A True Hero in the Midst of Fraud ?
CHRYSOSTOM
Leaders in the Eastern Orthodox Church today like to point to John Chrysostom as proof of its own authenticity.
But isn't it interesting, that although the Eastern Orthodox Church claims a TWO THOUSAND year history (of which the first 325 are fiction), that those leaders always refer back to the career of One Man, [chrysostom] who served in his position as leader within the Eastern Half of the Roman Catholic Church, not for his entire life, but for Less than Ten Years ?
Why isn't his predecessor named ? or his successor ? And who named his successor ?
Chysostom was nominated by Roman Emperors and he was deposed by the Roman Empress. He died in exile, lonely and abandoned.
Now if the Eastern Orthodox Church was deriving its legitimacy from its own church leaders, then we would ask "on what basis did it accept Chrysostom ?" who was - in fact - appointed by the family of the Roman Emperor ?
On the other hand, if Chrysostom was indeed legitimate, then perhaps what made the choice of Chrysostom legitimate to that early Eastern Orthodox Church...was the fact that his appointment was made by the Roman Empire Itself [or its visible head - the emperor & family].
But at this point, we would do well to remember the claims of Rome (and the E.O.C.) itself: That it derived its power not from Political Appointment, but rather from being the successor to the Church as started by the Apostles of Christ.
Did the Apostles & Disciples of Christ - themselves become the Roman Emperors ?
And if they did not, then from where does the legitimacy that Chrysostom presumed to have, actually derived ?
The more one studies the actual historical records, the more one will see that the Claims of legitimacy of the Eastern Orthodox Church do not stand up to close historical scrutiny.
Concerning the authorship of what is today conveniently attributed to Chrysostom and his "liturgy", it is instructive to remember that many pieces of the "Cross of Christ" have been known to abound, since the time of His death and resurrection.
Perhaps you have heard it said that if all of the supposed wood of the Cross on which Christ was crucified - was assembled in one place, that there would be enough wood assembled for a great fire. What this saying means is that each parish or local church often would claim a special relic or a "proof", but there was simply too much wood from that cross around at those parishes, for all of them (if any) to have been authentic.
The same is true of the liturgy of Chrysostom. We are thankfull for any good work that Chrysostom may have done. And for this good work, the Eastern Orthodox Church allowed him to be excommunicated, banished, imprisoned and abandoned.
Then, the Eastern Orthodox Church now would like us to revere a man over whose dethronement the Eastern Orthodox Church played a great part.
Despite all of these things, much of what is attributed to Chrysostom does not date from the 4th century (little of it actually does). And the Eastern Orthodox Church has many works that are posthumously attributed to those who never claimed authorship of certain works - in their own lifetime.
There is an immense difference between what Chrysostom wrote, and what is today attributed to him. The Eastern Orthodox Church cannot substantiate much of its history.
The more one studies it, the more problematic it becomes.
We do receive email, from those who tell us that they have "seen" books about the real or authentic liturgy of Chrysostom, or from others who affirm that those sources do exist. But we have yet to receive any source pointing to actual books, naming the title, the author, the date of publication, and what the book being cited is supposed to demonstrate about Chrysostom and his supposed liturgy.
Again, the claims of authenticity are many, but the proof is lacking.