stiff-necked.

But what is the source of this hardness? It come from gluttony and drunkenness.

Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter.

Many, I know, respect the Jews and think that their present way of life is a venerable one. This is why I hasten to uproot and tear out this deadly opinion.

But the synagogue is not only a brothel and a theater; it also is a den of robbers and a lodging for wild beasts.

But at any rate the Jews say that they, too, adore God. God forbid that I say that. No Jew adores God!

If, then, the Jews fail to know the Father, if they crucified the Son, if they thrust off the help of the Spirit, who should not make bold to declare plainly that the synagogue is a dwelling of demons? God is not worshipped there. Heaven forbid! From now on it remains a place of idolatry.

A brutal, unfeeling man, reputed to be a Christian (for I would not call a person who would dare to do such a thing a sincere Christian) was forcing her to enter the shrine of the Hebrews and to swear there an oath about some matters under dispute with him

The Jews frighten you as if you were little children, and you do not see it. Many wicked slaves show frightening and ridiculous masks to youngsters-the masks are not frightening by their nature, but they seem so to the children's simple minds-and in this way they stir up many a laugh. This is the way the Jews frighten the simpler-minded Christians with the bugbears and hobgoblins of their shrines. Yet how could their ridiculous and disgraceful synagogues frighten you? Are they not the shrines of men who have been rejected, dishonored, and condemned?

But the Jews neither know nor dream of these things. They live for their bellies, they gape for the things of this world, their condition is not better than that of pigs or goats because of their wanton ways and excessive gluttony. They know but one thing: to fill their bellies and be drunk, to get all cut and bruised, to be hurt and wounded while fighting for their favorite charioteers.

Let me get the start on you by saying this now, so that each of you may win over his brother. Even if you must impose restraint, even if you must use force, even if you must treat him ill and obstinately, do everything to save him from the devil's snare and to free him from fellowship with those who slew Christ.

So it is that I exhort you to flee and shun their gatherings. The harm they bring to our weaker brothers is not slight; they offer no slight excuse to sustain to the folly of the Jews

You must apply the same argument to the synagogue. Even if there is no idol there, still demons do inhabit the place.

So the godlessness of the Jews and the pagans is on a par. But the Jews practice a deceit which is more dangerous. In their synagogue stands an invisible altar of deceit on which they sacrifice not sheep and calves but the souls of men.

Do you see that demons dwell in their souls and that these demons are more dangerous than the ones of old? And this is very reasonable

Wild beasts oftentimes lay down their lives and scorn their own safety to protect their young. No necessity forced the Jews when they slew their own children with their own hands to pay honor to the avenging demons, the foes of our life. What deed of theirs should strike us with greater astonishment? Their ungodliness or their cruelty or their inhumanity? That they sacrificed their children or that they sacrificed them to demons? Because of their licentiousness, did they not show a lust beyond that of irrational animals? Hear what the prophet says of their excesses. "They are become as amorous stallions. Every one neighed after his neighbor's wife". He did not say: "Everyone lusted after his neighbor's wife", but he expressed the madness which came from their licentiousness with the greatest clarity by speaking of it as the neighing of brute beasts.

What else do you wish me to tell you? Shall I tell you of their plundering, their covetousness, their abandonment of the poor, their thefts, their cheating in trade? the whole day long will not be enough to give you an account of these things.

Tell me this. If a man were to have slain your son, would you endure to look upon him, or accept his greeting? Would you not shun him as a wicked demon, as the devil himself? They slew the Son of your Lord; do you have the boldness to enter with them under the same roof?

I think the quotes speak for themselves, and I think any reasonably minded person would say this entire homily is horrible. You can speak of time periods, culture, or scripture, but there is no justification for any person, much less a saint, to speak this way of other human beings.

I bolded some of the more terrible ones.
I think this entirely homily is well understood in the context of the time period. The Jews had killed Christ, and were intent on killing Christians as heretics. I don't understand that part about "they slew the son of your Lord", is that not accurate?
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You also selectively edited out every single scriptural quote. Here, I'll help. The bold is what you quoted. The rest is what you edited out.

Quote:

But do not be surprised that I called the Jews pitiable. They really are pitiable and miserable. When so many blessings from heaven came into their hands, they thrust them aside and were at great pains to reject them. The morning Sun of Justice arose for them, but they thrust aside its rays and still sit in darkness. We, who were nurtured by darkness, drew the light to ourselves and were freed from the gloom of their error. They were the branches of that holy root, but those branches were broken. We had no share in the root, but we did reap the fruit of godliness. From their childhood they read the prophets, but they crucified him whom the prophets had foretold. We did not hear the divine prophecies but we did worship him of whom they prophesied. And so they are pitiful because they rejected the blessings which were sent to them, while others seized hold of these blessing and drew them to themselves. Although those Jews had been called to the adoption of sons, they fell to kinship with dogs; we who were dogs received the strength, through God's grace, to put aside the irrational nature which was ours and to rise to the honor of sons. How do I prove this? Christ said: "It is no fair to take the children's bread and to cast it to the dogs". Christ was speaking to the Canaanite woman when He called the Jews children and the Gentiles dogs.

But see how thereafter the order was changed about: they became dogs, and we became the children. Paul said of the Jews: "Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the mutilation. For we are the circumcision". Do you see how those who at first were children became dogs? Do you wish to find out how we, who at first were dogs, became children? "But to as many as received him, he gave the power of becoming sons of God".

Stephen was right in calling them stiff-necked. For they failed to take up the yoke of Christ, although it was sweet and had nothing about it which was either burdensome or oppressive. For he said: "Learn from me for I am meek and humble of heart", and "Take my yoke upon you, for my yoke is sweet and my burden light". Nonetheless they failed to take up the yoke because of the stiffness of their necks. Not only did they fail to take it up but they broke it and destroyed it. For Jeremiah said: "Long ago you broke your yoke and burst your bonds". It was not Paul who said this but the voice of the prophet speaking loud and clear. When he spoke of the yoke and the bonds, he meant the symbols of rule, because the Jews rejected the rule of Christ when they said: "We have no king but Caesar". You Jews broke the yoke, you burst the bonds, you cast yourselves out of the kingdom of heaven, and you made yourselves subject to the rule of men. Please consider with me how accurately the prophet hinted that their hearts were uncontrolled. He did not say: "You set aside the yoke", but "You broke the yoke" and this is the crime of untamed beasts, who are uncontrolled and reject rule.

But what is the source of this hardness? It come from gluttony and drunkenness. Who say so? Moses himself. "Israel ate and was filled and the darling grew fat and frisky". When brute animals feed from a full manger, they grow plump and become more obstinate and hard to hold in check; they endure neither the yoke, the reins, nor the hand of the charioteer. Just so the Jewish people were driven by their drunkenness and plumpness to the ultimate evil; they kicked about, they failed to accept the yoke of Christ, nor did they pull the plow of his teaching. Another prophet hinted at this when he said: "Israel is as obstinate as a stubborn heifer". And still another called the Jews "an untamed calf".

Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: "But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them". You Jews should have fasted then, when drunkenness was doing those terrible things to you, when your gluttony was giving birth to your ungodliness-not now. Now your fasting is untimely and an abomination. Who said so? Isaiah himself when he called out in a loud voice: "I did not choose this fast, say the Lord". Why? "You quarrel and squabble when you fast and strike those subject to you with your fists". But if you fasting was an abomination when you were striking your fellow slaves, does it become acceptable now that you have slain your Master? How could that be right?

Many, I know, respect the Jews and think that their present way of life is a venerable one. This is why I hasten to uproot and tear out this deadly opinion. I said that the synagogue is no better than a theater and I bring forward a prophet as my witness. Surely the Jews are not more deserving of belief than their prophets. "You had a harlot's brow; you became shameless before all". Where a harlot has set herself up, that place is a brothel. But the synagogue is not only a brothel and a theater; it also is a den of robbers and a lodging for wild beasts. Jeremiah said: "Your house has become for me the den of a hyena". He does not simply say "of wild beast", but "of a filthy wild beast", and again: "I have abandoned my house, I have cast off my inheritance". But when God forsakes a people, what hope of salvation is left? When God forsakes a place, that place becomes the dwelling of demons.

But at any rate the Jews say that they, too, adore God. God forbid that I say that. No Jew adores God! Who say so? The Son of God say so. For he said: "If you were to know my Father, you would also know me. But you neither know me nor do you know my Father". Could I produce a witness more trustworthy than the Son of God. If, then, the Jews fail to know the Father, if they crucified the Son, if they thrust off the help of the Spirit, who should not make bold to declare plainly that the synagogue is a dwelling of demons? God is not worshipped there. Heaven forbid! From now on it remains a place of idolatry. But still some people pay it honor as a holy place.



In the interest of length I stopped there. But you're basically lying by omission.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
To sum, I am obviously not a fan of John Chrysostom. I'm not trying to say he was evil, as he was clearly very pious, studied, and well spoken. He cut his own bishop salary and used the savings to build a hospital! He reportedly studied the Bible so much he had the Old Testament memorized! However, I think his zeal for truth ruled all else in his life and led him to bigotry and away from loving non-Christians. I think he was a textbook anti-semite just based on his own writings. He considered people like me diseased, and encouraged measures including force to change our worship practices. So I don't at all consider him to be a good role model, and I cringe a bit every time I see someone quote his works.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Hey, you wanna talk about the infallibility of the church I'm glad to do so. I thought this was an inquisition about St John?
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You can't prove violence. You're making yourself out a liar. You're better than this.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

You also selectively edited out every single scriptural quote. Here, I'll help. The bold is what you quoted. The rest is what you edited out.

John Chrysostom wasn't the first to use Scripture to justify bigotry, and he won't be the last. I can't bring myself to put Holy Scripture in the same post as the horrible things he said.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Well that's convenient.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The infallibility of the Church argument directly relates to John. He was twice exiled and later Sainted. Your defense of him weakens the credibility of your church and is inconsistent with your previous statements on the subject.

What else to you want me to do? Socrates said violence, some thought he was justifiably exiled due to this violence, and he advocates ill treatment including the use of force in such situations. That's all the dots there are to connect.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If you honestly think it is okay to call men beasts, have the souls of demons, and say they are only fit for slaughter and then try to justify such bigotry with Holy Scripture, then you and I really have nothing else to discuss.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yeah, no. The infallibility of the church doesn't mean that people within the church are perfect, or that people acting in an administrative capacity can't make mistakes, or that political influence can't have an adverse effect on the church.

As someone else pointed out, you're (intentionally?) misunderstanding the use of the word violence.

Look man, I understand that your personal views are outside of orthodoxy. I'm sorry that this is a thing you take personally, and I completely understand why someone who has the opinions you hold would react negatively to that sermon. It chafes, I get that. But you are reacting poorly in the situation.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I understand that Socrates' use of violence doesn't always mean physical force, but the reaction of his contemporaries and John's own advocacy of "force and ill-treatment" certainly gives plently of reason to think violence meant actual physical violence.

I know you get where I'm coming from,but let me spin this around a bit so you can see why I'm passionate about this. To Catholics and Orthodox, Christianity is the same as it was in the time of John. The Scriptures are unchanged from that time as well. The Jewish people still have the same history (plus some) that they had in the time of John. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. So with all the components being the same, would you defend this same homily if it was written by an Orthodox bishop today?

To me, John is a cautionary tale of unbridled zealotry. He took his own powerful, laudable desire for truth and purity, and he tried to impose that on the Church at large. In doing so, he made a lot of enemies, pushed past the limits of acceptable Church discipline, lost all love and compassion for pagans and Jews, and died in exile from abuse ordered by his own Church.

No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Post removed:
by user
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Finished the quote above:
Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: "But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them". You Jews should have fasted then, when drunkenness was doing those terrible things to you, when your gluttony was giving birth to your ungodliness-not now. Now your fasting is untimely and an abomination. Who said so? Isaiah himself when he called out in a loud voice: "I did not choose this fast, say the Lord". Why? "You quarrel and squabble when you fast and strike those subject to you with your fists". But if you fasting was an abomination when you were striking your fellow slaves, does it become acceptable now that you have slain your Master? How could that be right?
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ramblin_ag02 said:

To sum, I am obviously not a fan of John Chrysostom. I'm not trying to say he was evil, as he was clearly very pious, studied, and well spoken. He cut his own bishop salary and used the savings to build a hospital! He reportedly studied the Bible so much he had the Old Testament memorized! However, I think his zeal for truth ruled all else in his life and led him to bigotry and away from loving non-Christians. I think he was a textbook anti-semite just based on his own writings. He considered people like me diseased, and encouraged measures including force to change our worship practices. So I don't at all consider him to be a good role model, and I cringe a bit every time I see someone quote his works.


This seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Post removed:
by user
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think that the cultural standards for rhetoric are incredibly different today than they were then. What was acceptable in the US a mere twenty years ago is considered bigoted hate speech today. So, no, I think a bishop today would be wise to use different language.

That being said, I think the theological content is 100% spot on. And I believe part of the reason it's not normal is because of the creeping cultural influence of secularism, religious syncretism and ecumenism. Most Christians (particularly many Protestants) don't believe in the fullness of truth, so they don't dare criticize other religions...especially ones that seem kinda sorta close to us.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
He doesn't encourage anyone to kill the Jews. And in fact he completely explains what he is exhorting his faithful to do and why later in the homily.
Post removed:
by user
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Later he says:

Believe me, I shall risk my life before I would neglect any one who is sick with this disease-if I see him. If I fail to see him, surely God will grant me pardon. And let each one of you consider this matter; let him not think it is something of secondary importance. Do you take no notice of what the deacon continuously calls out in the mysteries? "Recognize one another", he says. Do you not see how he entrusts to you the careful examination of your brothers? Do this in the case of Judaizers, too. When you observe someone Judaizing, take hold of him, show him what he is doing, so that you may not yourself be an accessory to the risk he runs.

If any Roman soldier serving overseas is caught favoring the barbarians and the Persians, not only is he in danger but so also is everyone who was aware of how this felt and failed to make this fact known to the general. Since you are the army of Christ, be overly careful in searching to see if anyone favoring an alien faith has mingled among you, and make his presence know-not so that we may put him to death as those generals did, nor that we may punish him or take our vengeance upon him, but that we may free him from his error and ungodliness and make him entirely our own.

If you are unwilling to do this, if you know of such a person but conceal him, be sure that both you and he will be subject to the same penalty. For Paul subjects to chastisement and punishment not only those who commit acts of wickedness but also those who approve what they have done. The prophet, too, brings to the same judgment not only thieves but also who run with the thieves. And this is quite reasonable. For if a man is aware of a criminal's actions but covers them up and conceals them, he is providing a stronger basis for the criminal to be careless of the law and making him less afraid in his career of crime.
Post removed:
by user
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
JJMt said:

Chrysostom's encouragement to kill the Jews
Chrysostom said:

not so that we may put him to death as those generals did, nor that we may punish him or take our vengeance upon him, but that we may free him from his error and ungodliness and make him entirely our own.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Do this in the case of Judaizers, too. When you observe someone Judaizing, take hold of him, show him what he is doing, so that you may not yourself be an accessory to the risk he runs.
Your quote refers to Judaizers, not Jews. He's saying he would risk his own life to save someone like me from Jewish influence, not saying he would risk his life for Jews.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This is a polemic homily, given to his flock, warning them against what he sees as a grave spiritual danger on part with Anomians. He says so right in the beginning of the first homily.
Quote:

Another very serious illness calls for any cure my words can bring, an illness which has become implanted in the body of the Church. We must first root this ailment out and then take thought for matters outside; we must first cure our own and then be concerned for others who are strangers...What is this disease?...Some of these are going to watch the festivals and others will join the Jews in keeping their feasts and observing their fasts. I wish to drive this perverse custom from the Church right now

As a paraphrase, here's an outline of the each homily.They are pretty repetitive.

Homily I. Because they rejected and continue to reject Christ the Jews were changed from children into dogs, and by accepting Christ the Gentile dogs were changed into children. The Jews refuse to accept Christ, crucified Him, and said "his blood be on us and on our children" because they became carnal-minded. This is also why they no longer have prophets, lost the temple, and were slaughtered by the Romans. Even in the OT they didn't keep the Law, worshiped foreign Gods, sacrificed their children to Moloch, and were criticized harshly by the prophets, who they also killed. Now when the Law is fulfilled they want to keep it, but have turned the fasts and festivals into gluttonous displays and mockeries. Jews do not know or worship God because they reject the Son who alone reveals the Father. The fact that the Law and Prophets were entrusted to them makes the whole thing worse. Based on all this it is even worse if Christians think they're admirable or holy or think that they have special relationship to God. If Christians go to synagogue, engage in festivals or keep the religious customs, it shares in their rejection of Jesus. If your family or people in the Church are doing this, prevent them, because its a big danger.

Homily II covers freedom from the Law, don't adopt Jewish customs, etc.

Homily III is specifically about when to fast and not fasting with Jews, even if you used to under an old custom (Looking at you Quartodecimians) because the Church collectively celebrates together after Nicaea. The Passover isn't valid outside of Jerusalem anyway according to the Law, so the current Jewish practice is unlawful regardless. There's a discussion of the purpose of Lent. He talks about the date of the Crucifixion and that because the first day of unleavened bread and the day of preparation don't always coincide so the Christian feast doesn't necessarily have a fixed relationship to the Jewish year. Their passover is a type, ours is the truth. And then he talks a lot about how the exact day doesn't matter anyway, what is important is unity.
Quote:

"The Church does not recognize the exact observance of dates...is impossible for us or you or any other man to arrive at the exact date of the Lord's day. So let us stop fighting with shadows, let us stop hurting ourselves in the big things while we are indulging our rivalry over the small."


Homily IV Is basically that the Jews are trying to siphon off Christians through Judaizing. Why do you want to be a Jew if you're a Christian. The passover outside of Jerusalem is not Lawful. Ironically during the Babylonian captivity they didn't keep the passover and in not doing it held up the law. It doesn't matter because God in the OT didn't really care about sacrifices but they were put in place for our weakness. In placing sacrifices only in Jerusalem and then allowing the city to be destroyed God was ending sacrifices all together. When the Jews are celebrating "You should stay at home to weep and groan for them, because they are fighting against God's command". Their worship doesn't even fallow the original purpose. "Do you Christians not see that what the Jews are doing is mockery rather than worship?" He blames them for violating the Law, but blames Christians more both who Judaize and don't stop Judaizers. Fellow Christians are closer than family, and if you fail to bring salvation to your brother who is perishing you run the risk of the man who buried his talent.
Quote:

Is it some great burden I am asking of you, my beloved? Let each one of you bring back for me one of your brothers to salvation. Let each one of you interfere and meddle in your brother's affairs so that we may come to tomorrow's service with great confidence, because we are bringing gifts more valuable than any others, because we are bringing back the souls of those who have wandered away. Even if we must suffer revilement, even if we must be beaten, even if we must endure any other pain whatsoever, let us do everything to win these brothers back. Since these are sick brothers who trample us underfoot, revile us, and rail against us, we are not stung by their insults; we want to see one thing and only one thing: the return to health of him who behaved in this outrageous way.
Homily V goes over why the Jews rejection of Christ in the face of prophecies. They expect to go back and rebuild the temple, but it won't happen because Jesus said it would not, and everything that will happen to the Jews was already foretold by the Prophets, including the last and final destruction by the Romans. Christ told the Samaritan woman "neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father" and so "for the future, there will be no sacrifice, no priesthood, no king among the Jews. Above all, the destruction of the city has proved all these points. But I could also bring forward the prophets as my witnesses, and they distinctly said the same thing". He closes by saying his purpose for these sermons again:

Quote:

Meanwhile, I ask you to rescue your brothers, to set them free from their error, and to bring them back to the truth. There is no benefit in listening to me unless the example of your deeds will match my words. What I said was not for your sake's but for the sake of those who are sick. I want them to learn these facts from you and to free themselves from their wicked association with the Jews. I want them then to show themselves sincere and genuine Christians. I want them to shun the evil gatherings of the Jews and their synagogues, both in the city and in the suburbs, because these are robbers' dens and dwellings of demons?

So then, do not neglect the salvation of those brothers. Be meddlesome, be busybodies, but bring the sick ones to Christ. In this way, we shall receive a far greater reward for our good deeds both in the present life and in the life to come.
Homily VI Talks about those who were martyred by the Jews. Talks again about the exile and how it wasn't for a particular sin which they can repent but for rejecting Christ, which they do not repent of. Every time they recovered their country was for repenting. Since Christ, God hasn't protected them from their enemies. The temple was still legitimate when Christ said it had become a den of thieves and a house of business. Whatever horrible name we may give a synagogue now falls short of the truth.

Quote:

Do you wish to see the temple? Don't run to the synagogue; be a temple yourself. God destroyed one temple in Jerusalem but he reared up temples beyond number, temples more august than that old one ever was...When any of you see some Christian running to the synagogue, do not look the other way. Find some argument you can use as a halter to bring him back to the Church. Why do I speak of being worth more than tell thousand talents? Or worth more than the whole visible world? A human being is worth more than the whole world. Heaven and earth and sea and sun and stars were made for his sake...Therefore, let us not shrink back from the task but, with all the zeal and desire we possess, let us go hunting for our brothers. Even though they be unwilling, let us drag them into our own houses, let us sit down with them at table and put a meal before them.

//////////////

So the "WHY" and the "TO WHOM" is made abundantly clear in EVERY single sermon.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Here is a good article on the subject.

A few excerpts:
Quote:

Anti-Semitism is a complex issue in the Fathers, since the position of the Jews, over the centuries, has changed from that of a sometimes violently anti-Christian religious and social force to that of a victimized people. The same Jews who mistreated and victimized the early Christians, something often overlooked in contemporary historical sources, have in our times been the victims of mistreatment themselves...Ultimately, then, as I shall emphasize below, we should not glorify or vilify the Jewish people, but understand them in historical context: sometimes as persecutors themselves, sometimes as the persecuted.

...As well, it must be remembered that the Fathers of the Church view Jews as the adherents of a religion, as a spiritual entity, not merely as a race. And even when they use the word race, they also mean it in a spiritual way, not simply as we use it today. (Thus "Judaizers" was an accusation made against non-Jews as well as Jews. And sinners are sometimes called a "race.") These distinctions are lost on contemporary dilettantes, who think that the curse on the Jewish race applies exclusively to people of a single blood line, rather than to any person who, like the hypocrites of the Jewish establishment of Christ's time, perpetuate anti-Christian sentiments.

....Calling any Church Father anti-Semitic on the basis of ostensibly denigrating references to Jews, therefore, is to fall to intellectual and historiographical simple-mindedness. Applying modern sensitivities and terms regarding race to ancient times, as though there were a direct parallel between modern and ancient circumstances, is inane. This abuse of history is usually advocated by unthinking observers who simply cannot function outside the cognitive dimensions of modernity.

ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You don't need modern sensibilities to realize that John's statements regarding Jews are loathsome. The fact they are coming from a learned and often studied Christian saint makes it one hundred times worse. One needs look no further than the story of the good Samaritan, which was published hundreds of years before the life of John Chrysostom. The theologically mistaken Samaritan who shows love is much more our brother than the theologically sound priest and Levite whose religion interferes with their ability to show love.

Nothing about John's homily shows any love at all for the Jewish people. All it shows is a zealous desire for a pure Christianity completely free from any Jewish influence. His drive for religious purity has completely overwhelmed any love he may have had for Jewish people. Even if he were to count them as true enemies, Jesus still commanded us to love them as well. So I soundly reject the idea that I'm trying to simple-mindedly impose my modern views on the past.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You can reject it but you're wrong. He wrote right above to weep and groan for the Jews while they revel because it's to their detriment against God. He writes that a man - not a Christian, a man! - is worth more than the whole world.

St John was a peacemaker. Here are some quotes.

We are commanded to have only one enemy, the devil. With him never be reconciled! But with a brother, never be at enmity in thy heart.
////
Praying against one's personal enemies is a transgression of law.
////
How great punishment must they deserve, who, far from themselves forgiving, do even entreat God for vengeance on their enemies, and as it were diametrically transgress this law; and this while He is doing and contriving all, to hinder our being at variance one with another? For since love is the root of all that is good, He, removing from all sides whatever mars it, brings us together, and cements us to each other.
////
There are three very grievous kinds of war. The one is public, when our soldiers are attacked by foreign armies: The second is, when even in time of peace, we are at war with one another: The third is, when the individual is at war with himself, which is the worst of all. For foreign war will not be able to hurt us greatly. What, I pray, though it slaughters and cuts us off? It injures not the soul. Neither will the second have power to harm us against our will; for though others be at war with us, we may be peaceable ourselves. For so says the Prophet, 'For my love they are my adversaries, but I give myself unto prayer' (Ps. 109:4); and again, 'I was at peace with them that hate peace'; and, 'I am for peace; but when I speak, they are for war.' (Ps. 120:6, 7, LXX) But from the third, we cannot escape without danger. For when the body is at variance with the soul, and raises up evil desires, and arms against it sensual pleasures, or the bad passions of anger, and envy; we cannot attain the promised blessings, till this war is brought to an end...
////
I forewarn, and testify, and proclaim this with a voice that all may hear! 'Let no one who hath an enemy draw near the sacred Table, or receive the Lord's Body! Let no one who draws near have an enemy! Do you have an enemy? Draw not near! Do you wish to draw near? Be reconciled, and then draw near, and touch the Holy Thing!'
////
God is not a God of war and fighting. Make war and fighting to cease, both that which is against Him, and that which is against your neighbor. Be at peace with all men, consider with what character God saves you. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God (Matthew 5:9). Such always imitate the Son of God: you imitate Him too. Be at peace.

The more your brother wars against you, by so much the greater will be your reward. For hear the prophet who says, With the haters of peace I was peaceful (Psalm 120:7) This is virtue, this is above man's understanding, this makes us near God; nothing so much delights God as to remember no evil. This sets you free from your sins, this looses the charges against you: but if we are fighting and buffeting, we become far off from God: for enmities are produced by conflict, and from enmity springs remembrance of evil.
////

Accusing him of advocating for violence against any person flies in the face of the entirety of his body of work. I can quote more if you like.

Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
From homily 22 on Romans:

If it be possible, as much as lies in you, live peaceably with all men.

This is that: "let your light shine before men" (Matthew 5:16), not that we are to live for vanity, but that we are not to give those who have a mind for it a handle against us. Whence he says also in another place, "Give none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God." (1 Corinthians 10:32) And in what follows he limits his meaning well, by saying, If it be possible. For there are cases in which it is not possible, as, for instance, when we have to argue about religion, or to contend for those who are wronged. And why be surprised if this be not universally possible in the case of other persons, when even in the case of man and wife he broke through the rule? "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart." (1 Corinthians 7:15) And his meaning is nearly as follows: Do your own part, and to none give occasion of war or fighting, neither to Jew nor Gentile. But if you see the cause of religion suffering anywhere, do not prize concord above truth, but make a noble stand even to death. And even then be not at war in soul, be not averse in temper, but fight with the things only. For this is the import of "as much as in you lies, be at peace with all men". But if the other will not be at peace, do not fill your soul with tempest, but in mind be friendly as I said before, without giving up the truth on any occasion.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.