E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
let’s not confused the matter. The roman catholic view and the protestant view of justification is radically opposed to each other. One is of faith and the other is of works.
- Status
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
Chrysostom speaks of the "righteousness of God’ as the royal pardon and remission of sins that we receive through the sacrificial death of Jesus, teaching that a man is justified by faith without works.
This goes directly counter to the catholic claim that a man is justified by works and faith.
This goes directly counter to the catholic claim that a man is justified by works and faith.
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
What does that quote contribute to the argument? Protestants interpret that as love being required also. Faith which justifies always has love. Luther never denied that
N
nuntym
Guest
+JMJ+
Love always demands action, i.e. work. Therefore, by your own words a faith that justifies always has works with it.
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
Thats what protestants have always been trying to argue
R
Richca
Guest
One thing I would ask myself is why should I believe Martin Luther and what he taught? Did he walk on water? Raise the dead to life? Did he live a holy life after the example and teaching of Christ? I don’t think he was exactly a saint. Is his teaching in line with that of Christ? Why should I believe in Martin Luther over the fathers of the Church, the many saints the Church has produced, over St Thomas Aquinas, St Bonaventura, St Francis of Assisi, St Dominic? Why should I believe Luther over the Catholic Church’s authorities, the pope and bishops. Was he wiser than they? Why should I believe Luther over 1500 years of tradition and theological reflection, and now over 2000 years in the Catholic Church? What the protestants really suffer in my view is the lack of tradition as well as a misunderstanding of scripture. Honestly, the whole protestant reformation phenomenon doesn’t make any sense to me.
Erick_ Ybarra: I’m not criticizing you or other protestants. These are just my personal thoughts when I think of Luther and the protestant reformation which you may want to ask yourself if you haven’t already. God bless!
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
Well, I am considering the Catholic Church again (for I was raised in it but I had extremely poor training, in fact there was no training) precisely because of the descriptions that you gave which makes you detract from believing what Luther taught.
The fact of the matter is, when you read the early church fathers, you cannot help but notice that they rely heavily on the scriptures and on what they knew was called the “apostolic depository” which was the faith handed to the Churches. This consisted of the traditions and doctrines of the apostles. From the point that the Church became devoid of the original apostles, the believers of the Church were not interested in moving everything forward in their own wisdom. Rather they were in the business of preserving the doctrines that were passed down from the apostolic depository churches. These were the Churches where the disciples of the original apostles were finding churches.
When heresies arose and when questions of truth came up, the churches did not get together and somehow recognize an authority in themselves which allowed for them to make up new canons of laws and doctrines. Rather they looked to the historical transmission of the original “faith” that was handed on from Christ to the apostles, from the apostles to the churches, and the churches to the rest of the saints. This is why Irenasus is big on the issue of those who succeeded the apostles, precisely BECAUSE the newly established bishops did not have some direct connect authority with God that was active and present to make whatever decisions and rules and beliefs as they saw fit. Rather, the bishops were accountable to what has been spoken by the Son, told to the apostles, and then to the churches which became apostolic depositories.
The much later devotion doctrines of Mary and indulgences were not even spoken about! How do I know this? Because the modern devotion is in all the Catholic writings. Mary and the Saints are everything now. I heard and read a quote on this forum that said “when will souls breath mary as the body breathes air”?. How blasphemous is this? St. Paul would have looked at this quote and be appalled.
Similar to justification. Catholic interpretation is simply just not exegetically sound. It is so illogical you cannot but help to see the Catholic’s devotion to uphold the infallibility of the Catholic Church despite the clear notion of errors all over the place.
Why should you consider Luther? Because he questioned the interpretations of the Church and he may have had a point. The early fathers relied much on the scriptures and the modern day bishops should be the same. But if you compare the writings of the early church fathers and the modern day bishops, you will smell the pride on these bishops in their reliance on much later church formulations.
The Early Church Fathers considered the NT documents to be the present voice of the apostles, not the chair of Peter. Tertullian believed that those who hear and read the voice of the apostles being read to them in their churches are those who follow apostolic constitutions.
The fact of the matter is, when you read the early church fathers, you cannot help but notice that they rely heavily on the scriptures and on what they knew was called the “apostolic depository” which was the faith handed to the Churches. This consisted of the traditions and doctrines of the apostles. From the point that the Church became devoid of the original apostles, the believers of the Church were not interested in moving everything forward in their own wisdom. Rather they were in the business of preserving the doctrines that were passed down from the apostolic depository churches. These were the Churches where the disciples of the original apostles were finding churches.
When heresies arose and when questions of truth came up, the churches did not get together and somehow recognize an authority in themselves which allowed for them to make up new canons of laws and doctrines. Rather they looked to the historical transmission of the original “faith” that was handed on from Christ to the apostles, from the apostles to the churches, and the churches to the rest of the saints. This is why Irenasus is big on the issue of those who succeeded the apostles, precisely BECAUSE the newly established bishops did not have some direct connect authority with God that was active and present to make whatever decisions and rules and beliefs as they saw fit. Rather, the bishops were accountable to what has been spoken by the Son, told to the apostles, and then to the churches which became apostolic depositories.
The much later devotion doctrines of Mary and indulgences were not even spoken about! How do I know this? Because the modern devotion is in all the Catholic writings. Mary and the Saints are everything now. I heard and read a quote on this forum that said “when will souls breath mary as the body breathes air”?. How blasphemous is this? St. Paul would have looked at this quote and be appalled.
Similar to justification. Catholic interpretation is simply just not exegetically sound. It is so illogical you cannot but help to see the Catholic’s devotion to uphold the infallibility of the Catholic Church despite the clear notion of errors all over the place.
Why should you consider Luther? Because he questioned the interpretations of the Church and he may have had a point. The early fathers relied much on the scriptures and the modern day bishops should be the same. But if you compare the writings of the early church fathers and the modern day bishops, you will smell the pride on these bishops in their reliance on much later church formulations.
The Early Church Fathers considered the NT documents to be the present voice of the apostles, not the chair of Peter. Tertullian believed that those who hear and read the voice of the apostles being read to them in their churches are those who follow apostolic constitutions.
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
If you read this large quote from Chrysostom, it is almost clear as pure glass that he believes that Abraham was justified alone and apart from any works. No one has really looked at this issue and responded accordingly.
What shall we then say that Abraham, our father as pertaining to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he has whereof to glory; but not before God.
He had said (5 manuscripts εἶπεν), that the world had become guilty before God, and that all had sinned, and that boasting was excluded and that it was impossible to be saved otherwise than by faith. He is now intent upon showing that this salvation, so far from being matter of shame, was even the cause of a bright glory, and a greater than that through works. For since the being saved, yet with shame, had somewhat of dejection in it, he next takes away this suspicion too. And indeed he has hinted at the same already, by calling it not barely salvation, but righteousness. Therein (he says) is the righteousness of God revealed. Romans 1:17 For he that is saved as a righteous man has a confidence accompanying his salvation. And he calls it not righteousness only, but also the setting forth of the righteousness of God. But God is set forth in things which are glorious and shining, and great. However, he nevertheless draws support for this from what he is at present upon, and carries his discourse forward by the method of question. And this he is always in the habit of doing both for clearness sake, and for the sake of confidence in what is said. Above, for instance, he did it, where he says, What advantage then has the Jew? Romans 3:1 and, What then have we more than they? Romans 3:9 and again, where then is boasting? It is excluded Romans 3:27: and here, what then shall we say that Abraham our father? etc. Now since the Jews kept turning over and over the fact, that the Patriarch, and friend of God, was the first to receive circumcision, he wishes to show, that it was by faith that he too was justified. And this was quite a vantage ground to insist upon (περιουσία νίκης πολλἥς). For for a person who had no works, to be justified by faith, was nothing unlikely. But for a person richly adorned with good deeds, not to be made just from hence, but from faith, this is the thing to cause wonder, and to set the power of faith in a strong light. And this is why he passes by all the others, and leads his discourse back to this man. And he calls him father, as pertaining to the flesh, to throw them out of the genuine relationship (συγγενείας γνησίας) to him, and to pave the Gentiles’ way to kinsmanship with him. And then he says, For if Abraham were justified by works, he has whereof to glory: but not before God. After saying that God justified the circumcision by faith and the uncircumcision through faith, and making the same sufficiently sure in what he said before, he now proves it by Abraham more clearly than he promised, and pitches the battle for faith against works, and makes this …" (Homiliy 9 Romans 4:1-2)
I just cannot fathom how a Catholic would agree with St. John Chrysostom at this point. For not only does Chrysostom say that a man is justified by faith alone, but he also indicates that Abraham was adorned with many good works WHEN he was justified and yet he was not justified by these good works, but rather by faith only. This is a solid argument which sides with the protestant view of justification. And it obviously goes without contest. For if someone here tries to prove from St. John Chrysostom that elsewhere he weds together faith and works of love to try and somehow prove that he has a catholic view of faith, this will not work, for Chrysostom recognizes Abraham’s adornment of good works with his faith, and yet excludes them in the act of justification. I think this one locks it up pretty well.
What shall we then say that Abraham, our father as pertaining to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he has whereof to glory; but not before God.
He had said (5 manuscripts εἶπεν), that the world had become guilty before God, and that all had sinned, and that boasting was excluded and that it was impossible to be saved otherwise than by faith. He is now intent upon showing that this salvation, so far from being matter of shame, was even the cause of a bright glory, and a greater than that through works. For since the being saved, yet with shame, had somewhat of dejection in it, he next takes away this suspicion too. And indeed he has hinted at the same already, by calling it not barely salvation, but righteousness. Therein (he says) is the righteousness of God revealed. Romans 1:17 For he that is saved as a righteous man has a confidence accompanying his salvation. And he calls it not righteousness only, but also the setting forth of the righteousness of God. But God is set forth in things which are glorious and shining, and great. However, he nevertheless draws support for this from what he is at present upon, and carries his discourse forward by the method of question. And this he is always in the habit of doing both for clearness sake, and for the sake of confidence in what is said. Above, for instance, he did it, where he says, What advantage then has the Jew? Romans 3:1 and, What then have we more than they? Romans 3:9 and again, where then is boasting? It is excluded Romans 3:27: and here, what then shall we say that Abraham our father? etc. Now since the Jews kept turning over and over the fact, that the Patriarch, and friend of God, was the first to receive circumcision, he wishes to show, that it was by faith that he too was justified. And this was quite a vantage ground to insist upon (περιουσία νίκης πολλἥς). For for a person who had no works, to be justified by faith, was nothing unlikely. But for a person richly adorned with good deeds, not to be made just from hence, but from faith, this is the thing to cause wonder, and to set the power of faith in a strong light. And this is why he passes by all the others, and leads his discourse back to this man. And he calls him father, as pertaining to the flesh, to throw them out of the genuine relationship (συγγενείας γνησίας) to him, and to pave the Gentiles’ way to kinsmanship with him. And then he says, For if Abraham were justified by works, he has whereof to glory: but not before God. After saying that God justified the circumcision by faith and the uncircumcision through faith, and making the same sufficiently sure in what he said before, he now proves it by Abraham more clearly than he promised, and pitches the battle for faith against works, and makes this …" (Homiliy 9 Romans 4:1-2)
I just cannot fathom how a Catholic would agree with St. John Chrysostom at this point. For not only does Chrysostom say that a man is justified by faith alone, but he also indicates that Abraham was adorned with many good works WHEN he was justified and yet he was not justified by these good works, but rather by faith only. This is a solid argument which sides with the protestant view of justification. And it obviously goes without contest. For if someone here tries to prove from St. John Chrysostom that elsewhere he weds together faith and works of love to try and somehow prove that he has a catholic view of faith, this will not work, for Chrysostom recognizes Abraham’s adornment of good works with his faith, and yet excludes them in the act of justification. I think this one locks it up pretty well.
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
Another quote demonstrating St. John Chrysostom’s understanding of faith in terms that protestants have taught
Ver. 20. But he staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief.
For God neither gave any proof nor made any sign, but there were only bare words promising such things as nature did not hold out any hopes of. Yet still he says, he staggered not. He does not say, He did not disbelieve, but, He staggered not, that is, he neither doubted nor hesitated though the hindrances were so great. From this we learn, that if God promise even countless impossibilities, and he that hears does not receive them, it is not the nature of things that is to blame, but the unreasonableness of him who receives them not. But was strong in faith. See the pertinacity of Paul. For since this discourse was about them that work and them that believe, he shows that the believer works more than the other, and requires more power, and great strength, and sustains no common degree of labor. For they counted faith worthless, as having no labor in it. Insisting then upon this, he shows that it is not only he that succeeds in temperance, or any other virtue of this sort, but he that displays faith also who requires even greater power. For as the one needs strength to beat off the reasonings of intemperance, so has the faithful also need of a soul endued with power, that he may thrust aside the suggestions of unbelief. How then did he become strong? By trusting the matter, he replies, to faith and not to reasonings: else he had fallen. But how came he to thrive in faith itself? By giving glory to God, he says.
The one who is has faith always has works in the sustaining of that faith, but justification is a grace given to faith alone, as St. John Chrysostom taught in Romans 4:1-2
Ver. 20. But he staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief.
For God neither gave any proof nor made any sign, but there were only bare words promising such things as nature did not hold out any hopes of. Yet still he says, he staggered not. He does not say, He did not disbelieve, but, He staggered not, that is, he neither doubted nor hesitated though the hindrances were so great. From this we learn, that if God promise even countless impossibilities, and he that hears does not receive them, it is not the nature of things that is to blame, but the unreasonableness of him who receives them not. But was strong in faith. See the pertinacity of Paul. For since this discourse was about them that work and them that believe, he shows that the believer works more than the other, and requires more power, and great strength, and sustains no common degree of labor. For they counted faith worthless, as having no labor in it. Insisting then upon this, he shows that it is not only he that succeeds in temperance, or any other virtue of this sort, but he that displays faith also who requires even greater power. For as the one needs strength to beat off the reasonings of intemperance, so has the faithful also need of a soul endued with power, that he may thrust aside the suggestions of unbelief. How then did he become strong? By trusting the matter, he replies, to faith and not to reasonings: else he had fallen. But how came he to thrive in faith itself? By giving glory to God, he says.
The one who is has faith always has works in the sustaining of that faith, but justification is a grace given to faith alone, as St. John Chrysostom taught in Romans 4:1-2
O
onemangang
Guest
An intrinsic righteousness, not a covering for one, which is Catholic!
We have said time, and time again, we are saved by grace!
Our faith is graced, and our works are graced, so why misrepresent?
You have been imparted some of the Catholic tenets of faith, that were clear, concise, and succinct, so why reduce it so arbitrarily?
Is St. John Chrysostom talking about justification as being made righteous, or is being made righteous a by product of Justification!
So we have seen St. John Chrysostom talk of an intrinsic righteousness, one that is not a covering or a forensic exchange!
So, does St.John Chrysostom teach a Penal Substitution?
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
He teaches that we are justified apart from any works. Read the last few posts
O
onemangang
Guest
Why not Othodoxy?
So St. John Chrysostom or any other Catholic back then, didn’t move the Church forward on the wisdom they were graced?
The Church does not recognize an authority “IN THEMSELVES” apart from Christ!
If there were heresies in the Church, like a bunch of Bishops being Arian, who would get together and council? The Arian bishops? The (now) Catholic bishops? Both together? How would it be discerned, who was right? Both lay claim to Apostolic Doctrine, why the Nicene Creed, or the Niceno–Constantinopolitan Creed instead of an Arian creed? Did Christ preserve and protect the Church then? What Church? Big C
Either He still is guiding the big C, or 
Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, Baptist of all strains, Pentecostals, Non-denoms, who?Wow, you have some sort of Authority to speak on behalf of St. Paul
Things have been brought to light progressively, like the Trinity, or hypostatic union!
All the present day doctrines didn’t just fall out of the sky, the Church is organic.
Which you are unable to point out, instead you rely on the wisdom that was imparted to you, through the lens of your tradition, and attempt to morph past Saints theology into your own!
Talk about smelling pride
Ok, so are you of St.John Chrysostom, or Tertullian
Or do you just try to cherry pick the Saints that MAY appear to have a view in concert with yours?I’m sure if you take the whole of the Apostolic writings of the ECF’s, you would be outside the deposit of faith on a few issues, albeit less outside the faith, than most who call themselves Protestants!
O
onemangang
Guest
So do Catholics
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
But if you read romans 5:12-21 In John chrysostom you will notice he understands adam’s sin and god’s righteousness to be forensic
O
onemangang
Guest
St. John Chrysostom…The Catholic
Homily 4, on 1 Tim. 1:15,16,17
In honoring Him, therefore, we do honor to ourselves. He who opens his eyes to gaze on the light of the sun, receives delight himself, as he admires the beauty of the star, but does no favor to that luminary, nor increases its splendor, for it continues what it was; much more is this true with respect to God.** He who admires and honors God does so to his own salvation, and highest benefit; and how? Because he follows after virtue, and is honored by Him. For “them that honor Me,” He says, “I will honor**.”… (1 Sam. iv. 30) How then is He honored, if He enjoys no advantage from our honor?.. But how may we glorify Him in the body and in the spirit? He glorifies Him in the body, who does not commit adultery or fornication, who avoids gluttony and drunkenness, who does not affect a showy exterior, who makes such provision for himself as is sufficient for health only NPNF1: Vol. XIII, p. 421.
Homily 2 on Second Corinthians 1:6-7
For what he saith is this, “Your salvation is not our work alone, but your own as well;for both we in preaching to you the word endure affliction, and ye in receiving it endure the very same; we to impart to you that which we received, ye to receive what is imparted and not to let it go.” Now what humility can compare with this, seeing that those who fell so far short of him he raiseth to the same dignity of endurance? for he saith, “Which worked in the enduring of the same sufferings;”** for not through believing only cometh your salvation, but also through the suffering and enduring the same things with us.** NPNF1: Vol. XII, p. 277.
Homily XXIII: 1 Cor. 9:27
For, “think not,” saith he, "because ye have believed, that this is sufficient for your salvation: since if to me neither preaching nor teaching nor bringing over innumerable persons, is enough for salvation** unless I exhibit my own conduct also unblameable**, much less to you,." NPNF1: Vol. XII, p. 133
Homily 4, commentary in fact on Eph. 2:10
Let us not then vainly flatter our own souls with speeches like these; no, let us take heed, let us have a regard for our own salvation, let us make virtue our care, let us rouse ourselves to the practice of good works, that we may be counted worthy to attain to this exceeding glory, in Jesus Christ our Lord with whom to the Father, together with the Holy Spirit be glory, might, honor, now and ever, and for ages of ages. Amen. NPNF1: Vol. XIII, p. 68
Homily 4, on 1 Tim. 1:15,16,17
In honoring Him, therefore, we do honor to ourselves. He who opens his eyes to gaze on the light of the sun, receives delight himself, as he admires the beauty of the star, but does no favor to that luminary, nor increases its splendor, for it continues what it was; much more is this true with respect to God.** He who admires and honors God does so to his own salvation, and highest benefit; and how? Because he follows after virtue, and is honored by Him. For “them that honor Me,” He says, “I will honor**.”… (1 Sam. iv. 30) How then is He honored, if He enjoys no advantage from our honor?.. But how may we glorify Him in the body and in the spirit? He glorifies Him in the body, who does not commit adultery or fornication, who avoids gluttony and drunkenness, who does not affect a showy exterior, who makes such provision for himself as is sufficient for health only NPNF1: Vol. XIII, p. 421.
Homily 2 on Second Corinthians 1:6-7
For what he saith is this, “Your salvation is not our work alone, but your own as well;for both we in preaching to you the word endure affliction, and ye in receiving it endure the very same; we to impart to you that which we received, ye to receive what is imparted and not to let it go.” Now what humility can compare with this, seeing that those who fell so far short of him he raiseth to the same dignity of endurance? for he saith, “Which worked in the enduring of the same sufferings;”** for not through believing only cometh your salvation, but also through the suffering and enduring the same things with us.** NPNF1: Vol. XII, p. 277.
Homily XXIII: 1 Cor. 9:27
For, “think not,” saith he, "because ye have believed, that this is sufficient for your salvation: since if to me neither preaching nor teaching nor bringing over innumerable persons, is enough for salvation** unless I exhibit my own conduct also unblameable**, much less to you,." NPNF1: Vol. XII, p. 133
Homily 4, commentary in fact on Eph. 2:10
Let us not then vainly flatter our own souls with speeches like these; no, let us take heed, let us have a regard for our own salvation, let us make virtue our care, let us rouse ourselves to the practice of good works, that we may be counted worthy to attain to this exceeding glory, in Jesus Christ our Lord with whom to the Father, together with the Holy Spirit be glory, might, honor, now and ever, and for ages of ages. Amen. NPNF1: Vol. XIII, p. 68
P
pneuma07
Guest
Hi Erick.
St John Chrysostom IMHO is underlining that St Paul goes in depth about Abrahams justification, because he can show from Scriptures that the Patriarch was already justified before the settling of circumcision as a prescription, and before becoming himself the first to fulfill this command.
In a sense he was still a Gentile, from the point of view of those who would oppose the pauline teaching !
Then he was not justified because of the works of the law. Paul teaches that it is not the mere fact of fulfilling a set of works that justifies. If justification came out from that, then we could boast that we deserve a salary from God. But, there is nothing to boast. And there is no way God can have any debt towards us.
The message, over and over again is : "Do not rely on implementing this or that norm, rely on faith. "
In other words we cannot and must not rely on ourselves. We have to rely on God only. And that means being children of Abraham.
Works have nothing to do with justification if we think of them as a sure passport, as something which is binding for the Lord. The real children of Abraham are those who rely on God through faith.
Could you consider Clement’s letter to Corinthians 30-32 ?
In the likely earliest patristic text of all about soteriology you can IMHO find a great key.
P
pneuma07
Guest
So, “he staggered not” . That means, against any evidence he did work relying on God through faith.
The real way you rely on faith is harder than relying on works.
In the latter case you have your definite homework. Which can be difficult maybe, but then you master its limits, you understand where you are on the path of its implementation … you can imagine you know precisely whether right now you are justified.
Relying on faith, that was the really really hard labor for Abraham. “He staggered not” does mean he did work, trusting God.
Then, (working ) relying on God through faith, is harder than (working) …relying on works.
( and BTW relying through faith on God I cannot know, I can never know with certainty, whether right now I am justified, although I can be confident on that ).That is the seeming paradox we get from Abraham’s life, right against those who could object that believing is easy, working is hard.
I hope this can help.
In Christ
P7
P
pneuma07
Guest
he does not here say «grace,» but «superabundance of grace.» For it was not as much as we must have to do away the sin only, that we received of His grace, but even far more. For we were at once freed from punishment, and put off all iniquity, and were also born again from above John 3:3 and rose again with the old man buried, and were redeemed, justified, led up to adoption, sanctified, made brothers of the Only-begotten, and joint heirs and of one Body with Him, and counted for His Flesh, and even as a Body with the Head, so were we united unto Him! All these things then Paul calls a «superabundance» of grace, showing that what we received was not a medicine only to countervail the wound, but even health, and comeliness, and honor, and glory and dignities far transcending our natural state.
…
it was not remission from punishment only that He gave us, but that from sins, and life also. As if any were not merely to free a man with a fever from his disease, but to give him also beauty, and strength, and rank; or again, were not to give one an hungered nourishment only, but were to put him in possession of great riches, and were to set him in the highest authority.
Erick, does that really sound forensic only ?
In Christ
P7
O
onemangang
Guest
I cant see how you can posit that St. John Chyrsostom views Adam’s sin as forensic when he may not have had an Augustinian view of Original sin, but one more inline with the Orthodox view of Ancestral sin.
I think the Christus Victor atonement view even fits better into St. John Chyrsostom’s Homily
John Chrysostom
“You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be [Christ’s] members” (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).
It is likely that St. John Chrysostom held to a Christus Victor view of the Atonement
St. John Chrysostom.
If any man be devout and love God, let him enjoy this fair and radiant triumphal feast.
If any man be a wise servant, let him rejoicing enter into the joy of his Lord.
If any have labored long in fasting, let him now receive his recompense.
If any have wrought from the first hour, let him today receive his just reward.
If any have come at the third hour, let him with thankfulness keep the feast.
If any have arrived at the sixth hour, let him have no misgivings; because he shall in nowise be deprived therefor.
If any have delayed until the ninth hour, let him draw near, fearing nothing.
If any have tarried even until the eleventh hour, let him, also, be not alarmed at his tardiness;
for the Lord, who is jealous of his honor, will accept the last even as the first;
he gives rest unto him who comes at the eleventh hour, even as unto him who has wrought from the first hour.
And he shows mercy upon the last, and cares for the first; and to the one he gives, and upon the other he bestows gifts.
And he both accepts the deeds, and welcomes the intention, and honors the acts and praises the offering.
Wherefore, enter you all into the joy of your Lord; and receive your reward, both the first, and likewise the second.
You rich and poor together, hold high festival.
You sober and you heedless, honor the day.
Rejoice today, both you who have fasted and you who have disregarded the fast.
The table is full-laden; feast ye all sumptuously. The calf is fatted; let no one go hungry away.
Enjoy ye all the feast of faith:
Receive ye all the riches of loving-kindness.
let no one bewail his poverty, for the universal kingdom has been revealed.
Let no one weep for his iniquities, for pardon has shown forth from the grave.
Let no one fear death, for the Savior’s death has set us free.
He that was held prisoner of it has annihilated it.
By descending into Hell, He made Hell captive.
He embittered it when it tasted of His flesh.
And Isaiah, foretelling this, did cry:
Hell, said he, was embittered, when it encountered Thee in the lower regions.
It was embittered, for it was abolished.
It was embittered, for it was mocked.
It was embittered, for it was slain. It was embittered, for it was overthrown.
It was embittered, for it was fettered in chains.
It took a body, and met God face to face.
It took earth, and encountered Heaven. It took that which was seen, and fell upon the unseen.
O Death, where is your sting?
O Hell, where is your victory?
Christ is risen, and you are overthrown.
Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen.
Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice.
Christ is risen, and life reigns.
Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in the grave.
For Christ, being risen from the dead, is become the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.
To Him be glory and dominion unto ages of ages. Amen.
- Status