I'm so Sick and Tired...

 ...too many people, not only Orthodox Christians, but people who declare any faith, or even no faith at all, have made it clear their one and only true religion. It is, sickeningly, whatever their political party tells them to believe. Their only 'saviour' is their favoured political candidate. 

It should be clear to any person of faith, that neither American party of the duopoly teaches the same as the Bible. Each pick and choose parts to say that they do, and show how their opponents' teach the opposite, but as politics prove time and time, politicians and political parties cannot be trusted. 

"Do not have trust in rulers, in sons of men, in whom there is no salvation." 

-Psalm 145(146):3

Bible verse comes from THE ORTHODOX PSALTER: THE PSALTERION OF THE PROPHET AND KING DAVID, With the NINE ODES and the interpretation of how the Psalterion ought to be recited during the whole year Translated into English from the Greek according to the Seventy, and compiled, arranged, and versified according to the Greek Psalterion, including Patristic Commentary.

A True History of Palestine and Israel 🍉

This true history, given by The Reverend Priest, Father David of Saints Constantine and Helen Antiochian Orthodox Church, is a great telling of the history of Palestine and Israel of the last 2000+ years, that simply states facts without excusing any of the many evils done by either the Zionists nor Hamas. 

His message of the forgotten people of this world begins at 01:26:00 at https://www.youtube.com/live/WyRTVHB6sE4?si=nrsaWCElm5JiMOgg and I cannot reccomend this highly enough. 

Help and Pray for Ukraine

Are you wondering how to donate and help Ukraine besides prayer, and don't want your money to errantly end up in the hands of scammers? You can donate money that will 100% go the Ukrainian people, without any executive or administration fees to pay anyone a salary through the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA at https://www.uocofusa.org/news_220224_1 marking your donations with the comment, "LET’S HELP UKRAINE". They have already used this money to get everyday supplies and medical supplies to the people of Ukraine and evacuate an orphanage of children and their teachers to Poland with the donations that they have received so far. If you prefer to donate with Facebook's own platform, you can do so at the Facebook page of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA at https://www.facebook.com/uocofusa.

The Orthodox Psalter has been Updated and Expanded! ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

As you know, back in 2011 I highly recommended "The Orthodox Psalter" by Holy Apostles Convent in this blog post/article and continued to point out the superiority of the translation in another blog post/article the same year. I still stand by that recommendation, but recently I found that there is a new 3rd edition of this Psalterion published in 2017.

There are 9 more pages of patristics than the 1st edition, which includes explanations of verses and psalms from the Church Fathers from both the east and the west. The Orthodox Psalter includes both the Septuagint and KJV numbering systems, 20 Kathismas, 9 Biblical Odes, 160 pages of Patristic Commentary, 6 Tables for Usage, 2 General Listings, The Verses and Couplet to the Prophet David, and the excellent introduction, "In Praise of the Psalms" by Saint Basil the Great. All in a full-sized 6.25" x 9.25" sturdy Deep Purple Smyth-sewn case-bound book, with gold stamping, and a burgundy double-sided grosgrain ribbon marker. As an author I appreciate that it is printed on high-opacity acid-free 80-pound cream coloured pages, in a very easy-to-read 14-point bold typeface for the Psalms, and a readable and clear 10-point typeface for the Commentary. 

Aesthetically, the "Deep Purple" that I think of more as an indigo, looks great with the green "The Holy Prophets", the dark navy "The Orthodox New Testament Volume One", and the dark burgundy "The Orthodox New Testament Volume Two". These books are must-haves for any Orthodox Christian. 

The Orthodox Psalter and the other mentioned books are available at Amazon or can be ordered directly from the Convent.

History of the See of Saint Andrew the First-Called: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Contantinople

Following the establishment of Constantinople (the ancient city of Byzantium) as the state capital of the Roman Empire in the early part of the fourth century, a series of significant ecclesiastical events saw the status of the Bishop of New Rome (as Constantinople was then called) elevated to its current position and privilege. The Church of Constantinople is traditionally regarded as being founded by St. Andrew, the “first-called” of the Apostles. The 3rd canon of the Second Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople (381) conferred upon the bishop of this city second rank after the Bishop of Rome. Less than a century later, the 28th canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council held in Chalcedon (451) offered Constantinople equal ranking to Rome and special responsibilities throughout the rest of the world and expanding its jurisdiction to territories hitherto unclaimed.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate holds an honorary primacy among the autocephalous, or ecclesiastically independent, Churches. It enjoys the privilege of serving as “first among equals.” It is also known as the “Roman” Patriarchate (hence the Turkish phrase: Rum Patrikhanesi), recalling its historical source as the Church of New Rome, the new capital of the Roman Empire, transferred in 330 from Old Rome to Byzantium by Constantine the Great. The first bishop of the city of Byzantium was St. Stachys (38–54), a disciple of the Apostle Andrew. In 330, Byzantium was renamed Constantinople and New Rome, while its bishopric was elevated to an archbishopric. The Metropolitan of Heraclea, to whom Byzantium was formerly subject, now came under the jurisdiction of Constantinople and enjoyed the privileges of the latter’s most senior see.

As a title, the phrase “Ecumenical Patriarchate” dates from the sixth century and belongs exclusively to the Archbishop of Constantinople. The Great Schism of 1054—in fact the culmination of a gradual estrangement over many centuries—resulted in formal separation between the Churches of the East and the West, granting Constantinople sole authority and jurisdiction over the Orthodox Churches throughout the world.

After the capture of Constantinople by the Latins during the Fourth Crusade (1204), the Ecumenical Patriarchate was transferred to Nicaea (1206), but Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologos restored it to Constantinople when he recaptured the city in 1261. When Constantinople became the capital of the Ottoman Empire in 1453, the Ecumenical Patriarch (at the time, Gennadius II) was recognized as Ethnarch of the Orthodox peoples, with increased authority over the Eastern Patriarchates and the Balkan Churches, as well as farther afield.

From that time, the Ecumenical Patriarchate became a symbol of unity, rendering service and solidarity to the Eastern Churches. In difficult periods, the Ecumenical Patriarchate was consulted for the resolution of problems. Frequently, patriarchs of other Churches would reside in Constantinople, which was the venue for meetings of the Holy Synod that was chaired by the Ecumenical Patriarch.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate also sponsored missionary growth through the centuries, the most notable of which was the conversion of the Kievan Rus in the tenth century and the most recent of which was the missionary work in Southeast Asia in the last century. This pastoral role and responsibility has earned the characterization of the Ecumenical Patriarchate as “the golden beacon of Orthodoxy, preserving the unwaning brilliance of Christianity.”

Bishops of Byzantium (until 330)
The Apostle St. Andrew was the first to preach the Gospel of Christ in Constantinople, apointing one of the 70, St. Stachys, as her bishop. He went throughout the Black sea region and on to Russia, where he planted a cross at Kiev; however, the full scale conversion of Russia would come much later.

1. St. Andrew the Apostle (founded in 38)
2. St. Stachys the Apostle (38-54)
3. St. Onesimus (54-68)
4. Polycarpus I (69-89)
5. Plutarch (89-105)
6. Sedecion (105-114)
7. Diogenes (114-129)
8. Eleutherius (129-136)
9. Felix (136-141)
10. Polycarpus II (141-144)
11. Athenodorus (144-148)
12. Euzois (148-154)
13. Laurence (154-166)
14. Alypius (166-169)
15. Pertinax (169-187)
16. Olympianus (187-198)
17. Mark I or Marcus I (198-211)
18. Philadelphus (211-217)
19. Cyriacus I (217-230)
20. Castinus (230-237)
21. Eugenius I (237-242)
22. Titus (242-272)
23. Dometius (272-284)
24. Rufinus I (284-293)
25. Probus (293-306)
26. St. Metrophanes (306-314)
27. St. Alexander (314-337)

Archbishops of Constantinople (330–451 inclusive)
On May 11, 330 the town of Constantinople was consecrated by the Roman emperor Constantine I on the site of an already-existing city, Byzantium, thus becoming the capital of the East Roman Empire (known also as Byzantine Empire).

28. St. Paul I the Confessor (337-339, 341-342, 346-350)
29. Eusebius of Nicomedia (339-341)
30. Macedonius I (342-346, 351-360)
31. Eudoxius of Antioch (360-370)
32. Evagrius (370)
33. Demophilus (370-380)
34. Maximus I (380)
35. Gregory I Nazianzus the Theologian (379-381)
36. Nectarius (381-397)
37. St. John Chrysostom (398-404)
38. Arsacius of Tarsus (404-405)
39. Atticus (406-425)
40. Sisinnius I (426-427)
41. Nestorius (428-431)
42. Maximianus (431-434)
43. St. Proclus (434-446)
44. Flavian (446-449)

Patriarchs of Constantinople (since 451)

45. Anatolius (449-458) (Patriarch from 451-458)
46. Gennadius I (458-471)
47. Acacius (471-488)
48. Fravitas (488-489)
49. Euphemius (489-495)
50. Macedonius II (495-511)
51. Timothy I (511-518)
52. John II the Cappadocian (518-520)
53. Epiphanius (520-535)
54. Anthimus I (535-536)
55. Menas (536-552)
56. Eutychius (552-565, 577-582)
57. John III Scholasticus (565-577)
58. John IV Nesteutes (582-595)
59. Cyriacus (596-606)
60. St. Thomas I (607-610)
61. Sergius I (610-638)
62. Pyrrhus I (638-641, 654)
63. Paul II (641-653)
64. Peter (654-666)
65. Thomas II (667-669)
66. John V (669-675)
67. Constantine I (675-677)
68. Theodore I (677-679)
69. George I (679-686)
70. Paul III (687-693)
71. Callinicus I (693-705)
72. Cyrus (705-711)
73. John VI (712-715)
74. Germanus I (715-730)
75. Anastasius (730-754)
76. Constantine II (754-766)
77. Nicetas I (766-780)
78. Paul IV (780-784)
79. Saint Tarasius (784-806)
80. Nicephorus I (806-815)
81. Theodotus I Kassiteras (815-821)
82. Antony I (821-836)
83. John VII Grammaticus (836-843)
84. Methodius I (843-847)
85. Ignatius I (847-858, 867-877)
86. Photius I the Great (858-867, 877-886)
87. Stephen I (886-893)
88. Antony II Kauleas (893-901)
89. Nicholas I Mystikos (901-907, 912-925)
90. Euthymius I Synkellos (907-912)
91. Stephen II of Amasea (925-928)
92. Tryphon, also Tryphonius (928-931)
93. Theophylactus (933-956)
94. Polyeuctus (956-970)
95. Basil I Scamandrenus (970-974)
96. Antony III the Studite (974-980)
97. Nicholas II Chrysoberges (984-996)
98. Sisinnius II (996-998)
99. Sergius II (999-1019)
100. Eustathius (1019-1025)
101. Alexius I the Studite (1025-1043)
102. Michael I Cerularius (1043-1058)
103. Constantine III Leichoudes (1059-1063)
104. John VIII Xiphilinos (1064-1075)
105. Kosmas I (1075-1081)
106. Eustratius Garidas (1081-1084)
107. Nicholas III Grammaticus (1084-1111)
108. John IX Agapetus (1111-1134)
109. Leo Styppeiotes (1134-1143)
110. Michael II Kourkouas (1143-1146)
111. Cosmas II Atticus (1146-1147)
112. Nicholas IV Muzalon (1147-1151)
113. Theodotus II (1151-1153)
114. Neophytos I (1154)
115. Constantine IV Chliarenus (1154-1156)
116. Luke Chrysoberges (1156-1169)
117. Michael III of Anchialus (1170-1177)
118. Chariton (1177-1178)
119. Theodosius I Boradiotes (1179-1183)
120. Basil II Kamateros (1183-1186)
121. Niketas II Mountanes (1186-1189)
122. Leo Theotokites (1189-1190)
123. Dositheus (1190-1191)
124. George II Xiphilinos (1191-1198)
125. John X Kamateros (1198-1206)
126. Michael IV Autoreianos (1207-1213)
127. Theodore II Eirenikos (1213-1215)
128. Maximos II (1215)
129. Manuel I Charitopoulos (1216-1222)
130. Germanus II (1223-1240)
131. Methodius II (1240)
132. Manuel II (1240-1255)
133. Arsenius Autoreianus (1255-1259, 1261-1267)
134. Nicephorus II (1260-1261)
135. Germanus III (1267)
136. Joseph I Galesiotes (1267-1275)
137. John XI Bekkos (1275-1282)
138. Gregory II Cyprius (1283-1289)
139. Athanasius I (1289-1293, 1303-1310)
140. John XII (1294-1303)
141. Nephon I (1310-1314)
142. John XIII Glykys (1315-1320)
143. Gerasimos I (1320-1321)
144. Isaias (1323-1334)
145. John XIV Kalekas (1334-1347)
146. Isidore I (1347-1350)
147. Callistus I (1350-1354, 1355-1363)
148. Philotheus Kokkinos (1354-1355, 1364-1376)
149. Macarius (1376-1379, 1390-1391)
150. Nilus Kerameus (1379-1388)
151. Antony IV (1389-1390, 1391-1397)
152. Callistus II Xanthopoulos (1397)
153. Matthew I (1397-1410)
154. Euthymius II (1410-1416)
155. Joseph II (1416-1439)
156. Metrophanes II (1440-1443)
157. Gregory III Mammas (1443-1450)
158. Athanasius II (1450-1453)

On May 29, 1453 occurred the Fall of Constantinople, thus marking the end of the Byzantine Empire. The Ecumenical Patriarchate became subject to the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire made the EPoC elect a new Patriarchate regularly (and charge them for the privledge of doing so) and so many times the same bishop would be elected numerous times in his life.

159. Gennadius II Scholarios (1454-1456, Apr 1463 - June 1463, Aug 1464 - aut. 1465)
160. Isidore II Xanthopoulos (1456-1462)
161. Joasaph I (Apr 1462 - Apr 1463)
162. Sophronius I (Jun 1463 - Aug 1464)
163. Mark II (aut. 1465 - aut. 1466)
164. Symeon I of Trebizond (au. 1466 - end 1466, 1471-1475, 1482-1486)
165. Dionysius I (end 1466-1471, 1488-1490)
166. Raphael I (1475-1476)
167. Maximus III (1476-1482)
168. Nephon II (1486-1488, 1497-1498, 1502)
169. Maximus IV (1491-1497)
170. Joachim I (1498-1502, 1504)
171. Pachomius I (1503-1504, 1504-1513)
172. Theoleptus I (1513-1522)
173. Jeremias I (1522-1524, 1525-1546)
174. Joannicius I (1524-1525)
175. Dionysius II (1546-1556)
176. Joasaph II (1556-1565)
177. Metrophanes III (1565-1572, 1579-1580)
178. Jeremias II Tranos (1572-1579, 1580-1584, 1587-1595)
179. Pachomius II (1584-1585)
180. Theoleptus II (1585-1586)
181. Matthew II (1596, 1598-1602, 1603)
182. Gabriel I (1596)
183. Theophanes I Karykes (locum tenens, 1596)
184. Meletius I Pegas (locum tenens, 1597)
185. Theophanes I Karykes (1597)
186. Meletius I Pegas (locum tenens, 1597-1598)
187. Neophytus II (1602-1603. 1607-1612)
188. Raphael II (1603-1607)
189. Cyril I Lucaris (locum tenens, 1612, 1620-1623, 1623-1633, 1633-1634, 1634-1635, 1637-1638)
190. Timothy II (1612-1620)
191. Gregory IV (1623)
192. Anthimus II (1623)
193. Cyril II Kontares (1633, 1635-1636, 1638-1639)
194. Athanasius III Patelaros (1634, 1652)
195. Neophytus III of Nicea (1636-1637)
196. Parthenius I (1639-1644)
197. Parthenius II (1644-1646, 1648-1651)
198. Joannicius II (1646-1648, 1651-1652, 1653-1654, 1655-1656)
199. Cyril III (1652-1652, 1654)
200. Paisius I (1652-1653）
201. Parthenius III (1656-1657)
202. Gabriel II (1657)
203. Parthenius IV (1657-1659, 1659-1662, 1665-1667, 1671, 1675-1676, 1684-1685)
204. Theophanes II (1659)
205. Dionysius III (1662-1665)
206. Clement (1667)
207. Methodius III (1668-1671)
208. Dionysius IV Muselimes (1671-1673, 1676-1679, 1682-1684, 1686-1687, 1693-1694)
209. Gerasimus II (1673-1674)
210. Athanasius IV (1679)
211. James (1679-1682, 1685-1686, 1687-1688)
212. Callinicus II (1688, 1689-1693, 1694-1702)
213. Neophytus IV (1688)
214. Gabriel III (1702-1707)
215. Neophytus V (1707)
216. Cyprianus I (1707-1709, 1713-1714)
217. Athanasius V (1709-1711)
218. Cyril IV (1711-1713)
219. Cosmas III (1714-1716)
220. Jeremias III (1716-1726, 1732-1733)

Not counted in this number is Callinicus III (1726) He reposed on the day of his election, but before his enthronement)

221. Paisius II (1726-1732, 1740-1743, 1744-1748, 1751-1752)
222. Serapheim I (1733-1734)
223. Neophytus VI (1734-1740, 1743-1744)
224. Cyril V (1748-1751, 1752-1757)
225. Callinicus IV (1757)
226. Serapheim II (1757-1761)
227. Joannicius III (1761-1763)
228. Samuel I Chatzeres (1763-1768, 1773-1774)
229. Meletius II (1769-1769)
230. Theodosius II (1769-1773)
231. Sophronius II (1774-1780)
232. Gabriel IV (1780-1785)
233. Procopius I (1785-1789)
234. Neophytus VII (1789-1794, 1798-1801)
235. Gerasimus III (1794-1797)
236. Gregory V (1797-1798, 1806-1808, 1818-1821)
237. Callinicus V (1801-1806, 1808-1809)
238. Jeremias IV (1809-1813)
239. Cyril VI (1813-1818)
240. Eugenius II (1821-1822)
241. Anthimus III (1822-1824)
242. Chrysanthus I (1824-1826)
243. Agathangelus I (1826-1830)
244. Constantius I (1830-1834)

On July 23, 1833 the Church of Greece declared itself autocephalous. It was followed by the Romanian Orthodox Church in 1864, Bulgarian Exarchate in 1872, Serbian Church in 1879, thus reducing the extension of the Ecumenical Patriarchate

245. Constantius II (1834-1835)
246. Gregory VI (1835-1840, 1867-1871)
247. Anthimus IV (1840-1841, 1848-1852)
248. Anthimus V (1841-1842)
249. Germanus IV (1842-1845, 1852-1853)
250. Meletius III (1845)
251. Anthimus VI (1845-1848, 1853-1855, 1871-1873)
252. Cyril VII (1855-1860)
253. Joachim II (1860-1863, 1873-1878)
254. Sophronius III (1863-1866)
255. Joachim III (1878-1884, 1901-1912, 1901-1912)
256. Joachim IV (1884-1887)
257. Dionysius V (1887-1891)
258. Neophytus VIII (1891-1894)
259. Anthimus VII (1895-1896)
260. Constantine V (1897-1901)
261. Germanus V (1913-1918)
262. Meletius IV Metaxakis (1921-1923)

On July 24, 1923 the Ottoman Empire dissolved, replaced by the Republic of Turkey

263. Gregory VII (1923-1924)
264. Constantine VI (1924-1925)
265. Basil III (1925-1929)
266. Photius II (1929-1935)
267. Benjamin I (1936-1946)
268. Maximus V (1946-1948)
269. Athenagoras I (1948-1972)
270. Demetrios I (1972-1991)
271. Bartholomew I (1991-Present)

---

Too Lazy to Research a Candidate? (I'm so lazy that I just re-blogged this same post 4 years later!)

Just tell the computer what's important to you. This is a really simple way to find out which candidates share your views....

My Results:

Score	Candidate	Disagreements, Unknowns, Other
45	Paul	Disagreements: (7) Unknowns/Other: (1)
27	Kucinich	Disagreements: (9) Unknowns/Other: (0)
22	Biden	Disagreements: (9) Unknowns/Other: (4)
20	Gravel	Disagreements: (7) Unknowns/Other: (6)
17	Obama	Disagreements: (9) Unknowns/Other: (4)
17	Clinton	Disagreements: (11) Unknowns/Other: (0)
16	Brownback	Disagreements: (9) Unknowns/Other: (3)
14	Edwards	Disagreements: (11) Unknowns/Other: (2)
13	Dodd	Disagreements: (10) Unknowns/Other: (3)
10	Richardson	Disagreements: (10) Unknowns/Other: (3)
2	Cox	Disagreements: (9) Unknowns/Other: (9)
-4	Huckabee	9/5
-14	Tancredo	13/2
-20	T. Thompson	9/14
-23	McCain	17/1
-25	Romney	14/3
-26	Hunter	14/3
-52	Giuliani	19/3

Try it yourself at http://www.dehp.net/candidate/index.php

---

BCS Bowl Madness (and an easy fix)!

The system is beyond broken. Some teams in the top 10 are not even in a bowl game this year (like #5 Southern Cal)! Everyone, including the President of the United States of America, Barack Obama agrees, it is time for a playoff system in NCAA College 1-A American Football.

Here is an easy solution using the classic bowls in their historical ranks without letting the Fiesta Bowl trump the Cotton Bowl which was a stupid decision based on money, just like all college football decisions these days.

There are currently 12 Division 1-A conferences (ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big 10, Conference USA, IA Independents, Mid-American, Mountain West, Pac-10, SEC, Sun Belt, WAC), so I would recommend allowing for 4 wild cards to make a Super 16 for a proper playoff system. Here is how I would do it (without naming which conference plays where, because that does not really even matter. Let the conferences decide a rival conference for the system just like teams have conferences (i.e. Big 10 is the rival conference of the Big 12).

First the Western Bowls:

• 2 play (1 is a wildcard) in the Holiday Bowl (San Francisco, CA)
• 2 play in the Fiesta Bowl (Scottsdale, AZ)
• The winners of these 2 Bowl Games play in the Rose Bowl (Pasadena, CA) 

• 2 play in the Sun Bowl (El Paso, TX)
• 2 play (1 is a wildcard) in the Alamo Bowl (San Antonio, TX)
• The winners of these 2 Bowl Games play in the Cotton Bowl (Dallas, TX)

The winners of these two Western Bowl Games (Rose Bowl and Cotton Bowl) meet in the BCS West Bowl Game. (Maybe play it in Memorial Stadium in Lincoln, NE and call it the Corn Bowl or the Cereal Bowl). 

Now for the Eastern Bowls:

• 2 play in the Peach Bowl (Atlanta, GA)
• 2 play (1 is a wildcard) in the Gator Bowl (Jacksonville, FL)
• The winners of these 2 Bowl Games play in the Orange Bowl (Miami, FL) 

• 2 play in the Liberty Bowl (Memphis, TN)
• 2 play (1 is a wildcard) in the Independence Bowl (Shreveport, LA)
• The winners of these 2 Bowl Games play in the Sugar Bowl (New Orleans, LA)

The winners of these two Eastern Bowl Games (Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl) meet in the BCS East Bowl Game (Maybe play it in Lambeau Field/City Stadium in Green Bay, WI and call it the Cheese Bowl or the Chili Bowl).

The winners of the BCS West Bowl and the BCS East Bowl meet in the National Bowl Game/BCS Championship Bowl Game in a fitting location such as either New York, New York or Washington, D.C..

All the games before the semi-finals and the Championship game are in more temperate southern states with San Francisco being the northernmost bowl, so it makes sense to have the semi-finals and Championship game in the colder, windier north in non-domed stadiums in major football cities for a different feel.You could still have all those other minor corporate bowl games for the teams ranked #17 to #120 with the opponents based solely on how much money they will get by inviting certain teams, just like now. There, this is the BCS fixed. How hard was that?

One last thing... Happy New Year 2012 A.D.!

---

A Timeline of Church History: Tracing the birth and continuity of the Christian Church from Pentecost to the present.

A word about Church History...

Scholars estimate there are over 33,000 groups today who lay claim to be the Church, or at least descendants of the Church described in the New Testament. Repeat: OVER 33,000!

But for the first thousand years of her history the Church was essentially one. Five historic patriarchal centers—Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Alexandria, and Constantinople — formed a cohesive whole and were in full communion with one another. There were occasional heretical or schismatic groups going their own way, to be sure, but the Church was unified until after the eleventh century. Then, in events culminating in A.D. 1054, the Roman Patriarch (The Pope of Rome) pulled away from the other four patriarchates, pursuing his long-developing claim of universal headship of the Church.

Today, nearly a thousand years later, the other four Patriarchate remain intact, in full communion, maintaining that Orthodox Apostolic Faith of the inspired New Testament record. The history of the New Testament Church, The Orthodox Church, is described herein, from Pentecost to the present day.

New Testament Era

• 33 - Pentecost
• 49 - Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15) establishes precedent for addressing Church disputes in Council. Iakovos/James presides as bishop of Jerusalem.
• 69 - Bishop Ignatius consecrated in Antioch in heart of New Testament era—St. Peter had been the first bishop there. Other early bishops include Iakovos/James, Polycarp, and Clement.
• 95 - Book of Revelation written, probably the last of the New Testament books.
• 150 - St. Justin Martyr describes the liturgical worship of the Church, centered in the Eucharist. Liturgical worship is rooted in both the Old and New Testaments.
• 313 - The Edict of Milan marks an end to the period of Roman persecution of Christianity.

Seven Ecumenical Councils

• 325 - The Council of Nicea settles the major heretical challenge to the Christian Faith posed when the heretic Arius asserts Christ was created by the Father. St. Athanasius defends the eternality of the Son of God. Nicea is the first of Seven Ecumenical (Church-wide) Councils.
• 397 - Synod of Carthage ratifies biblical canon.
• 451  - The Council of Chalcedon affirms apostolic doctrine of two natures in Christ.
• 589 - A local errant synod in Toledo, Spain, adds the filioque to the Nicene Creed (asserting that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son). This error is later adopted by Rome.
• 787 - The era of Ecumenical Councils ends at Nicea; the Seventh Council restores the centuries-old use of icons to the Church.

The Western Schism

• 880 - The Photian Schism further complicates the debate over Roman heresies.
• 988 - Conversion of Rus' (Russian) begins.
• 1054 - The Great Schism occurs. Two major issues include Rome's claim to a universal papal supremacy and her addition of the filioque clause to the Nicene Creed.

Attacks on Orthodoxy and Byzantium

• 1066 - Norman conquest of Britain. Orthodox hierarchs are replaced with those loyal to Rome.
• 1095 - The Crusades begun by the Roman Church.
• 1204 - The Sack of Constantinople adds to the estrangement between East and West.
• 1333 - St. Gregory Palamas defends the Orthodox practice of hesychast spirituality and the use of the Jesus Prayer.
• 1453 - Turks overrun Constantinople; Byzantine Empire ends. Christianity's greatest church turned into a mosque.

The Western Schism Multiplies While the Orthodox Church Strengthens

• 1517 - A Roman monk, Martin Luther, nails his 95 Theses to the door of the Roman Church in Wittenberg, starting the Protestant Reformation.
• 1529 - The Church of England begins pulling away from Rome.
• 1589 - Russian Church made a Patriarchate as Moscow is named the Third Rome.
• 1782 - First publishing of the The Philokalia, a classic of spirituality.
• 1794 - Missionaries arrive on Kodiak Island in Alaska; Orthodoxy introduced to North America.
• 1854 - The Immaculate Conception becomes Roman dogma.
• 1870 - Papal infaliability becomes Roman dogma.
• 1871 - St. Nicholas establishes the Japanese Mission.
• 1988 - One thousand years of Orthodoxy in Russia, as Orthodox Church worldwide maintains fullness of the Apostolic Faith. (Not even the Roman Church has been independent that long, not to mention that the oldest Protestant churches are not even 500 years old!)
• 1995 - Orthodoxy is the fastest growing Church in America as Americans start to study Church history.

Click on the images above to enlarge and uncover the truth about the true Church timeline.

---

Do you believe in the Constitution? Do you believe in Freedom?

Do you believe in the American Constitution? Do your believe in the First Amendment? Do you believe in freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of religion? Or do you only believe in your own freedom of speech, expression, association, and religion and will willfully and quickly stomp on the rights of others and on the Constitution of the United States of America?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Maybe you think a mosque will be built on the site of the former Twin Towers World Trade Center in New York City that were destroyed on 9/11? Or do you realize that 2 blocks away there is a proposed Islamic Center with a mosque inside, among other things like a gym? Do you realize that however ill sighted this decision might be, that it is legal and protected by the Constitution? Do you care? Do you realize how many freedoms we have already lost in the post-9/11 world? Do you realize how big of an excuse 9/11 is for freedom haters?

THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

If we allow the government to violate the constitution to discriminate against one religion, how long will it be before they violate the rights of another religion, and what about when it is yours? How could your rightfully complain if you were for violating others' rights?

With the government recently increasing Eminent Domain rights of the government via a controversial Supreme Court decision, will the government start taking churches who give them no taxes and selling the churches and their land to developers? Do you know of this decision that can allow this? Do you want to push us further own this slippery slope?

The Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) affirmed the authority of New London, Connecticut, to take non-blighted private property by eminent domain, and then transfer it for a dollar a year to a private developer solely for the purpose of increasing municipal revenues.

People, we are on a very slippery slope, and if you let one group have their freedoms violated, do not be surprised when yours are violated, and do not complain, as supporting the violation of one's freedoms, you morally void yours too! Even if we do not agree with this Islamic Center being built there, we must support the right for it to be built*, if we truly love America and her Freedoms entrusted to us!

*But first, Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church which was destroyed on 9/11 needs to be rebuilt.

Protestant Myths About the Deuterocanonical Old Testament

Most Bibles that are available in North America today are published by Protestants; consequently, the Old Testaments in these Bibles are translations based on the Jewish Masoretic text and omit the Deutero-canonical books which appear in the Septuagint (LXX). The historical reasons for this appear almost accidental, and most English-speaking Christians are unaware of them.

The Protestant Reformers’ emphasis on original languages (coming out of their Renaissance heritage) led most of the Reformers to insist on using the Old Testament canon available to them in Hebrew, which had become standard among the Jews (the Masoretic text). During the late Middle Ages, the Germans and Englishmen who began to translate the Bible into “the language of the people” were ignorant of the importance of the LXX (or in some cases even completely ignorant of its existence). They assumed that the Hebrew Masoretic text used by the European Jews of their day was more authentic than the Latin Vulgate, which in their mind was tainted by its association with the Latin Church based in Rome.

Although modern English translations of the Old Testament take into consideration the LXX and other text traditions, they have continued to rely principally on the Masoretic tradition. This has led to the sometimes embarrassing situation of an English Bible in which the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament are very different from the supposed “original” found in the Old Testament translation included in the same Bible.

For example, the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible has Paul quoting Isaiah as saying, “He who believes in him [Messiah] will not be put to shame” (Romans 9:33). The footnote in the New Oxford Annotated edition of the NRSV refers the reader to Isaiah 28:16, which reads only, “One who trusts will not panic.”

Just as the Protestant acceptance of the Masoretic text of the Old Testament had little to do with theology, the Protestant omission of the Deuterocanonical books from the Old Testament has very little to do with theology, although in the past hundred years or so it has taken on theological significance among many Protestant groups.

Until the mid-nineteenth century, most Protestants accepted the Deuterocanonical books as inspired in at least some limited sense. For example, the original version of the King James Bible, the most popular version of the Bible in English, included most of the Deuterocanonical books. And for many years in England, it was even illegal to publish a Bible without these books.

They continued to be included in almost all Protestant versions of the Bible until the missionary movement of the first part of the nineteenth century. In order to save on shipping costs, missionary Bible societies began publishing partial Bibles (New Testaments, Gospels, etc.). Converts and religious movements that were born out of this missionary movement came to believe that the thirty-nine books in the truncated, missionary-society–produced Old Testaments were the only “true” books of the Old Testament.

Most evangelical Protestants in America are heirs of this missionary movement. Consequently, many Americans who take the Bible seriously hold a grave misunderstanding about the Old Testament. They sincerely but mistakenly believe that the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament are not a part of the Christian Bible. They are ignorant of the fact that most of the Deuterocanonical books are quoted or alluded to as Scripture by the Apostles, the Church Fathers, and even Jesus Christ Himself.

The canon of the Old Testament books, on the other hand, has never been clearly decided or closed by the Church. It is clear from the quotations from the Old Testament by the New Testament writers and other very early Christian witnesses that the preferred and almost exclusive version of the Old Testament for the earliest Christians was the LXX. However, the books cited as Scripture vary widely even among the New Testament writers. For example, St. Jude, the stepbrother of the Lord, in his canonical New Testament letter cites the apocryphal Book of Enoch. Today, the only Christian group to include Enoch in the canon of the Old Testament is the Ethiopian Coptics.

In fact, differences in Old Testament canons exist among most major Christian groups in spite of a common New Testament canon. Most Protestants reject the Deuterocanonical books completely. The Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox lists of accepted Deuterocanonical books differ (the Greek list is longer). There are even slight differences between the Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox versions of the Old Testament. However, these distinctions are irrelevant to most English-speaking Christians, because most Bibles published in English omit the Deutero-canonical books completely.

Why are Protestant Bibles missing these books? Protestants offer various explanations to explain why they reject the deuterocanonical books as Scripture. I call these explanations "myths" because they are either incorrect or simply inadequate reasons for rejecting these books of Scripture. Let's explore the five most common of these myths and see how to respond to them.

Myth 1

The deuterocanonical books are not found in the Hebrew Bible. They were added by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent after Luther rejected it.

The background to this theory goes like this: Jesus and the Apostles, being Jews, used the same Bible Jews use today. However, after they passed from the scene, muddled hierarchs started adding books to the Bible either out of ignorance or because such books helped back up various wacky Catholic traditions that were added to the gospel. In the 16th century, when the Reformation came along, the first Protestants, finally able to read their Bibles without ecclesial propaganda from Rome, noticed that the Jewish and Catholic Old Testaments differed, recognized this medieval addition for what it was and scraped it off the Word of God like so many barnacles off a diamond. Rome, ever ornery, reacted by officially adding the deuterocanonical books at the Council of Trent (1564-1565) and started telling Catholics "they had always been there."

This is a fine theory. The problem is that its basis in history is gossamer thin. As we'll see in a moment, accepting this myth leads to some remarkable dilemmas a little further on.

The problems with this theory are first, it relies on the incorrect notion that the modern Jewish Bible is identical to the Bible used by Jesus and the Apostles. This is false. In fact, the Old Testament was still very much in flux in the time of Christ and there was no fixed canon of Scripture in the apostolic period. Some people will tell you that there must have been since, they say, Jesus held people accountable to obey the Scriptures. But this is also untrue. For in fact, Jesus held people accountable to obey their conscience and therefore, to obey Scripture insofar as they were able to grasp what constituted "Scripture."

Consider the Sadducees. They only regarded the first five books of the Old Testament as inspired and canonical. The rest of the Old Testament was regarded by them in much the same way the deuterocanon is regarded by Protestant Christians today: nice, but not the inspired Word of God. This was precisely why the Sadducees argued with Jesus against the reality of the resurrection in Matthew 22:23-33: they couldn't see it in the five books of Moses and they did not regard the later books of Scripture which spoke of it explicitly (such as Isaiah and 2 Maccabees) to be inspired and canonical. Does Jesus say to them "You do greatly err, not knowing Isaiah and 2 Maccabees"? Does He bind them to acknowledge these books as canonical? No. He doesn't try to drag the Sadducees kicking and screaming into an expanded Old Testament. He simply holds the Sadducees accountable to take seriously the portion of Scripture they do acknowledge: that is, He argues for the resurrection based on the five books of the Law. But of course, this doesn't mean Jesus commits Himself to the Sadducees' whittled-down canon.

When addressing the Pharisees, another Jewish faction of the time, Jesus does the same thing. These Jews seem to have held to a canon resembling the modern Jewish canon, one far larger than that of the Sadducees but not as large as other Jewish collections of Scripture. That's why Christ and the Apostles didn't hesitate to argue with them from the books they acknowledged as Scripture. But as with the Sadducees, this doesn't imply that Christ or the Apostles limited the canon of Scripture only to what the Pharisees acknowledged.

When the Lord and His Apostles addressed Greek-speaking Diaspora Jews, they made use of an even bigger collection of Scripture - the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek - which many Jews (the vast majority, in fact) regarded as inspired Scripture. In fact, we find that the New Testament is filled with references to the Septuagint (and its particular translation of various Old Testament passages) as Scripture. It's a strange irony that one of the favorite passages used in anti-Catholic polemics over the years is Mark 7:6-8. In this passage Christ condemns "teaching as doctrines human traditions." This verse has formed the basis for countless complaints against the Catholic Church for supposedly "adding" to Scripture man-made traditions, such as the "merely human works" of the deuterocanononical books. But few realize that in Mark 7:6-8 the Lord was quoting the version of Isaiah that is found only in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament.

But there's the rub: The Septuagint version of Scripture, from which Christ quoted, includes the Deuterocanonical books, books that were supposedly "added" by Rome in the 16th century. And this is by no means the only citation of the Septuagint in the New Testament. In fact, fully two thirds of the Old Testament passages that are quoted in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. So why aren't the deuterocanonical books in today's Jewish Bible, anyway? Because the Jews who formulated the modern Jewish canon were a) not interested in apostolic teaching and, b) driven by a very different set of concerns from those motivating the apostolic community.

In fact, it wasn't until the very end of the apostolic age that the Jews, seeking a new focal point for their religious practice in the wake of the destruction of the Temple, zeroed in with white hot intensity on Scripture and fixed their canon at the rabbinical gathering, known as the "Council of Javneh" (sometimes called "Jamnia"), about A.D. 90. Prior to this point in time there had never been any formal effort among the Jews to "define the canon" of Scripture. In fact, Scripture nowhere indicates that the Jews even had a conscious idea that the canon should be closed at some point.

The canon arrived at by the rabbis at Javneh was essentially the mid-sized canon of the Palestinian Pharisees, not the shorter one used by the Sadducees, who had been practically annihilated during the Jewish war with Rome. Nor was this new canon consistent with the Greek Septuagint version, which the rabbis regarded rather xenophobically as "too Gentile-tainted." Remember, these Palestinian rabbis were not in much of a mood for multiculturalism after the catastrophe they had suffered at the hands of Rome. Their people had been slaughtered by foreign invaders, the Temple defiled and destroyed, and the Jewish religion in Palestine was in shambles. So for these rabbis, the Greek Septuagint went by the board and the mid-sized Pharisaic canon was adopted. Eventually this version was adopted by the vast majority of Jews - though not all. Even today Ethiopian Jews still use the Septuagint version, not the shorter Palestinian canon settled upon by the rabbis at Javneh. In other words, the Old Testament canon recognized by Ethiopian Jews is identical to the Catholic Old Testament, including the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).

But remember that by the time the Jewish council of Javneh rolled around, the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church had been in existence and using the Septuagint Scriptures in its teaching, preaching, and worship for nearly 60 years, just as the Apostles themselves had done. So the Church hardly felt the obligation to conform to the wishes of the rabbis in excluding the deuterocanonical books any more than they felt obliged to follow the rabbis in rejecting the New Testament writings. The fact is that after the birth of the Church on the day of Pentecost, the rabbis no longer had authority from God to settle such issues. That authority, including the authority to define the canon of Scripture, had been given to Christ's Church.

Thus, Church and synagogue went their separate ways, not in the Middle Ages or the 16th century, but in the 1st century. The Septuagint, complete with the deuterocanononical books, was first embraced, not by the Council of Trent, but by Jesus of Nazareth and his Apostles.

Myth 2

Christ and the Apostles frequently quoted Old Testament Scripture as their authority, but they never quoted from the deuterocanonical books, nor did they even mention them. Clearly, if these books were part of Scripture, the Lord would have cited them.

This myth rests on two fallacies. The first is the "Quotation Equals Canonicity" myth. It assumes that if a book is quoted or alluded to by the Apostles or Christ, it is ipso facto shown to be part of the Old Testament. Conversely, if a given book is not quoted, it must not be canonical.

This argument fails for two reasons. First, numerous non-canonical books are quoted in the New Testament. These include the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses (quoted by St. Jude), the Ascension of Isaiah (alluded to in Hebrews 11:37), and the writings of the pagan poets Epimenides, Aratus, and Menander (quoted by St. Paul in Acts, 1 Corinthians, and Titus). If quotation equals canonicity, then why aren't these writings in the canon of the Old Testament?

Second, if quotation equals canonicity, then there are numerous books of the protocanonical Old Testament which would have to be excluded. This would include the Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations and Nahum. Not one of these Old Testament books is ever quoted or alluded to by Christ or the Apostles in the New Testament.

The other fallacy behind Myth #2 is that, far from being ignored in the New Testament (like Ecclesiastes, Esther, and 1 Chronicles) the deuterocanonical books are indeed quoted and alluded to in the New Testament. For instance, Wisdom 2:12-20, reads in part, "For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him."

This passage was clearly in the minds of the Synoptic Gospel writers in their accounts of the Crucifixion: "He saved others; he cannot save himself. So he is the king of Israel! Let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver him now if he wants him. For he said, I am the Son of God'" (cf. Matthew 27:42-43).

Similarly, St. Paul alludes clearly to Wisdom chapters 12 and 13 in Romans 1:19-25. Hebrews 11:35 refers unmistakably to 2 Maccabees 7. And more than once, Christ Himself drew on the text of Sirach 27:6, which reads: "The fruit of a tree shows the care it has had; so too does a man's speech disclose the bent of his mind." Notice too that the Lord and His Apostles observed the Jewish feast of Hanukkah (cf. John 10:22-36). But the divine establishment of this key feast day is recorded only in the deuterocanonical books of 1 and 2 Maccabees. It is nowhere discussed in any other book of the Old Testament. In light of this, consider the importance of Christ's words on the occasion of this feast: "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came - and the Scripture cannot be broken - what about the One Whom the Father set apart as His very own and sent into the world?" Jesus, standing near the Temple during the feast of Hanukkah, speaks of His being "set apart," just as Judas Maccabeus "set apart" (ie. consecrated) the Temple in 1 Maccabees 4:36-59 and 2 Maccabees 10:1-8. In other words, our Lord made a connection that was unmistakable to His Jewish hearers by treating the Feast of Hanukkah and the account of it in the books of the Maccabees as an image or type of His own consecration by the Father. That is, He treats the Feast of Hanukkah from the so-called "apocryphal" books of 1 and 2 Maccabees exactly as He treats accounts of the manna (John 6:32-33; Exodus 16:4), the Bronze Serpent (John 3:14; Numbers 21:4-9), and Jacob's Ladder (John 1:51; Genesis 28:12) - as inspired, prophetic, scriptural images of Himself. We see this pattern throughout the New Testament. There is no distinction made by Christ or the Apostles between the deuterocanonical books and the rest of the Old Testament.

Myth 3

The deuterocanonical books contain historical, geographical, and moral errors, so they can't be inspired Scripture.

This myth might be raised when it becomes clear that the allegation that the deuterocanonical books were "added" by the Catholic Church is fallacious. This myth is built on another attempt to distinguish between the deuterocanonical books and "true Scripture." Let's examine it.

First, from a certain perspective, there are "errors" in the deuterocanonical books. The book of Judith, for example, gets several points of history and geography wrong. Similarly Judith, that glorious daughter of Israel, lies her head off (well, actually, it's wicked King Holofernes' head that comes off). And the Angel Raphael appears under a false name to Tobit. How can Catholics explain that such "divinely inspired" books would endorse lying and get their facts wrong? The same way we deal with other incidents in Scripture where similar incidents of lying or "errors" happen.

Let's take the problem of alleged "factual errors" first. The Church teaches that to have an authentic understanding of Scripture we must have in mind what the author was actually trying to assert, the way he was trying to assert it, and what is incidental to that assertion.

For example, when Jesus begins the parable of the Prodigal Son saying, "There was once a man with two sons," He is not shown to be a bad historian when it is proven that the man with two sons He describes didn't actually exist. So too, when the prophet Nathan tells King David the story of the "rich man" who stole a "poor man's" ewe lamb and slaughtered it, Nathan is not a liar if he cannot produce the carcass or identify the two men in his story. In strict fact, there was no ewe lamb, no theft, and no rich and poor men. These details were used in a metaphor to rebuke King David for his adultery with Bathsheba. We know what Nathan was trying to say and the way he was trying to say it. Likewise, when the Gospels say the women came to the tomb at sunrise, there is no scientific error here. This is not the assertion of the Ptolemiac theory that the sun revolves around the earth. These and other examples which could be given are not "errors" because they're not truth claims about astronomy or historical events.

Similarly, both Judith and Tobit have a number of historical and geographical errors, not because they're presenting bad history and erroneous geography, but because they're first-rate pious stories that don't pretend to be remotely interested with teaching history or geography, any more than the Resurrection narratives in the Gospels are interested in astronomy. Indeed, the author of Tobit goes out of his way to make clear that his hero is fictional. He makes Tobit the uncle of Ahiqar, a figure in ancient Semitic folklore like "Jack the Giant Killer" or "Aladdin." Just as one wouldn't wave a medieval history textbook around and complain about a tale that begins "once upon a time when King Arthur ruled the land," so Christians are not reading Tobit and Judith to get a history lesson.

Very well then, but what of the moral and theological "errors"? Judith lies. Raphael gives a false name. So they do. In the case of Judith lying to King Holofernes in order to save her people, we must recall that she was acting in light of Jewish understanding as it had developed until that time. This meant that she saw her deception as acceptable, even laudable, because she was eliminating a deadly foe of her people. By deceiving Holofernes as to her intentions and by asking the Lord to bless this tactic, she was not doing something alien to Jewish Scripture or Old Testament morality. Another biblical example of this type of lying is when the Hebrew midwives lied to Pharaoh about the birth of Moses. They lied and were justified in lying because Pharaoh did not have a right to the truth - if they told the truth, he would have killed Moses. If the book of Judith is to be excluded from the canon on this basis, so must Exodus.

With respect to Raphael, it's much more dubious that the author intended, or that his audience understood him to mean, "Angels lie. So should you." On the contrary, Tobit is a classic example of an "entertaining angels unaware" story (cf. Heb. 13:2). We know who Raphael is all along. When Tobit cried out to God for help, God immediately answered him by sending Raphael. But, as is often the case, God's deliverance was not noticed at first. Raphael introduced himself as "Azariah," which means "Yahweh helps," and then rattles off a string of supposed mutual relations, all with names meaning things like "Yahweh is merciful," "Yahweh gives," and "Yahweh hears." By this device, the author is saying (with a nudge and a wink), "Psst, audience. Get it?" And we, of course, do get it, particularly if we're reading the story in the original Hebrew. Indeed, by using the name "Yahweh helps," Raphael isn't so much "lying" about his real name as he is revealing the deepest truth about who God is and why God sent him to Tobit. It's that truth and not any fluff about history or geography or the fun using an alias that the author of Tobit aims to tell.

Myth 4

The deuterocanonical books themselves deny that they are inspired Scripture.

Correction: Two of the deuterocanonical books seem to disclaim inspiration, and even that is a dicey proposition. The two in question are Sirach and 2 Maccabees. Sirach opens with a brief preface by the author's grandson saying, in part, that he is translating grandpa's book, that he thinks the book important and that, "You therefore are now invited to read it in a spirit of attentive good will, with indulgence for any apparent failure on our part, despite earnest efforts, in the interpretation of particular passages." Likewise, the editor of 2 Maccabees opens with comments about how tough it was to compose the book and closes with a sort of shrug saying, "I will bring my own story to an end here too. If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I could do."

That, and that alone, is the basis for the myth that the deuterocanon (all ten books and not just these two) "denies that it is inspired Scripture." Several things can be said in response to this argument.

First, is it reasonable to think that these typically oriental expressions of humility really constitute anything besides a sort of gesture of politeness and the customary downplaying of one's own talents, something common among ancient writers in Middle Eastern cultures? No. For example, one may as well say that St. Paul's declaration of himself as "one born abnormally" or as being the "chief of sinners" (he mentions this in the present, not past tense) necessarily makes his writings worthless.

Second, speaking of St. Paul, we are confronted by even stronger and explicit examples of disclaimers regarding inspired status of his writings, yet no Protestant would feel compelled to exclude these Pauline writings from the New Testament canon. Consider his statement in 1 Corinthians 1:16 that he can't remember whom he baptized. Using the "It oughtta sound more like the Holy Spirit talking" criterion of biblical inspiration Protestants apply to the deuterocanonical books, St. Paul would fail the test here. Given this amazing criterion, are we to believe the Holy Spirit "forgot" whom St. Paul baptized, or did He inspire St. Paul to forget (1 Cor. 1:15)?

1 Corinthians 7:40 provides an ambiguous statement that could, according to the principles of this myth, be understood to mean that St. Paul wasn't sure that his teaching was inspired or not. Elsewhere St. Paul makes it clear that certain teachings he's passing along are "not I, but the Lord" speaking (1 Cor. 7:10), whereas in other cases, "I, not the Lord" am speaking (cf. 1 Cor. 7:12). This is a vastly more direct "disclaimer of inspiration" than the oblique deuterocanonical passages cited above, yet nobody argues that St. Paul's writings should be excluded from Scripture, as some say the whole of the deuterocanon should be excluded from the Old Testament, simply on the strength of these modest passages from Sirach and 2 Maccabees.

Why not? Because in St. Paul's case people recognize that a writer can be writing under inspiration even when he doesn't realize it and doesn't claim it, and that inspiration is not such a flat-footed affair as "direct dictation" by the Holy Spirit to the author. Indeed, we even recognize that the Spirit can inspire the writers to make true statements about themselves, such as when St. Paul tells the Corinthians he couldn't remember whom he had baptized.

To tweak the old proverb, "What's sauce for the apostolic goose is sauce for the deuterocanonical gander." The writers of the deuterocanonical books can tell the truth about themselves - that they think writing is tough, translating is hard, and that they are not sure they've done a terrific job - without such admissions calling into question the inspired status of what they wrote. This myth proves nothing other than the Catholic doctrine that the books of Sacred Scripture really were composed by human beings who remained fully human and free, even as they wrote under the direct inspiration of God.

Myth 5

The early Church Fathers, such as St. Athanasius and St. Jerome (who translated the official Bible of the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church), rejected the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, and the Catholic Church added these books to the canon at the Council of Trent.

First, no Church Father is infallible. Second, our understanding of doctrine develops. This means that doctrines which may not have been clearly defined sometimes get defined. A classic example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity, which wasn't defined until A.D. 325 at the Council of Nicaea, nearly 300 years after Christ's earthly ministry. In the intervening time, we can find a few Fathers writing before Nicaea who, in good faith, expressed theories about the nature of the Godhead that were rendered inadequate after Nicaea's definition. This doesn't make them heretics. It just means that Michael Jordan misses layups once in awhile. Likewise, the canon of Scripture, though it more or less assumed its present shape - which included the deuterocanonical books - by about A.D. 380, nonetheless wasn't dogmatically defined by the Church for another thousand years. In that thousand years, it was quite on the cards for believers to have some flexibility in how they regarded the canon. And this applies to the handful of Church Fathers and theologians who expressed reservations about the deuterocanon. Their private opinions about the deuterocanon were just that: private opinions.

And finally, this myth begins to disintegrate when you point out that the overwhelming majority of Church Fathers and other early Christian writers regarded the deuterocanonical books as having exactly the same inspired, scriptural status as the other Old Testament books. Just a few examples of this acceptance can be found in the Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, the Council of Rome, the Council of Hippo, the Third Council of Carthage, the African Code, the Apostolic Constitutions, and the writings of Pope St. Clement I (Epistle to the Corinthians), St. Polycarp of Smyrna, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Hippolytus, St. Cyprian of Carthage, Pope St. Damasus I, St. Augustine, and Pope St. Innocent I.

But last and most interesting of all in this stellar lineup is a certain Father already mentioned: St. Jerome. In his later years St. Jerome did indeed accept the Deuterocanonical books of the Bible. In fact, he wound up strenuously defending their status as inspired Scripture, writing, "What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn't relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us" (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]). In earlier correspondence with Pope Damasus, Jerome did not call the deuterocanonical books unscriptural, he simply said that Jews he knew did not regard them as canonical. But for himself, he acknowledged the authority of the Church in defining the canon. When Pope Damasus and the Councils of Carthage and Hippo included the deuterocanon in Scripture, that was good enough for St. Jerome. He "followed the judgment of the churches."

Martin Luther, however, did not. And this brings us to the "remarkable dilemmas" I referred to at the start of this article of trusting the Protestant Reformers' private opinions about the deuterocanon. The fact is, if we follow Luther in throwing out the deuterocanonical books despite the overwhelming evidence from history showing that we shouldn't (ie. the unbroken tradition of the Church and the teachings of councils), we get much more than we bargained for.

For Luther also threw out a goodly chunk of the New Testament. Of James, for example, he said, "I do not regard it as the writing of an Apostle," because he believed it "is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works" (Preface to James' Epistle). Likewise, in other writings he underscores this rejection of James from the New Testament, calling it "an epistle full of straw . . . for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it" (Preface to the New Testament).

But the Epistle of James wasn't the only casualty on Luther's hit list. He also axed from the canon Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation, consigning them to a quasi-canonical status. It was only by an accident of history that these books were not expelled by Protestantism from the New Testament as Sirach, Tobit, 1 and 2 Maccabees and the rest were expelled from the Old. In the same way, it is largely the ignorance of this sad history that drives many to reject the deuterocanonical books.

Unless, of course, we reject the myths and come to an awareness of what the canon of Scripture, including the deuterocanonical books, is really based on. The only basis we have for determining the canon of the Scripture is the authority of the Church Christ established, through whom the Scriptures came. As St. Jerome said, it is upon the basis of "the judgment of the churches" and no other that the canon of Scripture is known, since the Scriptures are simply the written portion of the Church's apostolic tradition. And the judgment of the churches is rendered throughout history as it was rendered in Acts 15 by means of a council of bishops in union with St. Peter. The books we have in our Bibles were accepted according to whether they did or did not measure up to standards based entirely on Sacred Tradition and the divinely delegated authority of the Body of Christ in council and in union with Peter.

The fact of the matter is that neither the Council of Trent nor the Council of Florence added a thing to the Old Testament canon. Rather, they simply accepted and formally ratified the ancient practice of the Apostles and early Christians by dogmatically defining a collection of Old Testament Scripture (including the deuterocanon) that had been there since before the time of Christ, used by our Lord and his apostles, inherited and assumed by the Fathers, formulated and reiterated by various councils and popes for centuries and read in the liturgy and prayer for 1500 years.

When certain people decided to snip some of this canon out in order to suit their theological opinions, the Church moved to prevent it by defining that this very same canon was, in fact, the canon of the Church's Old Testament and always had been.

Far from adding the books to the authentic canon of Scripture, the Church simply did its best to keep people from subtracting books that belong there. That's no myth. That's history.