Asceticism vs. Stoicism

St. Zosimus communes St. Mary of Egypt

Asceticism is defined as "the practice of strict self-denial as a measure of personal and especially spiritual discipline" and "abstinence from sensual pleasures."  Ascetic practices, as found among early Church Fathers like St. Anthony of the Desert, St. Irenaeus, and St. Cyril of Alexandria, spawned monasticism, but also formed, to some degree, the life of every Christian.  The Christian ascetic realizes the things of this world, both physical and spiritual, created by God, are good, but chooses to deny himself.  He detaches himself from the pleasures of this world, so that he can better attach himself to God and His eternal world.  In doing so, he is consoled with a spiritual joy that does not fade, regardless of the ebb and flow of temporal joys and sorrows.  Beware of those who confuse asceticism with stoicism, eastern mysticism, or eccentricity, and try to shame or discourage any strictness in penance and other self-denial.  Here are just a few of many scriptural verses that encourage ascetic practices:

Love not the world, nor the things which are in the world. If any man love the world, the charity of the Father is not in him.  1 John 2:15

I chastise my body and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps when I have preached to others I myself should be castaway. 1 Corinthians 9:27

And God indeed having winked at the times of this ignorance, now declareth unto men, that all should everywhere do penance.  Acts 17:30

No, I say to you; but except you do penance, you shall all likewise perish.  Luke 13:5 

If any man come to Me and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.  Luke 14:26

So likewise every one of you that doth not renounce all that he possesseth, cannot be My disciple.  Luke 14:33

And He said to all: If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me.  Luke 9:23

For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.  Luke 12:34

 

"Catholic" Encyclopedia, "Asceticism":  ...The establishment of religious orders was not the result of any sudden or mandatory legislation by the Church. On the contrary, the germs of religious life were implanted in it by Christ Himself from the very beginning. For in the Gospel we have repeated invitations to follow the evangelical counsels. Hence in the first days of the Church, we find that particular kind of asceticism widely practised which later developed into the form adopted by the Religious Orders. In the "History of the Roman Breviary" by Batiffol (tr. Bayley), 15, we read: "In proportion as the Church in extending itself had grown colder, there had taken place within its bosom a drawing together of those souls which were possessed of the greatest zeal and fervour. These consisted of men and women, alike, living in the world without severing themselves from the ties and obligations of ordinary life, yet binding themselves by private vow or public profession to live in chastity all their life, to fast all the week, to spend their days in prayer. They were called in Syria Monazonites and Parthenae, ascetics and virgins. They formed, as it were, a third order, a confraternity. In the first half of the fourth century, we find these associations of ascetics and virgins established in all the great Churches of the East, at Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, Edessa." Men like St. Athanasius...wrote and legislated for them. They had a special place in the church services and it is noteworthy also that at Antioch "the ascetics there formed the main body of the Nicene or orthodox party". But "dating from the reign of Theodosius and the time when Catholicism became the social religion of the world, comes the movement when a deep cleavage in religious society manifested itself. These ascetics and virgins, who, till now, have mingled with the common body of the faithful, abandon the world and go forth into the wilderness. The Church of the multitude is no longer a sufficiently holy city for these pure ones; they go forth to build in the desert the Jerusalem which they crave." (Cf. Duchesne, Christian Worship.)

...the three vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, which are considered here only in as much as they differentiate a particular kind of asceticism from other forms...are called substantial vows because they are the basis of a permanent and fixed condition or state of life, and affect, modify, determine, and direct the whole attitude of one who is bound by them in his relations to the world and to God. They constitute a mode of existence which has no other purpose than that some of these penitents may have the attainment of the highest spiritual perfection. Being perpetual, they ensure permanence in practice of virtue and prevent it from being intermittent and sporadic; being an absolute, free, (irrevocable), and complete surrender of the most precious possessions of man, their fulfilment creates a spirituality, or a species of asceticism, of the most heroic character. Indeed it is inconceivable what more one can offer to God, or how these virtues of poverty, chastity, and obedience can be exercised in a higher degree. That the observance of these vows is a reproduction of the manner of life of Christ and the Apostles, and has, as a consequence, given countless saints to the Church, is a sufficient answer to the accusation that the obligations they impose are degrading, inhuman, and cruel, a reproach often urged against them.

...the beginning of Christianity, when labour was considered a badge of slavery, the great, the learned, the noble, as well as the humble, the ignorant, and the poor, filled the deserts of Egypt and supported themselves by manual labour, their withdrawal from the world being also a protest against the corruption of paganism. After the destruction of the Roman Empire the Benedictines taught the barbarians agriculture, the arts, letters, architecture, etc., while inculcating the virtues of Christianity...the rules, covering every detail and every moment of their daily lives, called for the practice of all the other virtues.

Not all asceticism is godly, however, as this article explains:

Prof. Igor Jankovic, "Stoicism vs. Asceticism", 2020:  Stoicism is often misinterpreted for the lifestyle of asceticism. In this article, we will pay close attention to the differences between Stoicism and asceticism to disprove this comparison...The word asceticism follows from the Greek word áskesis, meaning “exercise” or “training”. While Stoicism is a [heretical] philosophy in the full meaning of that word, asceticism is more of a lifestyle that is influenced by a certain (mostly religious) worldview. Of course, Stoic philosophy can also provide foundations for a lifestyle, but it is more than that.

Asceticism is a practice that includes abstinence or avoidance of sensual material, i.e. worldly pleasures. The typical ascetic would look down at the body and its needs, while his attention focuses on the purification and perfection of the soul. It is an ascetic opinion that worldly pleasures and needs must be avoided if one wants to remain pure in the eyes of God and consequently reach higher goals, such as transcendence of the soul to the spiritual realm. 

There are many other reasons why one would embrace an ascetic lifestyle in the framework of religious practice. Some believe that the soul can redeem itself when meeting God only if it is pure; others think that sensual material is “evil” by nature, so they refuse to participate in it. Others believe the body is a prison and that we should focus only on the divine part within ourselves.

The Ascetic Lifestyle

With that in mind, we will talk about asceticism in relation to Stoicism. It is important to note that asceticism was practiced by some philosophers; however, this is not enough to say that Stoic philosophy, for example, is ascetic. In other words, asceticism was not a practical principle in Stoic philosophy, nor its guide.  

That being said, there were those among the Stoics who preferred a more rigid lifestyle. The Stoic philosopher Cleanthes (successor to Zeno of Citium) preferred an ascetic lifestyle. However, he was considerably more radical than other Stoics, as he claimed that enjoyment isn’t in accordance with nature (reason) and it should be avoided. In Cleanthes’ opinion, pleasures can lead the mind astray, distancing it from its purpose and leading to further suffering. 

Emotions and Indifference

It is worth noting that Stoics were mostly indifferent, meaning they didn’t embrace negative or positive attitudes towards emotions themselves. Our enjoyment should be the consequence of the activity (for example, feeling content after working out), but it can never be the purpose of our actions (e.g. working out to satisfy our vanity).  

I would like to emphasize that there is a difference between affects and emotions on this matter. Stoics disapproved of affects, which are sudden and turbulent emotions, such as fear, grief, lust, etc. Affects cloud our judgement and mind, and they should be suppressed with training because they are unnatural (not reasonable) and harmful. 

On the other hand, emotions such as cosmopolitan love, love towards life, excitement to be alive, innocent joy, etc. are not disapproved of. For example, we can look at what Marcus Aurelius had to say about life and positive emotions:

“When you arise in the morning, think of what a precious privilege it is to be alive – to breathe, to think, to enjoy, to love.”

Marcus Aurelius 

As we can see, Marcus Aurelius didn’t neglect his life; he was grateful for it (despite being the most pessimistic Stoic philosopher). Pleasures are neither good nor bad, and the same goes for matter and the body. It is the mind that decides, and a well-trained mind would not bother running away from the reality of life. 

To conclude, Stoics love this life we have now, as they regularly emphasize the value of the present moment. They didn’t forsake their current life in order to “deserve” a second one, as ascetics did. Stoics wanted to use this life to the fullest, but in accordance with human nature and reason. If we forsake reason while chasing after pleasures or, coincidentally, by actively avoiding pleasures, then suffering inevitably emerges, and all Stoics wanted is a life free from sorrow and suffering. From this Stoic reasoning on life and our sensual experience of it, it is clear why Stoicism and asceticism are vastly different practices.

In summary, the godless Stoic avoids pleasure and extreme emotion in order to avoid suffering in this life; the gnostic heretic believes the physical world is evil, and therefore shuns physical pleasure; and the eastern pagan mystic tries to elevate himself, through self-denial, beyond the physical, and even beyond the spiritual.  The Christian, however, leads an ascetic life for the love of God, and as penance for his sins.  He believes in the resurrection of his physical body, made clean in the waters of Baptism.  He chooses to give up the good things of this world, in order to attach himself to the greatest Good.

And be not conformed to this world; but be reformed in the newness of your mind, that you may prove what is the good, and the acceptable, and the perfect will of God.  Romans 12:2

 

The Sin of Bathsheba

***This is a Protestant booklet with no mention of the punishment dur to immodesty.  Nevertheless, it is an insightful article from a man's perspective.

The Sin of Bathsheba

An Appeal to Christian Women by a Brother in Christ

Anonymous

This paper is presented to challenge Christian women to consider how they
dress and to advocate modesty in accord with 1 Timothy 2:9-10. The author is
unknown.

Then it happened one evening that David arose from his bed and walked

on the roof of the king’s house. And from the roof he saw a woman bathing,

and the woman was very beautiful to behold.

2 Samuel 11:2

OVER THE CENTURIES, preachers have talked a great deal about the sin of David, but seldom have they mentioned the sin of Bathsheba. It is true that David’s sin was very severe and Bathsheba’s very minor. David’s was deliberate and presumptuous, while Bathsheba’s was only an inadvertent indiscretion. David committed adultery and murder, while Bathsheba only carelessly exposed her body. So we have no doubt that David’s sin was severe and Bathsheba’s minor.

Yet the fact remains that it was Bathsheba’s small sin that instigated David’s great sin. It was her minor act of indiscretion, her thoughtless little exposure of her body, that was the spark that kindled a great devouring flame. “Behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth!” On the one side, only a little carelessness, only a little thoughtless unintentional exposure of herself before the eyes of David. But on the other side, adultery and guilt of conscience; murder and the loss of a husband; the death in battle of other innocent men; great occasion for the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme; the shame of an illegitimate pregnancy and the death of the child; the uprising and death of Absalom; the defiling of David’s wives in the sight of all Israel; the sword never departing from David’s house (2 Samuel 12:11-18). Again I say, “Behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth!”

None of this great evil might ever have taken place had Bathsheba only been more careful not to display her body in the sight of a man. Observe: she neither designed nor foresaw any of this evil. She did not display herself purposely or wantonly: she did it only ignorantly and thoughtlessly. Yet the results of her little sin of ignorance were just the same as if it had been purposeful seduction and immorality.

Now the reason for my writing all of the above is this: there are many Christian women today who are guilty of the same kind of carelessness as Bathsheba. Godly women, who would recoil with horror from the very thought of wantonly displaying their bodies, do nevertheless carelessly and thoughtlessly display themselves habitually by the manner in which they dress. I do not write to accuse them of intentional exhibitionism. I believe they are as innocent of that as Bathsheba. But neither can I altogether excuse them from blame in the matter. The whole world is well aware that certain kinds of feminine dress are provocative and tempting to the eyes and heart of a man. Are Christian women

alone altogether naive and ignorant? This can hardly be; yet I do not write to blame you, but to instruct you—to provoke you to love and good works, to make you thoughtful where you have been thoughtless, to make you careful for the spiritual welfare of the weakest of your brethren where you were careless about it before, to make you wise where before you were simple.

The Difference Between Men and Women

The first thing that must be understood is that nakedness before the eyes of others is wrong. It is wrong in a man, and it is wrong in a woman. When Adam and Eve sinned, “God made coats of skins, and clothed them.” The sole reason for this clothing was to cover their nakedness, as the Genesis account makes plain. Observe, he clothed them with coats. They were already wearing aprons, which

probably covered as much as, or more than, much of the clothing that is worn today. Yet, in spite of their aprons, they were still naked in their own eyes and God’s. And God did not clothe them with shorts, or swimming suits, or tank tops, or halter tops, or anything of the sort—not with jackets, either, but with coats, long coats, or robes as the word might be properly translated. Observe further, he clothed “them” with coats. He did not clothe Eve with a coat, and Adam with a pair of shorts. He clothed them both with coats, whence we may assuredly gather that nakedness is just as wrong in a man as it is in a woman.

But if it is equally wrong for a man to expose his nakedness as it is for a woman, it is not equally dangerous, for the passions of most women are not so easily or thoroughly aroused by the sight of a man’s body, and many women affirm that the sight does not arouse them at all. A man could therefore (though he ought not to) go three-fourths naked and not do so much damage as a woman who goes one tenth naked. For when a woman exposes herself only a little, she becomes a fiery dart to tempt the heart of every man who sees her. Like it or not, this is the plain fact. And because of this fact, you are not at liberty to dress any way you please. “What? Know ye not your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For you are bought with a price:

therefore glorify God in your body...” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20).

But if you dress in such a way as to expose your body, or parts of it, to the lustful gaze of every man who chooses to look at you, you certainly do not glorify God in your body. And if you fear God and love your neighbor, you dare not dress so. You dare not use the temple of the Holy Ghost as an instrument of unrighteousness to allure the eyes and tempt the hearts and tantalize the passions of men, though your heart may burn with desire to be seen as attractive as possible. Just a godly man is expected to subdue the lustful thoughts that continually plague his mind, so must every godly women subdue her natural urge to enhance and accentuate her physical assets. Many men are wicked and will lust after you in spite of anything you do to prevent it. They have “eyes full of adultery and that cannot cease from sin” (2 Peter 2:14). Should you therefore help them to sin? Should you put further temptation in their way? Will God excuse you if you do?

Other men, godly men, are not wicked but only weak. David was not wicked. He was a man after God’s own heart. But in the presence of an unclothed woman, he was weak—and it would be a rare man who is not vulnerable in this area. Your brothers in Christ are not wicked, but they may be weak. And the devil does all that he can to weaken them further. They are forced to live in a world where they are continually bombarded with sights designed by the enemy of their souls to weaken their morals and destroy their purity of heart.

And must Christian women help the devil do his work? Must they make themselves a temptation to their brethren even in the congregation of God? Oh, that you could understand the fierce and bitter conflict in the souls of your brethren when you arouse their desires by the careless display of your feminine beauty. Oh, that you could hear their pleadings with God for deliverance from the power of these temptations. Oh, that you could see their tears of shame and repentance when the temptation has overcome them, and they have sinned with eyes and heart and mind. Never again would you plead for your right to dress as you please.

The fact is, you have no such right. You have no right to destroy by your careless dress the brother for whom Christ died. You are bought with a price and you are not your own. You are duty-bound to glorify God in your body—to clothe that body, not as you will but as God wills. And a little of real love for the souls of your brethren would remove forever from your heart the desire to dress as you please. For “we then that are strong ought to bear with the infirmities [that is, the weaknesses] of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let every one of us please his neighbor for his good to edification. For even Christ pleased not himself, but as it is written, ‘The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell upon me’”

(Romans 15:1-3).

Christ was willing to deny Himself the glories of heaven and bear the reproach of the ungodly for your sake, in order to save your soul. And will you plead for your right to please yourself in your dress? Can you not deny yourself a little of comfort to save another man’s soul? Can you not bear a little reproach for being “old-fashioned” or “out of style” in order to help your brother in his battle against sin?

Am I Making Too Much Of This?

You may think I am making too much of too little. You may suppose the case is not so serious as I have represented it to be. But consider: you are a woman and cannot experience the passions of a man. You have your own passions, but they are not the same as a man’s. They are (generally speaking) not so strong as a man’s. Neither are they so easily excited or inflamed as a man’s. Nor are they excited in the same manner as a man’s. If you would understand the workings of a man’s passions towards a woman, you must take a man’s word for it. You cannot experience it yourself. And the plain fact is, a man’s passions are easily excited by the sight of a woman’s body, as was plainly the case with David when he beheld Bathsheba bathing.

Most men, it is true, will be better able to resist your allurement than David did Bathsheba’s. They will not go so far as to seduce or rape you. But how do you know that they can resist the thought and desire of it? How do you know they do not sin with their eyes and heart and imagination? There is great pleasure to a man in merely looking and lusting, even though he goes no farther. You know very well the Bible says, “Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery already with her in his heart”(Matthew 5:28). And will you say that this is not a serious matter? It is serious, for it is sin, and sin is serious. Sin blights and deforms and ruins and destroys and damns. And if you would know just how serious a matter this is, you need only read the next verse, which says, “If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body be cast into hell.” Here is probably the most solemn statement in the Bible concerning the seriousness of sin, and it is spoken with reference to the very sin which you may so lightly and thoughtlessly occasion by your careless dress. This is not a light matter and you dare not treat it lightly.

At this point, you may say, “Amen, all true. But I do not need to hear it, for I already dress modestly.” Are you quite sure of it? If you follow the practices and fashions of this age, you assuredly do not dress modestly, for modesty is ignored by many of them and purposely thrown to the wind by many others. And it may be that you, being a woman, and not able to see yourself through a man’s eyes, are unable to perceive that which may be tempting and provocative in your own dress. God would have you to be “as wise as serpents and harmless as doves” (Matthew 10:16). But if you unthinkingly dress as the rest of the world does, you are assuredly neither wise nor harmless. Not wise, for however ignorant and innocent you may be, you are following a system of fashion which is designed by wicked men and devils to break down and destroy the morals of men. Not harmless, for however little you may intend it, you thus make yourself a fiery dart in the hands of the wicked one to tempt every man who sees you. You will pardon my plain speaking then if I give you some specific instructions in order to make you wise. That being done, I have confidence that the godliness of your own heart will make you harmless.

As said before, the obvious design of God in making clothes for Adam and Eve was to cover their nakedness, and any clothing which fails to do so cannot be right. Bare backs, bare midriffs, bare legs and thighs, are wrong—wrong in the sight of the same God who clothed Adam and Eve with coats to cover their bare bodies. Shorts, halter tops, swim suits, and anything and everything else which intentionally leaves you partially nude or is so tight that it explicitly reveals your feminine form have no place in the dress of a woman professing godliness.

Whatever the rest of the world may do, you are bound to do right. And whatever the rest of the church may do, you are bound to do right. And the things which I just mentioned are so obvious and so flagrant a violation of the purpose of God in clothing you that there ought not to be a moment’s question as to what is right.

But, alas, the standards of the church are sunk so low in our day that there are actually Christians and preachers who will defend such things. They will actually defend what is called “mixed bathing”—that is, men and women freely mixing together in a state of near nudity. Have they no shame? Have they no sense? I do not believe they will defend such things when they stand before the judgment seat of Christ. If they have no shame now, they will have some then. Meanwhile, we will say no more about forms of dress which so obviously thwart the purpose of God. Let us turn our thoughts to some things which, while less flagrant, nevertheless violate the evident purpose of clothing.

Short Dresses

You need no one to tell you that these are wrong. The whole world knows they are provocative to a man’s eyes. But women who profess godliness, women who ought to know better, will simply follow the current fashions of the world, long or short, without any reference to what is right. Others will quibble about how short is too short. Rather than making very sure their dresses are plenty long, they will make them as short as they dare, while still persuading themselves they are long enough. You may stand at attention in front of your mirror and persuade yourself that your too-short dress reveals nothing, but only let you sit down, only let you bend over, only let you get in or out of a car, and what a spectacle of nudity you present. And whether you design it or not, and whether you like it or not, those nude legs and thighs of yours are a provocation to lust in the eyes of men.

For the same reason you ought to have nothing to do with those skirts which are slit half-way up the sides. Who cannot see the design of such a fashion is to expose your thighs to view? Or is it to enable you to walk? So much the worse it is. If your skirt is so tight, that you cannot walk without cutting the sides, by all means throw it away, and get something with a little more material. We shall have more to say about tight clothing later on.

Do you ask how long your dresses ought to be? See that your legs are well covered below the knee, front and back, while you are bending over and sitting down, and you will be safe enough.

But be careful here: it is not enough that your legs should be covered only from the vantage point of your own eyeballs. When you bend over or sit down, the front of your dress will be naturally hang lower so as to cover more of your legs, but the back will be drawn up so as to cover less. Very often I have seen women sit down and carefully arrange the front of their skirt so as to cover the topside of their thighs from their own view, while leaving the sides and undersides of their thighs completely exposed to the view of anyone sitting across from them. And this will be unavoidable if your dresses are so short that they only cover you down to the knees while you are standing erect. If you would be safe, your dresses should cover you well below the knee in all postures.

A helpful guideline is this: If you find yourself making any effort at all, no matter how slight, to persuade yourself that what you propose to wear is okay, then more than likely it is not.

Tight Clothing

Clothing which explicitly reveals your form is as bad as that which reveals your nakedness. The whole world knows that such dress is provocative—notoriously and proverbially so —and when a man sees a woman dressed in tight clothing that reveals and displays every curve of her form, his passions will certainly be excited by the sight—perhaps not so quickly or strongly as they would be by the sight of your naked form, but excited nonetheless. The world calls tight clothing “revealing,” which is exactly what it is. And as such it is an obvious violation of the purpose of God in clothing you. Every woman who professes godliness, therefore, ought to refuse every form of dress which reveals and displays her

figure, no matter how tempting it may be to be thought of as attractive.

Specifically, you should avoid sweaters, sweat shirts, tee shirts, and anythingmade of knit, stretchy, or soft, clinging material, unless perhaps the fit is very loose. Woven material, with some stiffness and body to it, will conceal your form much better. There is no sight on earth which will surely attract a man’s eyes and so quickly inflame his passions as the sight of a woman’s breasts—whether they are actually exposed or their form displayed by tight or clinging clothing. This is a fact which the world knows very well. Twenty-five years ago the world was singing a popular song about the pleasure of seeing a woman in a sweater and a tight skirt, and the natures of men have not changed in the past twenty-five years.

When a man looks at you he should see your clothing, not the shape and form of everything inside it. Sweaters, tees shirts, and knit blouses in their very nature cling to your body and reveal and display the shape and form of it. And you must take a man’s word for it that the shape and form of a woman’s body, even though it is covered with clothing, will draw his eyes, inflame his passions, or arouse his imagination, just about as quickly and surely as the sight of her actual skin. I do not say it is impossible for a woman to wear a sweater or knit shirt which is not too revealing. What I do say is that the sweaters and knit tops which American women usually wear are almost always too tight. They might do better if they would wear their sweaters several sizes larger than they usually do. If you recoil at this thought, then you must examine your heart. Why is it so important to you to display your body? Why do you seek to attract the eyes of every man?

I cannot emphasize this too much or insist upon it too strongly. A woman must understand, must take a man’s word for it, that the sight of her bust may take away a man’s heart in a moment. If she would please her God and help her brother in this fight against sin, she must dress in such a way as to hide and

conceal the form of her breasts. She must therefore wear loose-fitting blouses of woven (not stretchy or knit) material. If she wishes to wear a sweater for warmth, she can easily wear a loose-fitting one. True, this may not be as fashionable, but no matter about that. I am writing for godly women who would rather please God than the world.

Understand also that you will accomplish little by exchanging tight sweaters for tight blouses. A blouse of woven material in its very nature will conceal your form better than a sweater, but it may still be provocative enough if it is too tight. Your blouse should never be stretched tight across your bosom, but should have enough slack in the fit that when a man looks at you he sees the blouse and not the form of what is inside of it.

For this reason you should also learn to avoid provocative positions and postures. By this I mean any position which makes your bust prominent or stretches your clothing tight over it, such as standing with your hands on your hips and your elbows thrown back, or yawning and stretching with your back arched. You should likewise refuse dresses or shirts with what is called and “empress waistline.” This is designed to gird the garment around your body immediately below the bust instead of at the waist. The unavoidable effect of this is to prominently display your bust. Again I tell you, I am a man and know very well what it is to be tempted by such sights—and it may take only a moment’s involuntary sight to turn a man’s heart into the wrong channels.

Low Necklines

Again, the whole world knows very well that these are a great temptation to the eyes of a man. And if you are a godly woman, no doubt you would never dream of purposely wearing a neckline too low. But you may be doing it nevertheless, through thoughtlessness or ignorance. It is not only low necklines which offend, but also large or loose ones. You stand erect in front of your mirror wearing a large or loose neckline, and think it perfectly modest. But only bend over a little, so that the material of your blouse falls away from your body, and immediately the most provocative and tempting part of your anatomy is exposed to the view of any man who happens to be standing in front of you.

The same is true, of course, when you dress with the top two or three of your buttons of your blouse unbuttoned. This looks provocative, even if nothing were actually exposed by it. This looks seductive. It looks to a man as though you must design to expose yourself and tantalize his passions. What else can he think? For what other purpose could you leave two or three buttons of your blouse unbuttoned? Do you say it is for comfort? Because you cannot bear a tight, choking collar? I believe you could learn to bear it, as the men of the world do in order to display their stylish neckties. But waive that. It may be legitimate to leave your blouse open at the neck for comfort’s sake, and it may even be modest (depending upon the garment), provided you unbutton one button only. There can be no possible reason or excuse for leaving two or three buttons open. It will not add to your comfort. It is simply following a wicked fashion of a wicked world. Your collar will no more choke you with one button open than it will with three.

One button open will always be a great plenty for comfort’s sake, and with some blouses it will be too much. If you can leave your top button open, yet not expose your breasts when you bend over and the material of your blouse falls away from your bosom, very well. This may depend upon the nature of the blouse, as well as the size of your bust. But if there is any danger of exposing yourself, you had better button all your buttons. You might set the top button down an inch or so, and make another buttonhole for it, and thus provide for both comfort and modesty. You can scarcely be too careful here, for there is no part of a woman’s body so alluring to a man as her breasts, and when a man sees a woman with the top two or three of her buttons open, he will probably conclude it is her intention to tempt and tantalize men. Is this the impression you wish to give? If not, button your buttons, snap your snaps, and zip your zippers.

And if you happen to bend over a little in front of a man, and he sees your breasts actually exposed because of your large, loose, low, or open necklines, unless he is a very rare man, he will be tantalized by the sight, whatever you may think or intend. Therefore you cannot do as the rest of the world does. Let your neckline be high enough and small enough to in fact be a neckline, and not a chest or shoulder line, and you will be safe. Note well: this means if the neck hole of your garment is large enough to slip over your head, it is probably too large. Your necklines should be of the sort that you can close up with buttons or snaps after you put the garment on.

Sleeveless Blouses and Cap Sleeves

Sleeveless blouses always reveal too much. Little as you may be able to understand it, your underarms and the parts of your chest or back which immediately adjoin them are very attractive to a man; and a sleeveless blouse cannot help but display these parts. You must also bear in mind that others will see you at all angles and in all positions, and the armholes of a sleeveless blouse will often allow a man to see inside of the blouse, especially when your arms are uplifted or outstretched, thus displaying part of your chest, and probably some of your breast. The same is true of a short-sleeved blouse which has very large or loose sleeves. This may be perfectly modest as long as you keep your elbows at your sides, but as soon as you raise your arms, you create an portal through which a man may see inside your blouse, and this is a great snare to his heart. The same effect may be rendered by a cap sleeve which is so short that it barely qualifies to be called a sleeve. Remember, you are a woman and cannot see yourself as a man sees you. I am a man, and I know what it is to be tempted by such sights. And if only the weakest of your brethren might be tempted by your sleeveless or loose sleeve blouses, ought you not deny yourself a little of comfort or of fashion and conceal your body a little better for his good?

Sheer Clothing

It ought to be unnecessary to say anything about clothing which is so light or sheer that a man may see through it. The obvious and undeniable purpose of such clothing is to thwart the purpose of clothing and expose your body rather than cover it. This you cannot help but realize. Everyone else knows it also, and when a man sees you thus attired, what can he think but that is your intention to display

your body in his sight? And yet, the standards in many churches today are so low that it is not uncommon to see Christian women wearing see-through clothing. If you have been guilty of this, your first business is to repent, to reject anything which is obviously and purposely sheer. You ought to be careful also not to wear any material which is so light or so thin that it may be seen through when you are in direct light, such as in front of a window. Finally, reject any material of a very coarse weave: wear clothing, not netting.

Slacks

Here we have come to a bone of contention which divides churches, families, and friends. The background is this: historically in our culture, the men have worn pants and the women dresses. This is an undisputed fact, which is embodied in the proverbial expression that a wife who runs the house “wears the pants in the family.” The Women’s Liberation Movement, which is more than a century old,

has sought to put the pants on all the women, figuratively speaking. It has sought to “liberate” the woman from her God-appointed place of subjection to the man and to give her “equal rights” to do whatever the man may do. The spirit of this movement has also put upon the woman’s body the man’s clothing—namely slacks. And the church has followed the world in so doing.

Many of the older and stricter men of God, less influenced by the world, take a strong stand against women wearing pants. Slacks, they say, are men’s clothing, and (on the basis of Deuteronomy 22:5) it is an abomination for a woman to wear them. The younger set, most of whom have grown up wearing slacks themselves and who probably know nothing of the historical background of the question, can

see no point in the stand which their elders take and so regard it as narrowminded and petty. “The slacks I wear,” they say, “were made for women and are not men’s clothing”.

On the one side it may be urged that God made neither slacks for Adam nor a dress for Eve, but coats for both of them. Yet Deuteronomy 22:5 certainly assumes that the same clothing is not to be worn by both men and women, and it is also certain that historically in our country the slacks have been the men’s clothing. Or it may be urged that the culture has changed, so that slacks are now acceptable clothing for women also. Yet when we consider the sinister forces which have wrought this change, we may plead that the change is in no way recognized by God but is an abomination to Him. I say no more than this, for it is outside the purpose of this article to settle this controversy. I do not ask here, is it wrong in the eyes of God to wear slacks? I ask, what effect are her slacks likely to have on the eyes of men?

And first, in their very nature, slacks are apt to reveal and display your form. Women contend for modest slacks, but who wears them? In the very nature of the case it is difficult to make a pair of slacks that are truly modest (especially for a woman who has a full figure). And as a matter of fact, it is an extremely rare thing to see a woman in slacks which are not too tight. Why is this? Why may men wear slacks which fit loosely, while the slacks of women must cling to every inch of their thighs, hips, and buttocks? Verily it is because the prince of this world who inspires these styles knows his business all too well. He knows that it is a snare to a man’s heart to have displayed before his eyes the form of a

woman’s body. Sisters, your so-called “private parts” ought to by all means keep be carefully concealed at all times, and there is nothing that will do this so well as a dress. A loose-fitting skirt or dress, provided it is not too short, is also the best possible clothing with which to conceal all of the tempting parts of the anatomy which reside between your waist and your knees.

But some women suppose that because their slacks are not skin-tight they are therefore modest. Well now, suppose that your slacks are loose enough that they leave a little space between the material and your skin. Even then, they display the basic form of your legs and thighs and buttocks. This is the nature of the garment and can hardly be avoided. And further, as soon as you bend over or sit or squat, those “modest” slacks of yours will be stretched just as tight over parts of your body as the skin-tight slacks which other women wear. So you had best leave slacks alone.

Though you may not be able to understand it (for the sight of a man will probably not affect you in the same way), it is the sight of the form which will arouse a man’s passions. What a man’s touch is to a woman, the sight of a woman is to a man. This is plain enough in the Bible account of David and Bathsheba, and every honest man will tell you the same thing. You must believe it on the word of a man, though you may not be able to understand it. The sight of the form of your thighs and buttocks and crotch will tempt the heart of a man, and it is the nature of slacks to display the form of those parts.

Answering Objections

Enough for specific instructions. Let us now answer some common objections. First: “What right has this fellow to prescribe all of these legalistic rules for women?” I answer, if we lived without sin in the garden of Eden, you could dress any way that you please, or not at all for that matter. And you would hurt no one by so doing. But in this world you cannot. And if you do, you will only be contributing to the swelling of the tide of sin. I write for godly women who want to do what is right but are not likely to know how without instruction from a man. I seek only to give you some instruction, which only a man can give, concerning the effects your dress will have on the men who see you. And I suppose that truly godly women will be happy to receive such instruction. It is usually the worldly who are not willing to do right at any cost, who raise the cry of “legalism.”

“But this is a small matter, unworthy of so much ado. We ought to be occupied with the weightier matters of the heart and not make such a fuss over these little outward things.” This may be an outward thing, but it is not a little one. Can you read Matthew 5:28-29 and yet contend that this is a small matter? But suppose it is a small matter: can you therefore lightly pass over it or ignore it? Not so, for

“he that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much, and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much” (Luke 16:10). The Lord did not rebuke the Jews because they gave careful attention to the small matters; it was because they did so to the neglect of the weightier matters. “These [the weightier matters] ye ought to have done, and not to leave the other [the small matters] undone”

(Luke 11:42).

“But any man who views women this way must be perverted.” Yes, be it known to you that men are perverted. All men. We are sinners. Our pristine purity is lost, and our hearts are natural and strongly inclined to sin, especially the sin of lust. Sin easily besets us (Hebrews 12:1). But understand, though all men are perverted from their original purity, and though the passions of all men (except those who are perverted in a worse way) are alike in this matter, I would not want to leave you with the impression that the practices of all men are alike, or with feelings of uneasiness in the presence of men. If you but dress right and act right and associate with the right kinds of men in the right kinds of situations, there will be little occasion for you to be uneasy or uncomfortable.

But there will be plenty of occasion for you to be careful, even in the presence of the best men. Why? Because even though the godly “have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts” and have renounced the unlawful indulgence of those desires, the natural desires of the flesh nevertheless remain (Galatians 5:24). It is in the godly that “the flesh lusteth against the Spirit” (Galatians 5:17). Men may strive hard to mortify these passions, but it is a matter of plain historical fact, attested also by universal experience, that the most sincere and diligent endeavors to mortify them do not eliminate them; they only subjugate them.

Even the finest of men are likely to be overcome by these passions if they are not careful. Remember, it was a man after God’s own heart who was overcome by the allurements of Bathsheba. And since these passions are not to be eliminated by mortification, God himself prescribes a more effectual method, which is satisfaction. As Paul counseled, “It is better to marry than to burn”(1 Corinthians 7:9), and, “To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband” (v.2). He further advised to those who are married that they should freely and frequently indulge in the satisfaction of those passions, “that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency” (v. 5). “Incontinency” is lack of self-control. In plain English, Paul is speaking of the lack of ability to control the human passions.

Writing by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, Paul assumed that even the godly are likely to be “incontinent” when it comes to the matter of sexual desire. And history and experience unite to prove that many of the godliest of men—including men who are godly and married—have a very hard struggle against the unlawful indulgence of those passions, in both look or in thought. Why is this? I believe it is most often to be accounted for in the fact that their passions have never been laid to rest by the satisfaction which marriage is designed to give them. Their own marriage, for whatever reason, is not what a marriage is designed to be. Mere physical gratification can never satisfy the heart of a man (any more than it can the heart of a woman).

Proverbs 5:19 says, ”Let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou always ravished with her love.” There are two kinds of satisfaction spoken of here, theone “by her breasts” and the other “by her love.” The former is obviously physical, the latter is, for lack of a better term, emotional. The first engages the body; the second engages the soul. Every normal man’s sexual desire embraces both of these things. (And so also, by the way, do every normal woman’s.) The physical desires may often predominate in men, while the emotional may predominate in women; but neither man nor woman can be satisfied without the fulfillment of both. No man’s passions are ever satisfied and laid to rest until he possesses both of these things together in the same woman.

You know very well that the most ravishing love on earth will never satisfy a man until he actually possesses the object of his affections in physical lovemaking. But it is equally true that physical gratification alone, without a deep and delightful romantic love, will never satisfy a man either. He must have both together. If he lacks one or the other (or both), he will find his passions still persistently longing for fulfillment, in spite of all his endeavors to subdue them. And those desires are easily excited by the sight of the feminine form.

The battle is a difficult one. A man who is very strong spiritually but lacks the fulfillment of those desires may in fact fare worse in the struggle than a much weaker man who has found the fulfillment which every man craves. Throughout the Old Testament histories David is held up as a standard of godliness by which all of his successors are judged. But the fact that he took many wives is a pretty sure indicator that he never found that complete satisfaction in one, which every man craves and which is the strength of every man who possesses it. Therefore, his desires still burned, and David was weak.

For a man to be fully satisfied and his passions fixed upon a single object (and so be laid to rest), he must be “ravished always with love” (Proverbs 5:19). And yet if you go through life with your eyes open, you must be well aware that this ravishing love is the very thing which is missing in many marriages, among both the ungodly and the godly. Some have been led into marriage without ever

possessing that kind of love in the first place. Others had it when they were married, but due to various causes have lost it. Now whether you wish to pity such persons or blame them (or both), the fact remains that there are many marriages which fall short of providing that ravishing romantic fulfillment which will satisfy a man’s passions and lay them to rest. And it is another fact that a man who finds himself in such a position, however he may have gotten there, will have a very bitter struggle to try to subdue those passions, which are still longing for fulfillment but cannot obtain it.

To return to the original question: whether men are perverted or not is really beside the point. How far his desires are normal and right, or how far they are the result of his sinfulness, may be difficult to determine. But what difference does it make? You must deal with the facts as they are, not as you wish they were. The real facts are: many men do not possess the ravishing romantic fulfillment which they cannot help but crave, and they are therefore weak, and easily tempted by the sight of the feminine form.

Suppose that some men were so strong, or so fully satisfied in their own marriage, that you could not tempt them even if you would, what then? The fact remains that many men are weak and unsatisfied and burning. With the strong you need not concern yourself, but you are bound by duty (as you ought to be moved by love) to “bear the weaknesses of the weak”—yes, even of the weakest—and not to put a stumbling block in their way (Romans 15:1; 14:13).

“But if a man looks on me to lust, that is his sin, not mine.” Nay, for “you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food [or physical appearance] the one for whom Christ died...It is good neither to...do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak” (Romans 14:15,21 NKJV). David was made weak, David was made to stumble, by Bathsheba’s careless exposure of her body. And your displays of your feminine beauty will have the same effect upon your brethren.

After reading this article you can hardly plead that you do not know this, and “to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin” (James 4:17). If you were completely ignorant of the effects your dress might have upon a man, you might dress as you please without sin, but not otherwise. Every man is fully responsible for his own sin, but you will certainly be held in some sense responsible for another man’s sin if you provoke him to it. To Ezekiel God warned, “When I say unto the wicked , O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand” (Ezekiel 33:8). The wicked is fully responsible for his own sin and shall surely die for it. But the watchman is held accountable also, merely because he failed to do what he could have done to turn the other man from sin. How much more will you be held accountable if you put stumbling blocks in another man’s way and  actually provoke him to sin?

“But if I were to follow all of these instructions, I would have to buy a whole new wardrobe, and I cannot afford that.” My sister, you can not afford to sin. If you are a real Christian, you came to Christ resolving to forsake every sin and do the whole will of God at any cost. If you have a will to do right, you will find a way. Certainly God is able to provide for those who wish to please Him. Sister, you can

afford to change the way you dress, but you cannot afford to sin or to provoke others to sin.

“But I am not attractive or shapely. No man is likely to be tempted by the sight of me. Therefore I may dress however I please.” In the first place, you are no proper judge of what is attractive to a man. It is of course true that a shapely and beautiful woman is more likely to be a temptation to a man, but it is also true that a woman who is not attractive to one man will be to another. But just suppose that you are actually so misshapen that no man would ever look twice at you. What about your example to other women? What about your example to babes in Christ, who have dressed improperly throughout all their ungodly life and who may now be looking to you to teach them and lead them in the right way? Do you

want them to look at you, and excuse their own improper dress on the basis of your example?

Finally, some women are so naive, so ignorant of the nature of men, that they suppose that because no men are actually making advances or propositions to them, they must be no temptation to any man. Let them understand that a man derives great pleasure from merely looking at women, especially from looking at very attractive women. Why do you suppose that men spend millions of dollars a year for pornographic pictures? Let the pictures be left out of the pornographic magazines and see how many copies they would sell! What pleasure is it that men continually purchase at so great an expense? What pleasure can pictures afford them, except the pleasure of looking? It is looking at a woman’s body which inflames a man’s passions and incites his imagination, and there is great pleasure in that looking.

Most worldly men freely indulge in that pleasure with little or no restraint. They feast their eyes upon the feminine form wherever they may find it, and this of course will include your form if you dress so as to expose and display it. A godly man will recognize that pleasure as sinful except when it is confined to his own wife, and he will fight hard to resist the temptation and conquer the sin. But because of the extreme strength and intensity of male passions, he will find this to be a very difficult battle indeed. The spirit is willing, but in the face of strong temptations, the flesh is weak. To will is present with him, but sometimes how to perform he finds not. In spite of all his determination and praying and striving, he may find his eyes seemingly involuntarily drawn to the sight of a beautiful and

shapely woman. And one moment’s involuntary sight may be enough to take the heart away.

A man who has gained some mastery over this kind of temptation may easily resist the initial onslaught, but constant exposure to such allurements may weaken and break down even the strongest. Therefore, we are told to “flee youthful lusts”(2 Timothy 2:22). In other words, to flee from the very presence of such temptations. But whither shall we flee in this wicked world? Must we flee from the very congregation of God in order to keep our hearts pure? Shame! Shame! If we cannot find a safe asylum there, then where?

To conclude, there is nothing at all evil or wrong about your physical beauty. It is the creation of God. And like all that God has created, it is “very good.” It was designed by God for a specific purpose: The Bible says the woman was made “for the man”(1 Corinthians 11:9). The perfectly obvious design of your beauty is to ravish and satisfy the heart of a man—but only one man, not every man. If God has joined you to that one man, then by all means give that beauty to him with all your heart and say to him, “Make haste my beloved, and be thou like to a roe or to a young hart upon the mountains of spices” (Song of Solomon 8:14). Let him be, as God commands him, satisfied with you at all times and always ravished with your love (Proverbs 5:19). Thus satisfied, he will be less susceptible to the beauty and charms of other women. And thus used, the beauty of your body will glorify the God who gave it to you and serve the man for who it was given. But if you put it on display and prostitute it to the gaze of the whole world, you only glorify yourself, serve the devil, and further perpetuate the sin of Bathsheba.

Postscript

If you are as most woman are, much of the material in this article may be new and strange to you. You may not be able to understand it and may be disinclined to believe it. Some of the women who have read this manuscript can scarcely be persuaded to believe that the male passions are as I have represented them, but the men to whom I have submitted it have fully endorsed it. One of them (a godly man and a preacher) said, “I wish I had about 2 million copies!” I beg you therefore to believe these things, though you may not be able to fully understand them. I also beg you not to be content with a single reading of this paper, but rather to study it thoroughly several times through so that you may more fully grasp and remember all that it says. Then, by all means, act upon what it teaches you. And do everything in your power to teach these principles to your sisters in Christ. In so doing you will very much bless the Kingdom of God.

                                                                                                

Richard Ibranyi - Gate Keeper Extraordinaire

This article was written by an anonymous Roman Catholic in February, 2010.  Even by Roman Catholic standards, one must avoid the schismatic group called Mary's Little Remnant:

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Ephesians: Do not err, my brethren. (James 1:16) Those that corrupt families shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) If, then, those who do this as respects the flesh have suffered death, how much more shall this be the case with any one who corrupts by wicked doctrine the faith of God, for which Jesus Christ was crucified! Such an one becoming defiled [in this way], shall go away into everlasting fire, and so shall every one that hearkens unto him.

St. Ignatius, pray for us!

Richard Ibranyi of 'Mary's Little Remnant' (MLR) in Truth or Consequences, New Mexico, claims to be the "prophet Elias" one of the witnesses of the Apocalypse. He has a compound called "Mary's Little Remnant" in Truth or Consequences, New Mexico, where he invites people to come and live who wish to profess the Catholic Faith and live a life of holiness.

Richard Ibranyi, "On RJMI": "The same applies to the mission God has given me as one of the witnesses mentioned in the Book of the Apocalypse, Chapter 11. My mission is to expose and attack the Antichrist and his minions and his evil kingdom and to convert good-willed men, many of whom will be Jews, by turning their hearts to the one and only true God, the Catholic God, and to usher in the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Therefore, I am not Elias but am filled with the spirit of Elias!"

The problem is that he is not Catholic and never has been, nor does he even closely resemble one whose spirit is of God. This article outlines very briefly that his true nature is that of a schismatic and false prophet.

Richard Ibranyi says that it is not enough for a person to believe everything he believes, but that you have to be in contact and communion with HIM specifically and his group, or you are not Catholic. In other words, he refuses communion with you even if you believe all that he believes (which ironically includes his heresy) but you just don't feel the need to have anything to do with him or his group.

Here it is, stated in many different ways, and from his own mouth:

Here Richard states that the ONLY place where the Catholic Church exists now is his own little flock in New Mexico:

'Catholic' New Mexico

http://www.archive.org/download/RichardIbranyi/RichardIbranyi-catholicNewMexico.mp3

He explicitly calls people to get up and move to his location:

"You need us, we don't need you"!

http://www.archive.org/download/RichardIbranyi/RichardIbranyi-YouNeedUsWeDontNeedYou.mp3

And if they don't, he considers them to be schismatic, even if they believe his heretical version of the Catholic Faith. Listen to him in this next clip and note the irony that he talks about trumping up heresies (despite that he is himself heretical) and it's VERY interesting indeed to hear one of the young men in his audience tell him that his cross is flipped over. Was he wearing an upside down cross!? [It was flipped backwards, which is only seen in the video. T. D.]

Schism

http://www.archive.org/download/RichardIbranyi/RichardIbranyi-Schism.mp3

At one point a group of people had left his camp, after writing a letter to all the members who remained there. In the letter accused Richard of moral contradictions and transgressions, although they never accused him of heresy or of schism. In other words, they felt that he was a sinful, dishonest and hypocritical man and that they could not be subject to him anymore as a result. However, Richard accused them of schism, and refused to acknowledge them as Catholics as a result.

Of course none of these people were Catholic while subject to Richard. But if he had been a Catholic at that time, the actions of those who wrote the letter would not have been schismatic. If anyone would have lost their Catholicity and communion with the Holy Mother Church in that event, it would have been Richard for wrongly pronouncing them schismatic, as well as those who remained subject to him, for being subject to the 'authority' of a schismatic superior. That's right, he considers himself to be a religious superior with authority:

Moses' Authority (!?!?!)

http://www.archive.org/download/RichardIbranyi/RichardIbranyi-MosesAuthority.mp3

And how about a perfect example, straight out of the DESERT of New Mexico, of fulfillment of the prophetic warning given by Christ so many centuries ago.

St. Matthew 24:24-26:  For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Behold I have told it to you, beforehand. If therefore they shall say to you: Behold he is in the desert, go ye not out: Behold he is in the closets, believe it not.

"I'm like Christ" (!!!!!!!)

http://www.archive.org/download/RichardIbranyi/RichardIbranyi-CultLeader.mp3

He really seems to believe this, because he has taken it upon himself to grant 'absolution' to people when they confess to him, despite that he is not ordained:  [Even "blessing" people after they confess their public sins is a schismatic act forbidden by the Church, when one has no ecclesiastical authority. T. D.]

'Absolving'

http://www.archive.org/download/RichardIbranyi/RichardIbranyi-absolving.mp3

Richard Ibranyi is more concerned about being called a fast talker, or "having the gift of gab" than he is about being called a heretic. Probably because he is a heretic. And wouldn't one think it a far worse charge to be called a heretic than anything else?

"Call me a heretic, but don't say I have the gift of gab!"

http://www.archive.org/download/RichardIbranyi/RichardIbranyi-CallMeAHereticButDontSatIHaveTheGiftOfGab.mp3

Finally, since it is now clear that Ibranyi is inventing his own depraved religion, it is therefore also clear that his god is a false god (i.e. devil), and not the one true and Triune God of the Holy Catholic Church. Bear this in mind while he we turn it over to him and let him finish this article off in his own words:

"Possessed"

http://www.archive.org/download/RichardIbranyi/RichardIbranyi-Possessed.mp3 

  

Psalms 95:5: For all the gods of the Gentiles [or heretics and schismatics]  
are devils: but the Lord made the heavens.

Mary's Little Remnant - Heresies

INTRODUCTION

Mary's Little Remnant (MLR), with its leader Richard Ibranyi, is correct in believing Rome's moral decay of the second millennium was the result of its apostasy from God.  Obviously, Rome did fall away.  But this group's main error is in presuming the entire Church fell away, instead of humbly accepting that the four eastern Patriarchates had remained faithful. As a consequence, MLR holds on to Rome's heretical ecclesiology and theology, adding its own into the mix. 

This group of twenty or so people believes it is the reestablished remnant of the Roman Catholic church, after it lacked members for a thousand years.  (This is heretical, since Jesus promised He would not abandon His Apostles, the Bishops.)  MLR feels called by God to be weapons of divine vengeance against unrepentant sinners, now and during the time of Antichrist, and Ibranyi himself believes he is one of the Two Witnesses (even though the early Church Fathers teach that the Two Witnesses spoken of in the Apocalypse will be Enoch and Elias themselves.)  But Jesus said that He came to save the world, not judge it (until the Last Judgment):

John 12:47  And if any man hear My words, and keep them not, I do not judge him: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

MLR's violent ideology is anything but Christian.  It is more like Islam and Judaism, both of which seek an earthly kingdom, through open and hidden means, respectively.  

MLR perpetuates the lie that Roman Catholicism is true, but even by Roman Catholic standards the group is schismatic and heretical.  According to Roman Catholicism, only true Popes, elected by bishops, are heads of the Church, yet MLR's leader, Richard Ibranyi, has appointed himself Head, and claims that anyone who knowingly rejects his authority is heading for hell!  Therefore, according to Rome, this group is schismatic, not Roman Catholic.  See this article, written by a Roman Catholic friend who saw the truth back in 2010:

"Richard Ibranyi - Gate Keeper Extraordinaire"

https://thecatholiccottage.blogspot.com/2022/09/richard-ibranyi-gate-keeper.html

In my opinion, the devil is using MLR to keep people under his influence.  Its cult-like nature is most evident whenever anyone disagrees with the group's leader, or leaves. They are publicly derided; their personal life is exposed and mocked; and these former friends become fiends.  This happened to me to some degree, even though I only spoke to the group for about a week.  A whole video was put out against me because I outed the group as schismatic and cultish.  The stupid video is just a smoke-screen to hide its own schism and heresy.  To get a better picture of the true nature of MLR, a former five year member now exposes the group:  

The Lost Sheep of Jesus

https://www.youtube.com/@LostSheepofJesus

The contents below show how MLR is heretical on many points.  Those who realize Rome fell away from the faith a thousand years ago need to humble themselves, admit they've been deceived, and join the faithful Bishops who have retained Apostolic Succession!  The ancient Orthodox Bishops were Catholics, and they realized Rome had apostatized in the 11th century; it didn't take them a thousand years to figure it out!  

See:

"Who Invented the Roman Catholic Church?", NFTU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbXwo0gYwaQ&list=PL7g13PP_xaL7svkyJteyH9dsfjpj2apmg

CONTENTS

MLR'S HERETICAL ECCLESIOLOGY

1. That Christ has abandoned His Church in 1130 AD, as a punishment for its sinfulness, just as in the Old Testament 

2. That the Church survives on earth without a hierarchy, and without any members 

3. That Ibranyi is the Head of the Church 

4. That Apostolic Succession exists outside the Church, in lines of valid but "illicit" Orthodox bishops; therefore, "the papacy" can be restored through the conversion of such a bishop.

5. That infallibility is a unique charism of the Pope; therefore, scriptures and Councils are true only because they have been ratified by the him.  

6. That an appeal to "epikeia" (violating the letter of the law in order to keep the spirit of the law) gives Ibranyi the authority to redefine the Church's dogmas, needlessly change her disciplines, and bind people's consciences in these matters.  

7. That souls are members of the Church through Invincible Ignorance

8. That many early Saints and Doctors of the Church were actually heretics and apostates

9. That the New Testament Church is called to be physically militant 

10. That Papism is Christ's plan for His Church 

11. That Ibranyi is one of the apocalyptic Two Witnesses   

MLR'S HERETICAL THEOLOGY 

12. Papism 

13. Development of Dogma

14. A New Creed

15. Absolute Diving Simplicity

16. Denial of Nature/Will/Operation (Essence-Energies) Distinction

17. Filioque

18. That God has Passions

19. That God has Parts 

20. Nestorian Sacred Heart Devotion

21. That Christ is NOT Fully Present in the Eucharist.

22. That Christ Offered Unleavened Bread 

23. Created Grace and Denial of Theosis 

24. Those against Original sin 

25. Purgatorial Fire

26. Immaculate Conception 

27. Against Baptism 

28. Condemned Disciplines

29.  Judaizing Commemoration of Old Testament Feasts

30. Judaizing Bible Revision

MLR'S HERETICAL ECCLESIOLOGY

1. That Christ has abandoned His Church as a punishment for its sinfulness, just as in the Old Testament 

To justify Rome’s thousand year sede vacante situation (which the Orthodox recognized in 1054), MLR has invented a theory, based on God's punishments in the Old Testament.  It thinks the true faith and hierarchy were lost since 1130 AD, as a just punishment for man's sinfulness. Why 1130 AD?  Ibranyi writes:

Non-Catholics Cannot Hold Offices in the Catholic Church, Ibranyi, 2022, pp. 77-78: All the so-called popes from Innocent II in 1130 onward were apostate antipopes.  There have been no popes or cardinals since 1130 AD. 

Apostate Antipope Innocent II (1130-1143) "His apostasy for Hellenizing Christianity": Apostate Antipope Innocent II visited and blessed places in France that were desecrated with images against the faith and morals:

How France Built Her Cathedrals, by Elizabeth Boyle O’Reilly: “Autun’s chief church, one of the few cathedrals in France which is Romanesque, was begun in 1120 and consecrated in 1132 by Innocent II. In that same year he blessed Cluny’s nave and Vezelay’s narthex.”

In 1125 in his Apologia to Abbot William of Thierry, the apostate Bernard of Clairvaux testifies that the cloister of Cluny Abbey was desecrated with images against the faith and morals:

Apostate Bernard of Clairvaux, 1125: “…What excuse can there be for these ridiculous monstrosities in the cloisters where the monks do their reading, extraordinary things at once beautiful and ugly? Here we find…fearful centaurs, harpies, …Here is one head with many bodies, there is one body with many heads. Over there is a beast with a serpent for its tail, a fish with an animal’s head, and a creature that is horse in front and goat behind, and a second beast with horns and the rear of a horse…”

Hence when Innocent II visited and consecrated Cluny in 1132, it was desecrated with images against the faith and morals. And Sainte-Madeleine Abbey Basilica at Vézelay was likewise desecrated in 1130; therefore when Innocent II visited it and blessed its narthex in 1132, it was already desecrated. Innocent II lived and traveled extensively in France when he was an apostate antipope and in exile from Rome, and thus he had first-hand access to many of the other desecrated places in France.

But Ibranyi's position is inconsistent, since an earlier "Pope" sinned in the same way by consecrating the desecrated cathedral of Sant'Evasio in Casale Monferrato, in the Piedmont region of Italy, in 1108.  This church was also embellished in the Romanesque style, with gryphons, centaurs and other mythical monsters.  The acceptance of sinful desecrations is not so much the cause of apostasy, but a sign that Rome had already apostatized from the faith.  See:

"Pascal II's Apostasy"

https://thecatholiccottage.blogspot.com/2024/04/pascal-iis-apostasy.html

I sent this information to MLR in 2022, but got no response.  My opinion is that, since Pascal II was so supportive of the First Crusade, as well as the continuance of the Gregorian Reforms (heresies), Ibranyi is willing to dismiss Sant' Evasio's desecration as unproven.  But there is no reason to think the architectural designs were added later.  In most cases, Ibranyi considers men guilty unless shown otherwise, but the militant Crusades and the heretical Papism of the Gregorian "Reforms" of the late 11th century are integral to MLR's claims.

MLR mistakenly thinks that, in preparation for Jesus' return, He is reestablishing His member-less Church through the insight of Ibranyi.  But the good news is that Jesus' promise to be with us all days is true.  He has not abandoned His Apostles or their successors for a thousand years.

Matthew 28:20  ...and behold I am with you [Apostles] all days, even to the consummation of the world.

MLR's theory is heretical because it's contrary to Jesus Christ's promise to remain with His Apostles until the end of the world, as stated above.  Though Cardinal Manning was a Latin heretic, an Anglican who became a Papist, he rightly points out that, if true, such and office as the papacy must be perpetual, regardless of man's sinfulness: 

"Cardinal" Edward Manning, The temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost, 1865:   Ch. 2  Once infallible, always infallible: in the first, in the fifth, in the fifteenth, in the nineteenth century: the Divine Teacher always present...and the organ of His voice always the same....To affirm that it has been suspended because of the sins of men, denies the perpetuity of the office of the Holy Ghost, and even of His presence; for to suppose Him present but dormant, is open to the reproach of Elias; to suppose His office to be suspended, is to conceive of the Divine Teacher after the manner of men. 

There has, indeed, been a thousand year Roman apostasy.  That the doctrine of the papacy is false has never been more evident than today, with the apostates in Rome.   

2. That the Church survives on earth without a hierarchy, and without any members  

Though it is true that "the Church" is always present in heaven, believing the earthly Church has essentially died out on earth, for any amount of time, is heretical because it's contrary to the nature and purpose of the Church.  It's contrary to the words of the Savior who said:

Matt. 16:18  And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it.

It's contrary to the Fathers who teach the Church will never be overcome by the gates of hades, not for a thousand years, or even for one day:

St. Ambrose, Commentary on St. Luke:  “The Kingdom of the Church will abide unto the ages”.

St. John of Damascus, Oration on the Transfiguration of the  Lord:  “We firmly believe that the Church will never fall, will never waiver and will not be destroyed.  For this is what Christ taught, by Whom the heavens were established and the earth was founded, and stands firmly as the Holy Spirit says”. (Ps. 32:6) 

St. Bede, Sermon I-20:  "The gates of Hades are depraved teachings, which by seducing the imprudent, draw them down there.  The gates of Hades are also the torments and blandishments of persecutors, which, either by frightening or cajoling any of the weak away from the stability of the faith, open to them the entrance of everlasting death.  But also the wrong-headed works of the unfaithful, or  their silly conversations, are surely the gates of Hades, inasmuch as they show their followers the path of perdition. Many are the gates of Hades, but none of them prevails over the Church that has been founded upon the Rock." 

The Fathers also teach us that "the Rock" in Matthew 16:18 is not so much the person of St. Peter, but his confession of the true faith:

St. Ambrose, Theological and Dogmatic Works, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord, IV, 32-34: ...when [St. Peter] heard, ‘But who do you say I am,’ immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank. This, then, is Peter, who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men. And so he is called the foundation, because he knows how to preserve not only his own but the common foundation.  …Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter’s flesh, but of his faith, that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ But his confession of faith conquered hell... 

St. Augustine, Sermon 229: ...Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer.  

St. Augustine, Sermon 26:  ...For men who wished to be built upon men, said, ‘I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,’ who is Peter. But others who did not wish to build upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, ‘But I am of Christ.’ And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, ‘Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?’ And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter. This same Peter therefore who had been by the Rock pronounced ‘blessed,’ bearing the figure of the Church.

St. John Chrysostom, Homily 54:  'Upon this rock I will build'; that is, on the faith of the confession.  

St. Hilary of Poitiers. On the Trinity, Book VI
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/330206.htm
36. A belief that the Son of God is Son in name only and not in nature, is not the faith of the Gospels and of the Apostles.  ...What then is this truth, which the Father now reveals to Peter, which receives the praise of a blessed confession? It cannot have been that the names of 'Father' and 'Son' were novel to him; he had heard them often. Yet he speaks words which the tongue of man had never framed before:  You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. For though Christ, while dwelling in the body, had avowed Himself to be the Son of God, yet now for the first time the Apostle's faith had recognized in Him the presence of the Divine nature.  Peter is praised not merely for his tribute of adoration, but for his recognition of the mysterious truth; for confessing not Christ only, but Christ the Son of God.  ...And so his words 'You are' declare that what is asserted of Him is strictly and exactly true to His nature. ...And this is the rock of confession whereon the Church is built...

St. John of Damascus, Homily on the Transfiguration:  This is that firm and immovable faith upon which, as upon the rock whose surname you bear, the Church is founded. Against this the gates of hell, the mouths of heretics, the machines of demons—for they will attack—will not prevail. They will take up arms but they will not conquer.  ...This rock was Christ, the incarnate Word of God, the Lord, for Paul clearly teaches us: ‘The rock was Christ’ (1 Cor. 10:4).

The Roman Catholic error that the Bishop of Rome is given a unique gift of indefectibility is not the teaching of the Church.  The Fathers teach that when Jesus said to St. Peter, "I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not (Luke 22:32), He was referring to St. Peter's future repentance.  

The four Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem, with all their representative Bishops did not change the Faith, Rome did.

But Roman Catholicism must have the person of St. Peter as its rock, for the counterfeit religion is based on the heresy of Papism (papal supremacy, infallibility, and indefectibility).   The fact that there has been a counterfeit Roman church for a thousand years (and that several earlier popes also became heretics) should make it obvious that Jesus Christ never promised indefectibility to Rome's bishops!   Yet, in order to hold on to its heretical Roman Catholic ecclesiology, MLR tries to justify Rome's thousand year apostasy with the invention of a fictitious, member-less church.

But such a vacancy is not a problem for the true Church, since it realizes that, though St. Peter was pre-eminent among his fellow Apostles, the fulness of Faith was delivered in its entirety to all the Apostles, and is confirmed by the Holy Spirit through the unity of Councils.  

Moreover, all Roman theologians and apologists are forced to admit that "the fulness of papal prerogatives" (infallibility and supremacy) was not implemented in the first thousand years of Church history!  They maintain that such powers were not needed, even in the face of all the major heresies of the first millennium!  But the reality is, those prerogatives didn't exist.  They were promoted through forged documents, such as the Pseudo-Clementine writings, the Pseudo-Gelasian Decretals, the Symmachian Forgeries and the Donation of Constantine, in order to gain political power.  See:

"Fall of the Roman See"

https://thecatholiccottage.blogspot.com/2024/08/you-cant-presume-anything.html

"Pseudo-Clementine Writings" https://thecatholiccottage.blogspot.com/2024/10/pseudo-clementine-writings.html

3. That Ibranyi is the Head of the Church 

MLR bases its ecclesiology on the heretical "Gregorian Reforms":

"RJMI’s Position as Sole Ruler of the Catholic Church", Ibranyi:  "A non-pope can be the sole ruler of the Catholic Church, such as when the Holy See is vacant (when there is no pope). In this case, according to the current law in force from Pope Gregory VII in 1073, the Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church rules the Catholic Church until the next pope is elected."

First of all, the monk Hildebrand, who became Gregory VIIth, made a vow to the Emperor to never have anything to do with the Roman hierarchy.  He made this vow because, while representing Pope Leo IX in Constantinople, the emperor caught him lying.  The future Gregory VII is implicated in the Great East-West Schism!  Not only did he violate his vow by colluding with Jewish Bankers in order to bribe and blackmail the next popes, Hildebrand considered his vow to have ended with the death of the Emperor.  As Gregory VIIth, he was accused of having his four predecessors poisoned, and he was deposed as a mad man, heretic and murderer by the Synod at Brixen.  The Synod then elected Wibert of Ravenna as Clement III, who in turn opposed the next three Antipopes.  Perhaps with Clement III, Rome would have returned to union with the east, but men were too proud, evil and underhanded in those days. Gregory implemented his heretical "Reforms" by military force, including the Norman expulsion of all non-compliant English Bishops (except one) and priests, along with the razing of their churches.  But MLR has no problem with any of this.  It longs for the resurgence of Gregory VIIth despotism.

"Synod of Brixen, 1080"

https://thecatholiccottage.blogspot.com/2024/08/synod-of-brixen-1080.html

"What more is there to say? Not only Rome, indeed, but the whole Roman world bears witness that he [Gregory VII] was not chosen by God but that he forced his way most impudently by violence, fraud and bribery...Therefore we, congregated together, as has been said, by God's authority, trusting in the legates and letters of the 19 bishops who were assembled at Mainz on the holy day of last Pentecost, do decree against this same most brazen Hildebrand [Gregory VII],—who preaches sacrilege and arson, who defends perjury and homicide, who questions the catholic and apostolic faith concerning the body and blood of our Lord...a manifest believer in dreams and divinations, a necromancer, dealing in the spirit of prophecy and therefore a wanderer from the true faith—that, he shall be canonically deposed and expelled and, unless on hearing this he descend from that seat, forever damned."

Secondly, in Roman Catholicism, a Camerlengo, whose main job is to see to the election of the next Pope, has limited power; he is a member of the College of Cardinals, and almost always a Bishop, and he is not considered infallible.  Ibranyi's self-appointed rule cannot be compared to a Camerlengo!  Yet Ibranyi insists that his concocted member-less church, which has survived on earth without any true members for a thousand years, must nevertheless now have a leader, a visible Head.  Ibranyi tries to convince others that God has appointed him "Head of the Catholic Church", and that anyone who does not submit to his self-appointed authority is going to hell.  (If that's not cult-like, I don't know what is.)  But if Christ was really restoring the heretical Roman church's hierarchy, after such a long time, He would have first restored such a foundation as the papacy.  Yet, MLR condemns men for believing the heretical Roman Catholic dogma that only the Pope is a true, visible head of the church (that he alone has the charism of infallibility, and jurisdictional supremacy)!  

All of this is nonsense, however, for the true teaching is that Jesus Christ is the only Head of His Body, the Church:

Eph. 4:11-16  And He gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors,  for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:  Until we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ;  That henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive.  But doing the truth in charity, we may in all things grow up in Him who is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body, being compacted and fitly joined together, by what every joint supplieth, according to the operation in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body, unto the edifying of itself in charity. 

Douay-Rheims footnote:  [11] "Gave some apostles": Here it is plainly expressed, that Christ has left in his church a perpetual succession of orthodox pastors and teachers, to preserve the faithful in unity and truth.

The Church has always been guided by His faithful, apostolic Orthodox Bishops.  Therefore, there is not need for a Pope, and certainly anyone like Ibranyi.  See:

"Eastern Response to Pius IX"

https://thecatholiccottage.blogspot.com/2024/09/eastern-response-to-pius-ix.html

The holy Popes themselves show us that only Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church (there are not "invisible and visible heads"); and that papal supremacy, infallibility and indefectibility are later heresies of counterfeit Rome:

Pope St. Gregory the Great, Epistle to St. John the Faster, Bp. of Constantinople:  Peter the first of the Apostles, was a member of the holy and universal Church.  Paul, Andrew, John–were they not the chiefs of certain nations?  Yet, all are members under only one Head.  In a word, the saints before the law, the saints under the law, and the saints under grace–do they not all constitute the body of the Lord?  Are they not members of the Church?” 

Pope St. Leo the Great, Sermon 82. On the Feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul 
https://archive.org/details/post-nicene-vol-12/page/n515/mode/2up?view=theater
Ch. VII. No distinction must be drawn between the merits of the two:  ...of these two Father's excellence we must rightly make our boast in louder joy, for God's Grace has raised them to so high a place among the members of the Church, that He has set them like the twin light of the eyes in the body, whose Head is Christ. About their merits and virtues, which pass all power of speech, we must not make distinctions, because they were equal in their election, alike in their toils, undivided in their death. 

St. John Chrysostom:  Christ did certainly divide His army in two parts, and entrusted the Jews to Peter and the Gentiles to Paul. The divisions of the army are indeed several, but the General is one.  

See:

"Where Peter is, There is the Church."
https://thecatholiccottage.blogspot.com/2024/08/where-peter-is-there-is-church.html

Pope St. Gregory the Great Refuses the Title "Universal"
https://thecatholiccottage.blogspot.com/2023/10/pope-st-gregory-great-refutes-papal.html

4. That lines of valid bishops exist outside the Church; therefore, "the papacy", and Apostolic Succession, can be restored through the conversion of a heretical bishop

Ibranyi thinks he will be the next appointed Pope, after the hierarchy is restored to Roman Catholicism in such a fashion. But heretics are not part of the true Church.  Apostolicity is one of the four marks by which the true Church can be known, and by definition, Apostolic Succession is continual.  Only those bishops who have kept the faith of the Apostles are apostolic; they are inside the Church; bishops or priests who become heretics can no longer impart grace to anyone, making their subsequent ordinations and consecrations invalid. It's impossible for Rome to claim continual Apostolic Succession after a thousand year usurpation;  a "Catholic" bishop would have to convert to the true, Orthodox faith; he would have to repent to a faithful apostolic Orthodox Bishop/Synod, to receive a blessing and true ordination, in order to lay claim to apostolic succession.  

5. That infallibility is a unique charism of the Pope; therefore, scriptures and Councils are true only because they have been ratified by the him.  

This heresy is shown to be false by the fact that Ecumenical Councils exist, because such a foundational belief  of "the papacy" is not in the Creed, and because the early Church Fathers, and Popes themselves, taught otherwise:

"The Authority of Councils - Letter of Pope Coelestine to the Synod of Ephesus, 431"
https://thecatholiccottage.blogspot.com/2024/07/the-authority-of-councils.html

Decretal Letter of Pope Vigilius (in confirmation of the previously held Fifth Ecumenical Council):  No one is ignorant of the scandals which the enemy of the human race has stirred up in all the world: so that he made each one with a wicked object in view, striving in some way to fulfil his wish to destroy the Church of God spread over the whole world, not only in his own name but even in ours and in those of others to compose diverse things as well in words as in writing; in so much that he attempted to divide us...
Therefore we anathematize and condemn the aforesaid impious Three Chapters, to-wit, the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia and his impious writings...And further we annul and evacuate by this present written definition of ours whatever has been said by me (a me) or by others in defense of the aforesaid Three Chapters.

[Vigilius refused to attend the Council, and his name was removed from the dyptichs for heresy; he later admitted he taught heresy and repented; obviously, he did not think he had the gift of infallibility.]

6. That an appeal to "epikeia" gives Ibranyi the authority to redefine the Church's dogmas, needlessly change her disciplines, and bind people's consciences in these matters. 

 
"Epikeia", or violating the letter of the law in order to keep the spirit of the law, can only be applied to disciplinary canons by legitimate Church authority.  What is meant by “Head of the Church” is dogmatic in nature, and no one can appeal to epikeia to change dogma.  Even if Roman Catholicism was true, Ibranyi would be heretical and schismatic in this regard,  since  accordingly, only a valid Pope can be Head of the Church, for he alone is its infallible guide.  But neither Ibranyi nor any Pope is Head of the Church, Jesus Christ is.  Either way, Ibranyi is a heretic for declaring himself Head of the church.

 

MLR has created a "church" calendar, which abandons the Paschalion established by the First Ecumenical Council, adds heretical "saints" and "feasts", and even tries to reestablish some Old Testament feasts, (more on that later) which is forbidden by the Church!  Ibranyi has even taken it upon himself to publish his own (heretical and erroneous) version of the scriptures (see detail below).  

Ibranyi has also violated epikeia by brazenly fabricating heresies that the true Church has never held.  Fixated on pointing out everyone's sins, as well as telling them they're going to hell, and should be tortured, this Great Accuser has invented the heresies of "non-judgmentalism" and "non-punishmentalism". (By turning adjectives back into nouns, then negating them, MLR even enjoys torturing the English language.)  According to him, anyone who fails to "sufficiently" condemn others as sinners, and punish them, is himself a heretic heading for hell.  And Ibranyi spares not his own followers; he has them pointing fingers, whirling around in a dark maelstrom of condemnation.  Within the Church, however, judging and punishing sinners is the province of priests and bishops, not laymen who haven't received the supernatural grace of the priesthood.  Orthodox priests are focused on healing people from sin, not constantly wagging their fingers at them, and the true Church has never been negligent in its duty.  Yes, the world is sinful because it has turned its back on God.  We should speak out and warn others.  But to everything there is a season.  If a group is fixated on accusations and condemnations, that's a huge sing that it is not at all Christian.

Gal. 5:22-23  ...the fruit of the Spirit is, charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, longanimity, mildness, faith, modesty, continency, chastity.

Phil. 4:7-8  And the peace of God, which surpasseth all understanding, keep your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus. For the rest, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever modest, whatsoever just, whatsoever holy, whatsoever lovely, whatsoever of good fame, if there be any virtue, if any praise of discipline, think on these things.  

7. That Souls are Members of the Church through Invincible Ignorance

No one is a member of the Church through invincible ignorance, for there is no sacramental grace apart from Christ’s Body, the Church.  MLR agrees that Rome became apostate, and imposed heresies on the entire western church.  Yet, the group believes "Roman Catholic Baptisms" can bring one into the true Church, if its recipients are in invincible ignorance!  This is heretical nonsense.  Add to this that the Roman church officially changed its form of baptism from immersion to pouring at the false Council of Ravenna in 1311. The canons say that, except for emergency situations, if a baptism is done without triple-immersion, it even lacks the proper form. 

["baptizo":  (Greek) to immerse; to make a thing dipped or dyed; from the primary verb “bapto” which means to overwhelm, to cover wholly with a fluid]

Apostolic Canon 50: If any Bishop or Presbyter does not perform three immersions...let him be deposed. 

MLR actually holds three heresies in this matter:  that souls can be united to the Church through invincible ignorance, that pouring is a valid form of Baptism, and that those outside the Church can validly baptize (they can bestow a proper form, but never grace).  Such canonical changes were never approved by a Council, or even a pope, the group recognizes. Rather, they are condemned. 

Synod of Jerusalem, 1672, Decree XVI:  ...Now the matter of Baptism is pure water, and no other liquid.  And it is performed by the Priest only, or in a case of unavoidable necessity, by another man, provided he be Orthodox, and have the intention proper to Divine Baptism.  

(See Part II, #17 Against Baptism, below.)

8. That many early Saints and Doctors of the Church were actually heretics and apostates

MLR clings to the same 2nd millennium heresies of the Roman church it condemns, anathematizing any Saints, Doctors, ancient writings or practices that do not fit with MLR's views. Ibranyi condemns early Saints according to his own theories on the use of philosophy and asceticism, if their writings contain error, and if he cannot find evidence that they repented of later condemned heresies. But Saint's writings were commonly falsified by Arians, Nestorians and other heretics in an attempt to make it appear that great Saints and Doctors taught their own heresies.  Also, their writings contain errors, since they were not infallible.  What MLR fails to recognize is that the Church did not condemn those theologians who repented of any heresies or errors they may have held.  So, even  without having access to ancient writings, we can be confident that those men held as Doctors and Saints by the Church, truly are so.  Condemning men like St. Basil the Great, and St. Jerome, places MLR in opposition to true Church authority. MLR admits that neither Ibranyi nor any group member can read much Latin or Greek, yet MLR thinks it knows early writings better than the very ancient Popes it claims to accept.   Moreover, those glorified by the Church as great ascetic Saints, such as St. Theodore the Studite, for example, are condemned by MLR for being stoics!  See:

"Asceticism vs. Stoicism"

https://thecatholiccottage.blogspot.com/search?q=asceticism

Of the eight ancient Doctors of the Church, MLR condemns six as heretics!  It condemns St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Gregory Nazianzus, though their theology is pivotal to the Ecumenical Councils.   The group also condemns St. John Chrysostom, St. Jerome, St. Maximus the Confessor, and St. John of Damascus.  It never occurs to MLR that it, not the Church, might be in error!  By condemning St. John Chrysostom for having the opinion that the Blessed Virgin had a minor fault, it tacitly condemn St. Cyril of Alexandria, as well, for he had the same opinion. Yet St. Cyril's writings were held as the standard of the faith at the Fourth Ecumenical Council against Nestorius.   See:

"Saint John Chrysostom Vindicated"

https://thecatholiccottage.blogspot.com/2025/03/saint-john-chrysostom-vindicated.html

MLR condemns these Saints because it presumes later Roman theology is true, though it is not.  If MLR really followed through on its false theories, it would not be able to claim any Ecumenical Councils as infallible.  Ironically, it would be forced to concede that Popes were fallible, as well, since they, as primary Bishops, confirmed these Councils.  In short, Roman Catholicism condemns itself.  MLR sees that the ancient teachings contradict later Roman theology, yet is blind to the fact that it is Roman Catholicism itself that departed from the ancient Faith!

9. That the New Testament Church is called to be physically militant

Ibranyi claims Catholic men and women must be willing to "kill for Christ", just as they did in the Old Testament; he teaches that the soldier is superior to the monk.   MLR fails to see that Old Testament battles are types for New Testament warfare, which is spiritual and superior to the old. 

2 Cor. 10:3-4 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty to God unto the pulling down of fortifications, destroying counsels.

Ibranyi also bases his militancy on a New Testament parable, which is taken out of context:

Luke 19:27 But as for those my enemies, who would not have me reign over them, bring them hither, and kill them before me.

These are the words of a king in the parable.  But the context and beginning of this parable of the talents, however, is given shortly before:

Luke 19:10-11 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost. As they were hearing these things, He added and spoke a parable, because He was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately be manifested.

In essence, Christ is teaching about the Last Judgement.  He's admonishing the Jews who were looking for a Christ who would be their secular leader.  Christ teaches:

Luke 17: 20-21  And being asked by the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come? He answered them, and said: The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:  Neither shall they say: Behold here, or behold there.  For lo, the kingdom of God is within you.

Though we should not be pacifists, and secular kingdoms and armies have a legitimate role, ideally as guardians of the Church, Christ is not advocating, in the Luke 19 parable, that we form a militant Islamic-style church-state, converting men by the sword.  Christ's Second Coming will bring the Last Judgment.  Until then, the Church proclaims the mercy and deliverance of His First Coming:

John 12:47  And if any man hear My words, and keep them not, I do not judge him: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 

Luke 4:18-19  The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me. Wherefore He hath anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor, He hath sent Me to heal the contrite of heart, to preach deliverance to the captives, and sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of reward.

1 Cor. 4:4-5   ... judge not before the time; until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts...

2 Cor. 6:2  For He saith: In an accepted time have I heard thee; and in the day of salvation have I helped thee. Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation.  

John 18:36  Jesus answered: My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would certainly strive that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now my kingdom is not from hence.

Matthew 26:52  Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

See:

"On the Sunday of the Dread Judgment",  St. Philaret of New York https://trueorthodox.eu/sermon-of-st-philaret-of-new-york-on-the-sunday-of-the-dread-judgement/

The 1st Ecumenical Council punishes those who join the military, not to defend their country, but to become mercenary soldiers: 

1st Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, 325, Canon XII  As many as were called by grace, and displayed the first zeal, having cast aside their military girdles, but afterwards returned, like dogs, to their own vomit, (so that some spent money and by means of gifts regained their military stations); let these, after they have passed the space of three years as hearers, be for ten years prostrators. But in all these cases it is necessary to examine well into their purpose and what their repentance appears to be like. For as many as give evidence of their conversions by deeds, and not pretense, with fear, and tears, and perseverance, and good works, when they have fulfilled their appointed time as hearers, may properly communicate in prayers...

Orthodox clergy (representing the peace of the heavenly kingdom, which is present on earth within Christ's Church) are forbidden to own firearms, or even to use deadly violence in case of self-defense.  St. Gregory of Nyssa says,  "should a priest ‘fall into the defilement of murder even involuntarily (i.e., in self-defense), he will be deprived of the grace of the priesthood, which he will have profaned by this sacrilegious crime.”  (Canon V).

Apostolic Canon 65  If any clergyman shall strike anyone in a contest, and kill him with one blow, let him be deposed for his violence. If a layman do so, let him be excommunicated.

[***All 85 Apostolic Canons were universally accepted by the 7th Ecumenical Council.]

Though MLR condemns the counterfeit Roman Church after 1130, the group thoroughly embraces its uncanonical, immoral murder of all those who disagree with them.  Going well beyond the defense of persecuted Christians, counterfeit Rome decreed: 

Innocent III, 4th Lateran Council, 1215, Canon 3: ...Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath. But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled by Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith... Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land.... 

Innocent IV, Ad Extirpanda, 1252:  The...ruler...is hereby ordered to force all captured heretics to confess and accuse their accomplices by torture..., just as thieves and robbers are forced to accuse their accomplices, and to confess their crimes; for heretics are true thieves, murderers of souls, and robbers of the sacraments of God.”

Roman Catholics cannot see that they are the heretics and apostates; they are the murderers of souls!  Even so, when did the ancient Church's Emperors start murdering heretics?  It certainly would have made things easier.  They didn't because the Church never advocated for this.  It's a sin!

Nicholas V, Dum Diversas, 1454:  We grant to you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as other kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property... and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery.  

I am certainly not arguing for pacifism, nor am I against a just application of the death penalty.  Men and nations have the right and obligation to protect and defend themselves. The Orthodox pray for their nation's soldiers at every Divine Liturgy.  But Christ came meek and humble, and as we have read, the Church's role is not to be militant.  Ibranyi, however, encourages his cohorts to be ready for the "slicing and dicing" of all the sinners and heretics (anyone who thinks differently from him).  But even the Two Witnesses, one of whom Ibranyi thinks he may be, are called to act in a defensive manner:

Apoc. 11:5  And if any man will hurt them [Enoch and Elias], fire shall come out of their mouths, and shall devour their enemies. And if any man will hurt them, in this manner must he be slain.

Ironically, MLR is acting like the very Jews and Pagans who rejected Christ!

John 16:2-3 ...the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you, will think that he doth a service to God.  And these things will they do to you; because they have not known the Father, nor Me.

Rom. 8:36   As it is written: For thy sake we are put to death all the day long. We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. 

10. That Caesaro-Papism is Christ's plan for His Church 

The blending of spiritual and secular power is condemned by Christ and His Church:  

Matt. 20:25-28  But Jesus called them to him, and said: You know that the princes of the Gentiles lord it over them; and they that are the greater, exercise power upon them. It shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be the greater among you, let him be your minister And he that will be first among you, shall be your servant.  Even as the Son of man is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many.

I Cor. 5:12-13 For what have I to do to judge them that are without? Do not you judge them that are within?  For them that are without, God will judge. Put away the evil one from among yourselves.

Apostolic Canon 6:  A Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon must not undertake worldly cares. If he does, let him be deposed from office.

Apostolic Canon 81  We have said that a bishop or presbyter must not give himself to the management of public affairs, but devote himself to ecclesiastical business. Let him then be persuaded to do so, or let him be deposed, for no man can serve two masters, according to the Lord's declaration.

Apostolic Canon 83  If a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, shall serve in the army, and wish to retain both the Roman magistracy and the priestly office, let him be deposed; for the things of Caesar belong to Caesar, and those of God to God.

The heresy of Caesaro-Papism is a major cause of the Roman See's apostasy.  Let's not forget that the desire for an earthly kingdom is what caused the Jews to reject Christ, and what compels them to this day, to bring about the reign of Antichrist!  See: 

 

"Fall of the Roman See"

https://thecatholiccottage.blogspot.com/2024/08/you-cant-presume-anything.html

"Who Invented the Roman Catholic Church?" Parts I-III playlist, NFTU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbXwo0gYwaQ&list=PL7g13PP_xaL7svkyJteyH9dsfjpj2apmg

11. That Ibranyi is one of the apocalyptic Two Witnesses  

Though MLR does not insist members believe this, it is nevertheless believed by the group.  If not Ibranyi himself, the group thinks other members will be the Two Witnesses.  Besides the fact that neither Ibranyi nor any member of MLR could be a Witness, because they are all heretics, this claim is contrary to the consensus of the Church Fathers who teach that the Two Witnesses are Enoch and Elias themselves.  Therefore, the opinion is at least erroneous.  See:

"The Church of Christ in the Time of the Antichrist, According to The Teachings of the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Fathers", Hieromonk Ignaty  (Trepatschko)

https://trueorthodox.eu/the-church-of-christ-in-the-time-of-the-antichrist-according-to-the-teachings-of-the-holy-scriptures-and-the-holy-fathers/

The Church Fathers maintain Enoch and Elias did not die, yet Ibranyi believes Enoch and Elias have died and are in heaven.  He thinks it would be cruel of God to keep them in an earthly paradise until the time of Antichrist.  Therefore, he necessarily concludes the Fathers are sinning by teaching Enoch and Elias are the Two Witnesses!

Ibranyi believes, though he is not Elias, he has the spirit of Elias, like St. John the Baptist, and is called to bring apostate people, and Jews in particular, back to God.  But a heretic outside Christ's Church cannot bring people into it, and the Jews, who already believe Enoch and Elias did not die, will accept them.  Moreover the Two Witnesses will not be unjust and inhumane like MLR:  Once an MLR member disagrees with Ibranyi’s theology or decisions on morality, or even on neutral matters, he is “excommunicated” for disobedience, and publicly derided.  Ibranyi's punishments and threats never seem to fit the "crime".  All this is done in the name of justice, under the guise of warning the public.  But such bullying serves a purpose for this tiny, cult-like cache; it takes the focus off of any real objections to the group (such as the fact that Ibranyi has only self-appointed authority), and discourages former members from speaking out publicly.  See: 

"Richard Ibranyi - Gate Keeper Extraordinaire"
https://thecatholiccottage.blogspot.com/2022/09/richard-ibranyi-gate-keeper.html

MLR advocates the return of medieval torture and capital punishment for those who flout societal decency, or publicly oppose the group's version of Roman Catholicism, supposedly hindering the salvation of souls.  But the true Church, though certainly not opposed to the just laws of secular governments, has always believed excommunications and anathemas are sufficient punishment in such cases.  Hopefully, by the end of this post, it will be clear who is really hindering souls by keeping them in the error and heresy.  

Apostolic Canon 27 As for a Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon that strikes believers for sinning, or unbelievers for wrong-doing, with the idea of making them afraid, we command that he be deposed from office. For the Lord has nowhere taught that: on the contrary, He Himself when struck did not strike hack; when reviled He did not revile His revilers; when suffering, He did not threaten.

John 13:34-35  A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another.

Matt. 5:43-44  You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.  But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you.

1 Cor. 13:4-10 Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely; is not puffed up.  Is not ambitious, seeketh not her own, is not provoked to anger, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth;  Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things...

2 Cor. 6:4-15  Giving no offence to any man, that our ministry be not blamed...in much patience... in longsuffering, in sweetness... in charity unfeigned... Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness?  And what concord hath Christ with Belial? 

MLR'S HERETICAL THEOLOGY

12. Papism

In the Creed we confess an apostolic Church, not a papal one.  History and Church decrees show that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit through conciliarity.  See:

"Where Peter is, There is the Church."

https://thecatholiccottage.blogspot.com/2024/08/where-peter-is-there-is-church.html

"Pope St. Gregory the Great Refuses the Title 'Universal'"

https://thecatholiccottage.blogspot.com/2023/10/pope-st-gregory-great-refutes-papal.html

Apostolic Canon 34 It behooves the Bishops of every nation to know the one among them who is the premier or chief, and to recognize him as their head; and to refrain from doing anything superfluous without his advice and approval:  but, instead, each of them should do only whatever is necessitated by his own parish and by the territories under him. But let not even such a one do anything without the advice and consent and approval of all. For thus will there be concord, and God will be glorified through the Lord in Holy Spirit; the Father, and the Son; and the Holy Spirit.

The Bishops of Rome's authority was not what later Latins propose:

"Did the Formula of Hormisdas Prove Later Papal Claims?"

https://thecatholiccottage.blogspot.com/2024/05/the-libellus-of-hormisdas-and-failure.html

The monk Hildebrand, future Gregory VII, became the instrument of destruction for the west.  In his insatiable quest for power, he colluded with Jewish bankers (who always opposed Christianity), gaining influence  through bribery, blackmail and deceit, starting with Leo IX.  Then, when Hildebrand  finally took the throne as Antipope Gregory VII, a new kind of rule was codified and enforced with military power (contrary to the universal canons). 

"Who Invented the Roman Catholic Church?" Parts I-III playlist, NFTU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbXwo0gYwaQ&list=PL7g13PP_xaL7svkyJteyH9dsfjpj2apmg

"Dictus Papae"

https://thecatholiccottage.blogspot.com/2024/08/dictatus-papae-1087.html 

"Hildebrand's Overthrow of the West"

https://thecatholiccottage.blogspot.com/2025/04/hildebrands-overthrow-of-west.html

This new papal power was justified with new applications of forged documents, which declared "the First See can be judged by no one", among other errors.  

"Papal Forgeries"

https://thecatholiccottage.blogspot.com/2024/08/papal-forgeries.html 

Though Gregory VII, and also his three successors, were condemned by many western Bishops, Rome continued on its path of destruction.  As a power-play, doctrines and disciplines that were previously held as errors were enforced.  To justify the Pope's changes, it was necessary to proclaim the  "Development of Dogma" according to "Papal Infallibility".

"Synod of Brixen" 

https://thecatholiccottage.blogspot.com/2024/08/synod-of-brixen-1080.html

13. Development of Dogma  

Dogmas do not develop according to the infallible interpretation of the Pope, because the entire faith was given to all the Apostles, on Pentecost, in order to fulfill Christ’s Great Commission:

Matt. 28:16-20  And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them... 18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.  19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations...  20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you [plural] all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Jude 1:3 ...concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints. 

Bishops’ Councils are held to confirm the complete Faith in unity, and to condemn heretics.  That the Pope is the infallible guide of the Church was not only unheard of for the first thousand years, Popes themselves said they were fallible.  Councils condemned Popes as heretics, and they also declare how the truth is known with certainty.  This is why every false Roman Council, which claims to be Ecumenical, tries to show its novel doctrines were believed from the beginning.  To accomplish this, Rome has used forged documents, false translations, and false interpretations, as well as simply omitting evidence from the Fathers and from history.

MLR uses this heretical theology of apostate Rome that says dogmas develop.  But again, Cardinal Manning points out that, according to Latin theology, one cannot even question the words of the Roman Pontiff if Papal Infallibility is true.  For he who determines for himself which Popes are teaching truth, becomes his own Pope; he becomes a Protestant heretic:

Cardinal Edward Manning, The temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost, 1865:   Ch. 2  Once infallible, always infallible: in the first, in the fifth, in the fifteenth, in the nineteenth century: the Divine Teacher always present...and the organ of His voice always the same....To affirm that it has been suspended because of the sins of men, denies the perpetuity of the office of the Holy Ghost, and even of His presence; for to suppose Him present but dormant, is open to the reproach of Elias; to suppose His office to be suspended, is to conceive of the Divine Teacher after the manner of men. 

...the Pontiffs, as Vicars of Jesus Christ...the Divine Head of the Church of whom they are the representatives on earth...The infallibility of the Head of the Church extends to the whole matter of revelation, that is, to the Divine truth and the Divine law, and to all those facts or truths which are in contact with faith and morals...the assistance of the Holy Spirit certainly preserves the Pontiffs from error; and such judgments are infallible, and demand interior assent from all.

...the truths of revelation are so enunciated by the Church as to anticipate all research, and to exclude from their sphere all human criticism.

Ch. 4  ...But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy.  It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine... It is not enough that the fountain of our faith be Divine.  It is necessary that the channel be divinely constituted and preserved. 

Manning is correct to say the Church, divinely established and preserved, cannot fall away into heresy.  But he is heretical for believing God created the papacy as His divine mouthpiece, since Popes have repeatedly denied the one, true Faith, and introduced many heresies!  St. Vincent of Lerins holds the true teaching.  In his famous Commonitorium, he says: 

St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, 434:  Ch. 2. A General Rule for distinguishing the Truth of the Catholic Faith from the Falsehood of Heretical Pravity:  ...we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent.

Ch. 8. Exposition of St. Paul's Words, Gal. 1. 8:  "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema."

[22.] Why does he say Though we? Why not rather though I? He means, though Peter, though Andrew, though John, in a word, though the whole company of apostles, preach unto you other than we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Tremendous severity! He spares neither himself nor his fellow apostles, so he may preserve unaltered the faith which was at first delivered. 

See: 

“St. Vincent of Lerins or Manning?”

https://thecatholiccottage.blogspot.com/2024/05/one-faith.html 

Therefore, we know Papal Supremacy, Infallibility and Indefectibility

are heretical, because they were not believed from the beginning, and are not reconcilable to history, and other truths held from the beginning.

14. A New Creed  

The Church decided that there is only One official Creed, representing the One Faith.  This, the Bishops decided, is true regardless of how many other unofficial Creeds or Confessions are written, such as for the benefit of converts from heresy.   The Bishops of the 2nd Ecumenical Council determined that what was confirmed regarding the Holy Spirit was complete, especially since Councils are guided by the Holy Spirit Himself.  Therefore, changing, or even adding to, the Church's Creed is under anathema, being forbidden by the 2nd, 6th, 7th, and 8th Ecumenical Councils, as well as Popes Agatho, Leo III, Leo IV, and John VIII.  This heretical change was the major act on the part of Rome that denied the Apostolicity and conciliarity of the Church, in promotion of Papism, an 11th century construct.  

MLR is schismatic for accepting Popes that have fallen under the Church's anathema, such as Gregory VII.  And, of course, MLR is heretical for adopting a new Creed. 

"A New Creed?"

https://thecatholiccottage.blogspot.com/2024/04/a-new-creed-1014.html

"Three Shields"
 https://thecatholiccottage.blogspot.com/2024/05/three-shields.html

15. Absolute Diving Simplicity 

Though MLR vehemently condemns the scholastic Thomas Aquinas as a heretic and an apostate, ironically, the group espouses one of his main heresies.  Absolute Divine Simplicity (ABS) denies any real distinction in God.  But the Doctors teach that distinction does not mean division, as is evident by the existence of three divine Persons in one God.  ABS is the foundational belief of many of the heresies described below:   Filioque, denial of Essence-Energies Distinction, Predestination, Created Grace, and a faulty understanding of Original Sin, all of which are espoused by MLR.  MLR should rethink its condemnation of the Cappadocian Fathers, since their theology is a foundation of the early Ecumenical Councils, and is shared by St. Athanasius and western Fathers.  ABS is similar to the claim made by Arian heretics, who asserted Christ cannot be God because He is absolutely simple.  To combat the heretic Eunomius, St. Gregory of Nyssa points to the distinction between God's Essence and His Energies:

St. Gregory  of Nyssa (Answer to Eunomius’ Second Book):  In answer to whom we may also observe that, since they (the Eunomians) call the Father both Creator and Maker, whereas He Who is so called is simple in regard to His essence, it is high time for such sophists to declare the essence of the Father to be creation and making, since the argument about simplicity introduces into His essence any signification of any name we give Him. Either, then, let them separate ungeneracy from the definition of the Divine essence, allowing the term no more than its proper signification, or, if by reason of the simplicity of the subject they define His essence by the term ungeneracy, by a parity of reasoning let them likewise see creation and making in the essence of the Father, not as though the power residing in the essence created and made, but as though the power itself meant creation and making. But if they reject this as bad and absurd, let them be persuaded by what logically follows to reject the other proposition as well. For as the essence of the builder is not the thing built, no more is ungeneracy the essence of the Ungenerate.

Yet, Neo-Platonism so greatly influenced the scholastic west that the Absolute Divine Simplicity model was dogmatized in the 12th century:

Council of Rheims, 1148

Q. Can we distinguish between God's Essence and His Attributes?  

A. No.  The Divine Attributes are not only identical with each other, but also identical with God. 

See the video by schismatic/heretic David Erhan, who nevertheless explains this topic simply:

"St. Athanasius' Concept of Creation Vs. Roman Catholicism, Arianism, and Origenism", Erhan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMvME5HkYaU&t=71s

 

16. Denial of Essence-Energies (Nature-Will and Operations) Distinction 

The “Absolute Divine Simplicity” heresy refuses to make a distinction between who God is (Essence or Nature) and what God does (Energies or Will and Operations).  MLR shares in this common western denial, contrary to the Sixth Ecumenical Council which tacitly confirms the distinction.  In defending the truth regarding two distinct natures in the one divine Person of Christ, the Church also confirms two distinct wills and operations in Christ: 

Sixth Ecumenical Council, dogmatic letter: The Prosphoneticus to the Emperor:  “...being inspired by the Holy Spirit, and all agreeing and consenting together, and giving our approval to the doctrinal letter of our most blessed and exalted pope, Agatho... we recognize two natures [essences], so also we recognize two natural wills and two natural operations [energies].  For we dare not say that either of the natures which are in Christ in his incarnation is without a will and operation:  lest in taking away the proprieties of those natures, we likewise take away the natures of which they are the proprieties. For we neither deny the natural will of his humanity, or its natural operation: lest we also deny what is the chief thing of the dispensation for our salvation, and lest we attribute passions to the Godhead. For this they were attempting who have recently introduced the detestable novelty that in him there is but one will and one operation, renewing the malignancy of Arius, Apollinaris, Eutyches and Severus.” 

1 Cor. 12:6  And there are diversities of operations [energeia], but the same God, who worketh all in all. 

One of the Doctors of the Church, St. Gregory the Theologian, also called the Trinitarian Theologian, who presided over the beginning of the 1st Ecumenical Council, differentiates between Substance (Essence) and Attribute (Energy):

St. Gregory the Theologian (Nazianzus), Fifth Theological Oration (31), On the Holy Spirit, VI. ...Now if He [the Holy Spirit] were an Accident, He would be an Activity of God, for what else, or of whom else, could He be, for surely this is what most avoids composition? And if He is an Activity, He will be effected, but will not effect and will cease to exist as soon as He has been effected, for this is the nature of an Activity. How is it then that He acts and says such and such things, and defines, and is grieved, and is angered, and has all the qualities which belong clearly to one that moves, and not to movement? But if He is a Substance and not an attribute of Substance, He will be conceived of either as a Creature of God, or as God. 

But it is not only the Cappadocian Fathers (of whom MLR unjustly calls heretics) who make a distinction between God's Nature and Will:

St. Athanasius (Against the Arians, III. 65):  For the Apostle proclaims the Son to be the own Radiance and Expression, not of the Father’s will, but His Essence Itself, saying, ‘Who being the Radiance of His glory and the Expression of His Subsistence (Hebrews 1:3).’ But if, as we have said before, the Father’s Essence and Subsistence be not from will, neither, as is very plain, is what is proper to the Father’s Subsistence from will; for such as, and so as, that Blessed Subsistence, must also be proper Offspring from It. And accordingly the Father Himself said not, ‘This is the Son originated from MY will,’ nor, ‘the Son whom I have by My favor,’ but simply, ‘My Son,’ and more than that, ‘in whom I am well pleased;’ meaning by this, This is the Son by nature; and in Him is lodged My will about what pleases Me.” 

See:

"Basic Introduction on the Essence-Energies Distinction", Erhan (Ecumenist)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxEvoXXc2Dk

"Essence – Energies Distinction in the Church Fathers", Ubi Petrus (Ecumenist)
https://ubipetrusibiecclesia.com/2020/05/30/essence-energies-distinction-in-the-church-fathers/

"Essence – Energies Distinction in the Church Fathers – Part II": Ubi Petrus
https://ubipetrusibiecclesia.com/2020/07/03/essence-energies-distinction-in-the-church-fathers-part-ii/

"The Dogmatic Definitions of the Palamite Councils (1341-1351)", Ubi Petrus

https://ubipetrusibiecclesia.com/2022/06/21/the-dogmatic-definitions-of-the-palamite-councils/

17. Filioque   

The “Filioque” is the heresy that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and from His Son.  My critique of the book The Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father and from the Son (Richard Ibranyi, 2024) is found here:

"The Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father"

https://thecatholiccottage.blogspot.com/2024/07/the-holy-spirit-proceeds-from-father.html

18. That God has Passions 

Ibranyi defines “passions” contrary to the Fathers of the Church, and blasphemously assigns passions to God:

The Hellenization of Christianity, Ibranyi, “The stoic heresy that God is passionless”, p. 248:  Because stoics condemn or at least abhor the passions, they teach the heresy that perfect men are passionless and hence God, the most perfect of all beings, is also passionless. Yet the Word of God and thus the Catholic Church teaches that God has passions—love, hate, jealousy, anger, compassion, mercy, vengeance, wrath, sorrow, etc. While God has passions, none of his passions (such as sorrow, anger, jealousy) debilitate him in any way or affect his judgments. The Word of God testifies to God’s passions...

Ibranyi and MLR are heretical for denying the Sixth Ecumenical Council which  dogmatically states the opposite:  

Sixth Ecumenical Council, dogmatic letter: The Prosphoneticus to the Emperor:  ...For we dare not say that either of the natures which are in Christ in his incarnation is without a will and operation:  lest in taking away the proprieties of those natures, we likewise take away the natures of which they are the proprieties. For we neither deny the natural will of his humanity, or its natural operation: lest we also deny what is the chief thing of the dispensation for our salvation, and lest we attribute passions to the Godhead. For this they were attempting who have recently introduced the detestable novelty that in him there is but one will and one operation, renewing the malignancy of Arius, Apollinaris, Eutyches and Severus. 

19. That God has Parts 

Ibranyi teaches the heresy that each divine Person has "a part", or portion, of the Divine Essence:

The Heresy that the Divine Essence Does Not Beget, Is Not Begotten, and Does Not Proceed, Ibranyi, 2021

p. 23

The part (person) of the one divine essence that consists of the Father is unbegotten...

The part (person) of the one divine essence that consists of the Son is begotten...

The part (person) of the one divine essence that consists of the Holy Spirit proceeds...

p. 24

Hence God the Son’s substance (divine essence) is eternally begotten from the substance (the divine essence) of God the Father not simply from the person of God the Father.

Each of the three Persons of the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, have the fulness of the Divine Essence, both together and individually.  Ibranyi struggles to make sense of the futility of western theology's Absolute Divine Simplicity (ABS) since it makes no real distinction between God's Essence, Persons, Will and Operations.  The distinctive qualities of "begot, is begotten, proceeds" apply only to the particular Persons.  But this cannot be reconciled with ABS, which is why Ibranyi comes to his absurd conclusion.  It is absurd because one would have to say God's Essence both begets and does not beget, is begotten and is not begotten, proceeds and does not proceed.  

In the Creed, we profess the distinction between Persons, stating "begotten of the Father" and "of the substance of the Father", rather than "begotten of the Nature before all ages":

Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed:  "Begotten of the Father before all ages"; "of one essence with the Father"

The Creed was established through the Orthodox order of theology which starts with God's Personhood, rather than His Nature, avoiding the pitfalls of neo-platonic ABS.  

"Distinction without Composition nor Division: A New Look At Divine Simplicity", Erhan, 2025   

Orthodoxy and Divine Simplicity

While the neoplatonic model views all metaphysically real forms of distinction as separation, Orthodox Christianity takes Divine simplicity to simply say that God is not made up of different parts as a whole, thus the persons of the Trinity are wholly Divine, and yet distinct from each other without causing a composition in Divine unity. One does not have to affirm the logically contradictory notion of the persons of the Trinity to be wholly identical with the essence but distinct from each other (This can only be a non-contradiction if the essence was made of parts, which itself is a false belief leading to polytheism).

The Athanasian Creed, though falsely attributed to St. Athanasius, is nevertheless representative of the Essence-Person distinction in the west, as taught in the first millennium:  

(Pseudo) Athanasian Creed, Eighth Century:

This is what the Catholic faith teaches: we worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance [essence]. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit.  But the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have one divinity, equal glory, and coeternal majesty. What the Father is, the Son is, and the Holy Spirit is. The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated. The Father is boundless, the Son is boundless, and the Holy Spirit is boundless.  The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, and the Holy Spirit is eternal...  Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God...

For as we are obliged by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person singly to be God and Lord, so too are we forbidden by the Catholic religion to say that there are three Gods or Lords.  The Father was not made, nor created, nor generated by anyone.  The Son is not made, nor created, but begotten by the Father alone.  The Holy Spirit is not made, nor created, nor generated, but proceeds... 

It is also necessary for eternal salvation that he believes steadfastly in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...  As God, He was begotten of the substance of the Father before time...

See:

"The Pseudo-Athanasian Creed"

https://thecatholiccottage.blogspot.com/2023/04/the-pseudo-athanasian-creed.html

The same can be said for the Council of Toledo regarding distinction of Persons and Essence:

Council of Toledo, 675, Exposition of Faith against the Priscillianists:  ...Neither do we call the same Son of God a part of a divided nature because of the fact that He is begotten of the Father; but we assert that the perfect Father begot the perfect Son without diminution or division, because it is a characteristic of Divinity alone not to have an unequal Son... 

We believe also that this Holy Spirit is neither unbegotten nor begotten, lest if we say unbegotten, we should affirm two Fathers, or if begotten, we should be proven to declare two Sons... 

We must call and believe it to be not triple but triune. Neither can we rightly say that in one God is the Trinity, but that one God is the Trinity...when we say “God,” no relationship is expressed...but God applies especially to Himself. For, if we are asked concerning the individual persons, we must confess that each is God. Therefore, we say that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God each singly; yet there are not three Gods, but there is one God. For in the relation of persons number appears, but in the substance of divinity, what might be enumerated is not understood... 

Neither because we have said that these three persons are one God, are we able to say that the same one is the Father who is the Son, or that He is the Son who is the Father, or that He who is the Holy Spirit is either the Father or the Son. For He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is He the Son who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit He who is either the Father or the Son, even though the Father is the same as the Son, the Son the same as the Father, the Father and the Son the same as the Holy Spirit; that is, in nature one God...

A related error Ibranyi falls into is his conclusion that the Orthodox, such as St. John of Damascus, heretically teach a "blob-god", since God's Essence is held as distinct from His Energies.  But again, theology begins with God's revelation to us, first as Persons, not Nature.  If any group teaches a blob-god it is Roman Catholicism, since it jumbles Nature, Persons, Will and Operations together without distinction.

20. Nestorian Sacred Heart Devotion

Another heresy that was adopted by Roman Catholics, due to the confusion between Nature and Person, is the false Sacred Heart devotion.  What is this devotion?  It is the worship of the human heart of Jesus, which is united to the divine Person of Jesus Christ:

Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, 1794, Condemnations: 

LXIII. Likewise in the fact that he rebukes the adorers of the Heart of Jesus, because they do not reflect that the most holy Flesh of Christ, or a portion of it, or even the whole Humanity separated or severed from the Divinity, cannot be adored with the cult of latria; 
As if the faithful worshiped the Heart of Jesus separated or cut off from the Divinity, while they worship it as the Heart of Jesus, that is, the Heart of the Person of the Word, to which it is inseparably united as the bloodless Body of Christ was adorable in the tomb during the triduum of death without separation or cutting;

CAPTIOUS, INSULTING TO THE FAITHFUL WORSHIPPERS OF THE HEART OF CHRIST.

Pius XII, Haurietis Aquas, 1956, par. 21:  ...we recognize that His Heart, the noblest part of human nature, is hypostatically united to the Person of the divine Word. Consequently, there must be paid to it that worship of adoration with which the Church honors the Person of the Incarnate Son of God Himself. 

So, what's wrong with the devotion?  First of all, it is a devotion that claims to be reserved for the latter times, when men's hearts grow cold, in order to bring them back to God.  But how can an apostate church introduce a true, new devotion?  What has this devotion done except cement men in heresy and apostasy?  Secondly, many do not know that its main visionary, Margaret Mary, claimed that Christ literally exchanged her actual heart with his own, and other such bizarre things.  Thirdly, this devotion is heretical because, like Nestorius, it separates one aspect of the Person of Christ to be worshiped.  Nestorius wanted to worship only Christ's divine Nature.  The Sacred Heart devotion is contrary to the 5th Ecumenical Council, which states:

5th Ecumenical Council (Constantinople II), Canon 9:  “If anyone shall take the expression, Christ ought to be worshipped in His two natures, in the sense that he wishes to introduce thus two adorations, the one in special relation to God the Word and the other as pertaining to the Man … and does not venerate, by one adoration, God the Word made man, together with His flesh, as the Holy Church has taught from the beginning: let him be anathema."

In short, we worship the Person of Christ with one adoration.  We worship Christ's humanity because it is inseparably united to His Person; His human and divine natures are not joined together except for being united to His Person.  How, then, could we worship an aspect of Christ's flesh apart from His Person?  Fr. Michael Pomazansky explains, "To the Lord Jesus Christ as to one Person, as the God-Man, it is fitting to give a single inseparable worship, both according to Divinity and according to humanity, precisely because both natures are inseparably united in Him."  

St. Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 17, 8th Anathema :  If anyone shall dare to say that the assumed man ought to be worshipped together with God the Word, and glorified together with him, and recognized together with him as God, and yet as two different things, the one with the other (for this “Together with” is added [i.e., by the Nestorians] to convey this meaning); and shall not rather with one adoration worship the Emmanuel and pay to him one glorification, as [it is written] “The Word was made flesh”: let him be anathema.

St. John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith Book 3, Chapter 8: Christ, therefore, is one, perfect God and perfect man: and Him we worship along with the Father and the Spirit, with one obeisance, adoring even His immaculate flesh and not holding that the flesh is not meet for worship: for in fact it is worshipped in the one subsistence of the Word, which indeed became subsistence for it. But in this we do not do homage to that which is created. For we worship Him, not as mere flesh, but as flesh united with divinity, and because His two natures are brought under the one person and one subsistence of God the Word.

See: 

"An Orthodox Analysis of the “Sacred Heart” Worship", Erhan, 2022
https://www.patristicfaith.com/orthodox-christianity/an-orthodox-analysis-of-the-sacred-heart-worship/
What’s also interesting is the quasi-gnostic technique present in Pius XII’s position. He readily admits that the devotion is nowhere present in scripture or tradition, but states that we can anticipate from the Old Testament that God will assume human nature and will love us in a divine-human manner.  The argument of imagery, symbolism, and typology is not gnostic itself, rather what is gnostic is redefining old biblical terms and language to fit into the new philosophical paradigm, this is why Pius believes “…these images were presented in the Sacred Writings foretelling the coming of the Son of God made man, they can be considered as a token of the noblest symbol and witness of that divine love, that is, of the most Sacred and Adorable Heart of the divine Redeemer.” Thus God’s love now prefigures the worship of His human heart, and the locus of worship has turned from God who loves to the love of God, thus God becomes appreciated not as a person, but as His attributes. Is it that surprising that other devotions such as the Holy Name of Jesus, Holy Face of Jesus, and the devotion of the Five Holy Wounds have sprung with this kind of reasoning? Of course, the wounds of Christ, His name, and His humanity are divine and should be revered, but the focus of these things is the person of Christ.

...What does all of this mean for the sacred heart? To explain it in simple terms, the worship of the sacred heart turns the sacred heart into an object of worship, and thus it becomes something worshipped alongside Christ which is what St. Cyril warns us of: “For that which is co-worshipped with other is altogether other than that with which it is co-worshipped. But we are accustomed to worship Emmanuel with one worship, not severing from the Word the Body That was Personally united to Him.” (Against Nestorius, Book 2)

21. That Christ is NOT Fully Present in the Eucharist  

I address this heresy in my post "Not Dead Bread".  Similar to the Nestorian Sacred Heart devotion, MLR's error concerning the Eucharist also comes from dividing the Person of Christ.  That the Eucharist is divinized dead flesh, as Ibranyi teaches, was condemned at the Third Ecumenical Council:

Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, 431, Session 1, Second Letter of Cyril to Nestorius:  ...So although it is said that the resurrection of the dead was through man, yet we understand that man to have been the Word of God...We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the Only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing His resurrection from the dead, and His ascension into heaven, we offer the Unbloody Sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received His Holy Flesh and the Precious Blood of Christ the Saviour of us all.  And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the Life-giving and very flesh of the Word Himself, we do not divide between two hypostases or persons. For neither is He, the one and only Christ, to be thought of as double, although of two and they diverse, yet He has joined them in an indivisible union, just as everyone knows a man is not double although made up of soul and body, but is one of both. Wherefore when thinking rightly, we transfer the human and the divine to the same person...

St. John of Damascus provides a clear understanding of how the Eucharistic Presence of Christ is nevertheless the "whole" Christ (not only divinized flesh and blood), since Christ's body, blood and soul are always united to His one divine Person:

St. John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book III, Ch. XXVII:  Concerning the fact that the divinity of the Word remained inseparable from the soul and the body, even at our Lord’s death, and that His subsistence continued one.

...Wherefore, although He died as man and His Holy Spirit was severed from His immaculate body, yet His divinity remained inseparable from both, I mean, from His soul and His body, and so even thus His one hypostasis was not divided into two hypostases.  For body and soul received simultaneously in the beginning their being in the subsistence of the Word, and although they were severed from one another by death, yet they continued, each of them, having the one subsistence of the Word.  So that the one subsistence of the Word is alike the subsistence of the Word, and of soul and body.  For at no time had either soul or body a separate subsistence of their own, different from that of the Word, and the subsistence of the Word is forever one, and at no time two.  So that the subsistence of Christ is always one.  For, although the soul was separated from the body topically, yet hypostatically they were united through the Word.

It was not only in the east, but universally believed that the Eucharist is the whole Person, or Subsistence, of Christ:

St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 182 A.D., 5.2:  ...He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that [our] flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of Him?

The Orthodox Church has continued to teach correctly regarding the Eucharist, once again showing that Christ has not abandoned His Church:

Pan-Synod of Jerusalem, 1672, Confession of Dositheus, Patriarch of Constantinople, Decree 17:  ...Further, that in every part, or the smallest division of the transmuted bread and wine there Is not a part of the Body and Blood of the Lord, for to say so were blasphemous and wicked — but the entire whole Lord Christ substantially, that is, with His Soul and Divinity, or perfect God and perfect man. So that though there may be many celebrations in the world at one and the same hour, there are not many Christs, or Bodies of Christ, but it is one and the same Christ that is truly and really present; and His one Body and His Blood is in all the several Churches of the Faithful; and this not because the Body of the Lord that is in the Heavens descendeth upon the Altars ; but because the bread of the Prothesis set forth in all the several Churches, being changed and transubstantiated, becometh, and is, after consecration, one and the same with That in the Heavens. For it is one Body of the Lord in many places, and not many; and therefore this Mystery is the greatest, and is spoken of as wonderful, and comprehensible by faith only, and not by the sophistries of man's wisdom; whose vain and foolish curiosity in divine things our pious and God-delivered religion rejecteth.

See: 

"Not Dead Bread"

https://thecatholiccottage.blogspot.com/2024/08/not-dead-bread.html

22. That Christ offered unleavened bread  

MLR accepts the apostate Roman church's 11th century change in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.  (Perhaps this is another reason why MLR fell into the "Dead Bread" heresy.)   In 1894, the Orthodox Bishops of Constantinople, in their reply to Pope Leo XIII's Encyclical Praeclara, denounced the substitution of unleavened bread for the Eucharist.  They stated the uncontested truth that the west had used leavened bread until the 11th century:

Patriarchal Encyclical, "A Reply to the Papal Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, on Reunion", 1895

https://web.archive.org/web/20051109101855/http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx 

IX. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils, according to the example of our Savior, celebrated the divine Eucharist for more than a thousand years throughout the East and West with leavened bread, as the truth-loving papal theologians themselves also bear witness; but the Papal Church from the eleventh century made an innovation also in the sacrament of the divine Eucharist by introducing unleavened bread.

Though the Genuine Orthodox Church of America is no longer Orthodox, but functioning as a para-synagogue, since its leader (Gregory of Colorado) was excommunicated by his Synod in 2004, its website nevertheless provides a clear teaching on Christ's institution of the Eucharist, contrasting it with Rome's innovation:

Genuine Orthodox Church of America, Brief Orthodox Replies to  the Innovations of the Papacy, #3. A Eucharist of Unleavened Wafers:  When the Lord instituted the Mystery of the Eucharist, He commanded us to do as He had done.  The Orthodox follow that instruction; Rome, however, does not.  The Roman Pontiff has altered the Lord’s institution and the traditions of the Holy Fathers, by instituting the use of azymes or unleavened bread (crackers), and not artos or leavened bread in the celebration of the Mystery of the Eucharist.  The Apostles are all unanimous in their testimony that our Lord made a point of offering leavened bread, which they show by using the Greek word artos and not the Jewish crackers or unleavened bread, which the same Apostles always specify as azymos, or azymes in English.  It is very clear that the Lord, the Apostles, and the Apostolic Church all used leavened bread, not Jewish crackers, in their Mysteries.  The Evangelist Luke recounts: “And He took bread (artos) and gave thanks, and broke it, and gave to them, saying, “This is My body which is being given for you; be doing this in remembrance of Me...” [Lk. 22:19].  Likewise, St. Paul and the Apostolic churches use leavened bread: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not communion of the blood of the Christ?  The bread (artos) which we break, is it not communion of the body of the Christ?...  For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was delivered up took bread (artos); and having given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is being broken for you; be doing this in remembrance of Me.”” [1 Cor. 10:16, 11:23-24]  St. Matthew also has leavened bread, not unleavened azymes, in the Mysteries:  “And as they ate, Jesus took the bread (artos), and blessed it, and broke it, and was giving it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body...” [Mt. 26:26]  And the same with St. Mark:  “And as they ate, Jesus took bread (artos), blessed it, and broke it, and gave to them, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body...” [Mk. 14:22]

There is no disagreement among the “eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word” [Lk. 1:2].

Rome incorrectly attempts to justify its innovation by referring to the preceding words of the Evangelists that:  “And on the first day of the unleavened bread, when they used to slay the passover, His disciples said to Him, “Where dost Thou wish that we go and prepare, that Thou mightest eat the passover?”...and they prepared for the passover.  And it having come to be late, He cometh with the twelve.  And...they reclined at table and ate,...And as they ate, Jesus took bread, blessed it, and broke it, and gave to them, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” [Mk. 14:12-22]  Despite the clear use of the word artos for the Eucharist over and over again in the New Testament, Rome insists that the preceding passage must mean that the prohibition of leavened bread was already in force, in the night in which Christ instituted the Mystery of the Eucharist.  Thus, Christ must have used azymes, because artos was forbidden by the Law during the feast of azymes.

Anyone who reads the Law of Moses will see that, in fact, this is not so. “On the 14th day, nigh to its evening,...you shall kill the lamb,...and you shall eat it in that night (i.e., the beginning of the 15th day)...  Beginning on the 14th day, from its evening, you shall eat unleavened bread, as far as the 21st day, as far as its evening.  Seven days [days 15-21] leaven shall not be found in your houses” [Ex. 12:6-15].  Moses establishes that each day begins with nightfall and ends after the following evening with nightfall again.  Moses ordains that the Passover lamb be killed nigh to the evening of the 14th day and that it be eaten that night, that is, in the beginning of the 15th day.  Moses likewise commands the eating of unleavened bread to begin in the evening of the 14th day, from which it is called the 1st day of the unleavened bread [after sundown on Good Friday]... 

Saint Chrysostom in Homily 81 on St. Matthew, likewise, says that “he means the day before that feast; for they are accustomed always to reckon the day from the sunset, and he makes mention of this as the one in which the passover must be sacrificed in its evening.  ”Christ instituted the Eucharist in the night that began the 14th of Nisan, on which they sacrificed the Passover lamb, not in the following night when they ate it [with unleavened bread].

Rome, however, by its obstinate, scriptural illiteracy, makes the Evangelists contradict themselves, saying bread (artos), where they meant crackers (azymes), and it only becomes worse still, when the Evangelist John adds that on the morning after the Mystic Supper:  “Then they lead Jesus from Caiaphas into the Prætorium; and it was early.  And they themselves entered not into the Prætorium, in order that they should not be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover” [Jn. 18:28].  The Jews had not yet eaten the Passover at the time when Christ was being lead to his Passion, which was the morning after He instituted the Eucharist.  Rome knows neither the Holy Scriptures nor the Holy Fathers, otherwise she would not have made this glaring error.  It still becomes worse yet when we compare the instructions for the night of Passover with what the Lord and His Apostles did on the night of the Eucharist.

If it were the Passover night, they would have been obliged to eat azymes, standing, and in haste, with loins girded, shoes on, and staff in hand [Ex. 12:11].  On the contrary, they ate artos, reclining at table.  Christ was not girded (a mode of binding ones clothes up high in preparation for work or travel), since He only afterward girt himself with a towel.  The reclining Apostles’ feet were bared for washing, not in their shoes.  Simon Peter carried not staff, but had empty hands to proffer for washing.  Not one Evangelist describes what would mark a Passover meal.  Nowhere in the Gospel accounts is there any reference to “unleavened bread” (azuma), but only to “bread” (artos).  Moreover, the Passover meal was eaten dry, without sauce or gravy, simply roasted flesh.  Yet, we read that the disciples dipped in the dish and that Christ offered a “sop” [Jn. 13:26].  No Evangelist mentions lamb or bitter herbs being eaten.  There was no blood upon the lintels or the doorposts.  Furthermore, the Mosaic Law strictly forbade any Hebrew to go out of doors on the night of Passover.  However, both the Jews and Christ with His disciples moved about freely during that Thursday night.  Even the action of Judas, when he “immediately went out into the night” [Jn. 13:30], was not considered unusual nor had it evoked surprise.

No, this was not a Passover meal.  The Gospel of St. John clearly states that it was “before the feast of the Passover” [Jn. 13:1] when Jesus, after the Mystic Supper, washed the disciples feet [v. 5].  Christ, the new Passover, the Lamb of God [Jn. 1:29], was sacrificed the next day, Holy and Great Friday.  The Holy Fathers taught that Christ was sacrificed on the Cross on the actual day and hour when the Passover of the Law was sacrificed.  Christ is a priest after the order of Melchizedek [Ps. 109:4; Heb. 5:6, 10, 20], not Aaron [Heb. 7:6].  Azymes belong the Aaronic priesthood, while Melchizedek is said to have offered bread (artos), not azymes (azuma) [Gen. 14:18].

The disciples made preparations to celebrate the Passover [Mk. 14:12], but it does not follow that they actually ate it.  Christ’s words, “with desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer” [Lk. 22:15], refer not to the Passover of the Law, but to the New Passover, the eating of the new and true “Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world” [Jn. 1:29] which He was about to institute, and of which the former had been only typical, a “shadow” [Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1] and “copy of the archetype” of the coming one [Heb. 8:5; Ex. 25:40].  “For also Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us” [1 Cor. 5:7], as St. Paul says.  Note, Christ did not simply say “the Passover,” but “this Passover”, as distinguishing it from any other Passover, meaning the new Passover, the Body and Blood broken and poured out in the coming sacrifice of Himself for the life of the world, of which His disciples that night partook.

The holy Apostles did as they were taught by Jesus, the true [Jn. 6:32] and living Bread of life [vv. 35, 51].  They always performed the Mystery of the Eucharist with leavened bread.  The Church of Christ, being instructed by the Apostles, observes this same rule unchanged.  We read that the early Church “continued steadfastly in the Apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in the breaking of bread (artos), and in prayers” [Acts 3:42].  The same act was also seen to be done by St. Paul [Acts 20:11].  The expression “breaking of bread” is a reference by synecdoche to the Mystery of the Eucharist, as St. Paul shows when he describes the Mystic Supper in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, stating:  “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was delivered up took bread; and having given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is being broken for you; be doing this in remembrance of Me” [1 Cor. 11:23-24].  The breaking of the bread refers to the breaking of the consecrated Body of Christ in the Divine Liturgy.

Apostolic Canon LXX forbids any clergymen, on threat of deposition, to celebrate with the Jews a feast with azymes.  All the writers of the Divine Liturgy, the Apostle James (the brother of the Lord [from St. Joseph's first marriage]), St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom direct the Eucharist to be celebrated with bread, not unleavened wafers.  From the time of Christ, until sometime during the Ponficate of Leo IX (1049-1054 A.D.) (who, incidentally, was Jewish himself, according to his biographer; cf. “On Simonaics, and the Life of St. Leo IX” by Bishop Bruno of Segni [11th century A.D.], wherein he speaks of “Our Leo of the tribe of Juda, from which tribe this Leo traced his origin...”), the Western Church celebrated Mass with artos, leavened bread.  It was at this time that the Latin Churches were commanded to change to azymes or the Jewish crackers.  The compliance of the Latin Patriarchal church in Constantinople with this decree and also a letter on the Latin innovations from the Greeks of south Italy to Archbishop Theophylactos of Ochrida made the Patriarchate of Constantinople aware of this innovation.  The Patriarch of Constantinople reacted by closing the Latin Patriarchate’s church and denying the validity of their Mass of azymes, which was one of the grievances, mentioned by the Latins in their excommunication of the Orthodox.

23. Created Grace and Denial of Theosis  

Stubbornly holding on to the theology of the very church MLR exposes as apostate and counterfeit, the group holds yet another heresy stemming from Absolute Divine Simplicity, which is "Created Grace".   To put it simply, the sanctifying grace men receive is either uncreated or created.  Why does this matter?  Ultimately, it has to do with the nature of man's eternal, heavenly existence, and the way in which we are united with God.

It is Rome's Neo-Platonic Absolute Divine Simplicity that places it in a theological quandary, by rejecting the distinction between God's Essence (Nature) and His Energies (Operations).  If God's grace is the same as His Essence, it is uncreated; but man cannot partake of His uncreated Essence.

The heresy of "Created Grace" denies the truth that man becomes a "partaker of the divine nature", "sharing in the divinity of Christ":

2 Pet. 1:4  By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world.

Roman Rite Liturgy, Mass of St. Gregory:   "By the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ who humbled Himself to share in our humanity."  (Per huius aquae et vini mysterium eius efficiamur divinitatis consortes, qui humanitatis nostrae fieri dignatus est particeps.) 

In essence, "Created Grace" produces a created divinity, not Christ's divinity; man cannot be a partaker of the divine nature, as St. Peter teaches, by receiving something created.  Rome's theology fails; it does not echo the teaching of the Fathers:

St. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, vol. 5:  The Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ...did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself.

St. Athanasius, Against the Arians 
Discourse 1, par. 39: Therefore He was not man, and then became God, but He was God, and then became man, and that to deify us.
Discourse 3, par. 34: ...for as the Lord, putting on the body, became man, so we men are deified by the Word as being taken to Him through His flesh.

St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, 54. The Word Incarnate, as is the case with the Invisible God, is known to us by His works. By them we recognize His deifying mission. Let us be content to enumerate a few of them, leaving their dazzling plentitude to him who will behold.  
As, then, if a man should wish to see God, Who is invisible by nature and not seen at all, he may know and apprehend Him from His works: so let him who fails to see Christ with his understanding, at least apprehend Him by the works of His body, and test whether they be human works or God's works. 2. ...let him marvel that by so ordinary a means things divine have been manifested to us, and that by death immortality has reached to all, and that by the Word becoming man, the universal Providence has been known, and its Giver and Artificer the very Word of God. 3. For He was made man that we might be made God; and He manifested Himself by a body that we might receive the idea of the unseen Father; and He endured the insolence of men that we might inherit immortality. For while He Himself was in no way injured, being impassible and incorruptible and very Word and God, men who were suffering, and for whose sakes He endured all this, He maintained and preserved in His own impassibility...  

St. Ambrose of Milan, On the Holy Spirit, Bk. I, Ch. 7:  #81  And so, when the Lord appointed His servants the apostles, that we might recognize that the creature was one thing and the grace of the Spirit another, He appointed them to different regions, because all could not be everywhere at once. But He gave the Holy Spirit to all, to shed upon the Apostles though separated the gift of indivisible grace...  #82 ...Who, then, can doubt that that [grace] is divine which is shed upon many at once and is not seen...?  #84 But how great is that grace which makes even the lower nature of the lot of men equal to the gifts received by Angels, as the Lord Himself promised, saying: You shall be as the Angels in heaven. Nor is it difficult, for He Who made those Angels in the Spirit will by the same grace make men also equal to the Angels.  Ch. 8, #95  ...believe that that which is shed abroad cannot be common to the created but peculiar to the Godhead... #97 ...the grace of God the Father is the same as that of the Holy Spirit, and that without any division or loss it is divided to the hearts of each. That, then, which is shed abroad of the Holy Spirit is neither severed, nor comprehended in any corporeal parts, nor divided.  

St. Cyril of Alexandria, On the Unity of Christ, translated by St. Vladimir Press, 1995
p. 63  He came down into our condition solely in order to lead us to his own divine state.
p. 59  It follows, therefore, that He Who Is, The One Who Exists, is necessarily born of the flesh, taking all that is ours into Himself so that all that is born of the flesh, that is us corruptible and perishing human beings, might rest in Him. In short, He took what was ours to be his very own so that we might have all that was His.
p. 80  For we too are sons and gods by grace, and we have surely been brought to this wonderful and supernatural dignity since we have the Only Begotten Word of God dwelling within us.

St. Athanasius confirms above (Against the Arians, Discourse 3) that men are deified by being taken into Christ's Body, which is always united to His Person.  Though our human nature cannot mingle with the Divine Nature, man becomes eternally clothed, within and without, in God's grace.  Eucharistic Communion is a foretaste and promise man's eternal union with God.  In my opinion, the western idea of heaven's Beatific Vision, in which man sees God, presumably in His Essence, seems to be a lesser unity than even earthly Communion.  And how can man see "God, Who is invisible by nature and not seen at all" (St. Athanasius)?  The answer is that we see Him through His Energies, or Operations, which are His works:

John 10:32-36  Jesus answered them: Many good works I have shewed you from my Father; for which of these works do you stone me?   The Jews answered him: For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, maketh thyself God.   Jesus answered them: Is it not written in your law: I said you are gods?   If He called them gods, to whom the word of God was spoken, and the scripture cannot be broken.  Do you say of Him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world: Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God?

As David Erhan points out, "Created Grace" actually leads to a state of polytheism, with both uncreated and created divinities:

"Roman Catholic Doctrine on Grace Leads to Polytheism", Erhan, 2020

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxi7HRyKJ1g&t=9s

For a more in depth look at this topic, see:

"Is Grace Itself Created or Uncreated?", Dyer, 2019

https://jaysanalysis.com/2019/08/10/is-grace-itself-created-or-uncreated/

24. Those against Original Sin 

 

MLR does not properly differentiate between Original Sin and Actual Sin.  Also, it condemns Church Fathers for holding the true doctrine regarding Original Sin. 

The Salvation Dogma and Related Topics, Ibranyi, 2023

Heresies regarding Dead Unbaptized Infants 
The heresies that they do not suffer any pain and original sin is not a real sin
p. 359:  

"Apostate" Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 40, 4th century: “23. …It will happen, I believe . . . that those last mentioned [infants dying without baptism] will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since, though unsealed [by baptism], they are not wicked. …For from the fact that one does not merit punishment it does not follow that one is worthy of being honored, any more than it follows that one who is not worthy of a certain honor deserves on that account to be punished.”

The apostate Gregory of Nazianzus’ analogy does not apply because dead unbaptized infants do deserve to be punished with torments because they are guilty of original sin. Many, if not all, of the Anti-Church Fathers were affected and infected by pagan philosophers and as such held heretical beliefs regarding the true nature of original sin and salvation. They believed that inherited original sin is not a true sin that causes guilt and hence is not punished by God. They saw original sin only as something that deprives one of Heaven and the vision of God, which they did not see as a punishment but only as a deprivation of something one cannot attain because of what he lacks (original justice) and not because of something he has (guilt):

Dogmas regarding Damned Infants

Unbaptized infants are impious sinners

p. 345:  The dogma of original sin that teaches that infants are born as evil, impious sinners and children of Satan is hard for modern man to accept because the whole human race has become idolized. All men are now guaranteed everlasting salvation by the mere fact that they are human.  This idolization of the human race, which is also known as the heresy of humanism, starts with the idolization of infants and children. There is an illogical, sick, sappy, sentimental obsession with infants and children...

It's evident here that Actual sin, such as "impiety", is being conflated with Original sin, leading to a false conclusion about the state of those who die in Original Sin alone.  That the unbaptized are eternally "punished with torments" by demons is not a dogma of the Church, but one made up through Ibranyi's faulty human reasoning (which is itself tainted by Original Sin because he's never been baptized in the Church).  Blood-thirsty Ibranyi does not get to decide such matters, since he is not God.

The Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church, St. Peter Mogila

Question 23.  What was the State of Innocence of Man, or Purity and Freedom from Sin ?

A.  ...In such a state of Innocence and Impeccability, like the Angels, was Man : But when, by transgressing the Commandments, he had sinned, he then came in a State of Sin ; and, being expelled from Paradise, he became subject to Death, according to that Scripture {Rom. vi. 28), The Wages of Sin is Death ; and presently losing the Perfection of his Reason and Understanding, his Will became prone to evil rather than good. Thus the State of Innocence and Integrity, by Man tasting of evil, became a State of Sin ; and Man, who before was perfect, debased so low that now he may well cry out with David {Psal. xxii. 6) I am a Worm, and no Man.

Q. 24. Whether all Men are liable for the Sin of Adam ?

A.  As all Mankind, during the state of Innocence, was in Adam ; so in him all Men, falling from what he fell, remained in a State of Sin. Wherefore Mankind is become, not only subject unto Sin, but also, on Account of Sin, unto Punishment; which, according to the Sentence pronounced of God, was (Gen. ii. 17), In the Day that thou eatest of the Tree, thou shalt surely die. And to this the Apostle alludes {Rom. v. 12), Wherefore as by one Man Sin entered into the World, and Death by Sin, and so Death passed upon all Men, for that all have sinned. So that we are conceived in our Mother's Womb, and born in this Sin, according to the holy Psalmist (Psal. li. 7), Behold, I was shapen in Wickedness, and in Sin hath my Mother conceived me. This is called parental, or original Sin, first, because that, before this, Man was free from all Sin ; although the Devil was then corrupt, and fallen, by whose Temptation this parental Sin sprang up in Man ; and Adam becoming guilty, we all likewise, who descend from him, become also guilty. Secondly, this is called original Sin, because no Mortal is conceived without this Depravity of Nature.

All who died before Christ's Incarnation died in Original Sin.  Jesus teaches us the truth in His parable about the rich man and Lazarus: 

Luke 16:22-26 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. And the rich man also died: and he was buried in hades.  23 And lifting up his eyes when he was in torments, he saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom:  24 And he cried, and said: Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, to cool my tongue: for I am tormented in this flame.  25 And Abraham said to him: Son, remember that thou didst receive good things in thy lifetime, and likewise Lazarus evil things, but now he is comforted; and thou art tormented. 26 And besides all this, between us and you, there is fixed a great chasm: so that they who would pass from hence to you, cannot, nor from thence come hither. 

When Lazarus dies, he goes to "Abraham's Bosom", which is in Hades, and even though he is still guilty of Original Sin, he is comforted.  No amount of penance can mitigate the punishment for Original Sin.  Therefore, the punishment for Original Sin is eternal separation from God, whereas the greater punishments are according to man's Actual Sins.  This parable also tells us that the demons do not have complete dominion in Hades, but God's justice prevails. 

Thus, MLR unjustly accuses faithful Orthodox of heresy, when it is their group that is heretical.   

St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Romans 5:12 “How did many become sinners because of Adam?... How could we, who were not yet born, all be condemned with him, even though God said, ‘Neither the fathers shall be put to death because of their children, nor the children because of their fathers, but the soul which sins shall be put to death’? (Deut. 24:18) ... we became sinners through Adam’s disobedience in such manner as this: he was created for incorruption and life, and the manner of existence he had in the garden of delight was proper to holiness. His whole mind was continually beholding God; his body was tranquil and calm with all base pleasures being still. For there was no tumult of alien disturbances in it. But because he fell under sin and slipped into corruptibility, pleasures and filthiness assaulted the nature of the flesh, and in our members was unveiled a savage law.  Our nature, then, became diseased by sin through the disobedience of one, that is, of Adam. Thus, all were made sinners, not by being co-transgressors with Adam...but by being of his nature and falling under the law of sin.  Human nature fell ill in Adam and subject to corruptibility through disobedience, and, therefore, the passions entered in.”

Ephesians 2:3  In which also we all conversed in time past, in the desires of our flesh, fulfilling the will of the flesh and of our thoughts, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. 

Council of Carthage (419), Canon 110:  Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother’s wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema.

25. Purgatorial Fire

I address this Roman Catholic heresy, held by MLR, here:

"St. Mark of Ephesus on Purgatory"

https://thecatholiccottage.blogspot.com/2024/09/st-mark-of-ephesus-on-purgatory.html

'At the Anti-Council of Florence, St. Mark was commissioned to write a response to the Latin doctrine of Purgatory.  In summary, he concludes that, according to the Fathers, there is no third place after death, but only Hades and Paradise.  Hades is temporary for some, similar to the Old Testament Limbo of the Fathers, being a prison of "tears and sighing".  Souls are helped by our prayers and the Holy Sacrifice, before the Last Judgment.'

St. Mark of Ephesus, First Homily on Purgatory 

"5. Thirdly, (let us take) the passage from the first epistle of the Blessed Paul to the Corinthians, in which he, speaking of the building on the foundation, which is Christ, “of gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay, stubble,” adds: “For that day shall declare it, because it is revealed in fire; and the fire itself shall prove each man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work shall abide which he built thereon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire” (1 Cor. 3:11-15). This citation, it would seem, more than nay other introduces the idea of purgatorial fire; but in actual fact it more than any other refutes it. 

"First of all, the divine Apostle called it not a purgatorial but a proving (fire); then he declared that through it good and honorable works also must pass, and such, it is clear, have no need of any cleansing; then he says that those who bring evil works, after these works burn, suffer loss, whereas those who are being cleansed not only suffer no loss, but acquire even more; then he says that this must be on “that day”, namely, the day of Judgment and of the future age, whereas to suppose the existence of a purgatorial fire after that fearful Coming of the Judge and the final sentence—is this not a total absurdity? For the Scripture does not transmit to us anything of the sort, but He Himself Who will judge us says: “And these shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Matt. 25:46): and again: “They shall come forth: they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment (John 5:29). Therefore, there remains no kind of intermediate place; but after He divided all those under judgment into two parts, placing some on the right and others on the left, and calling the first “sheep” and the second “goats” — He did not at all declare that there are any who are to be cleansed by that fire. It would seem that the fire of which the Apostle speaks is the same as that of which the Prophet David speaks: “Fire shall blaze before Him, and round about Him shall there be a mighty tempest (Ps. 49:4); and again: “Fire shall go before Him, and shall burn up His enemies round about (Ps. 96:3). Daniel the Prophet also speaks about this fire: “A stream of fire issued and came forth from before Him (Daniel 7:10).

"Since the saints do not bring with them any evil work or evil mark, this fire manifests them as even brighter, as gold tried in the fire, or as the stone amianthus, which, as it is related, when placed in fire appears as charred, but when taken out of the fire becomes even cleaner, as if washed with water, as were also the bodies of the Three Youths in the Babylonian furnace. Sinners, however, who bring evil with themselves, are seized as a suitable material for this fire and are immediately ignited by it, and their “work,” that is, their evil disposition or activity, is burned and utterly destroyed and they are deprived of what they brought with them, that is, deprived of their burden of evil, while they themselves are “saved”–that is, will be preserved and kept forever, so that they might not be subjected to destruction together with their evil."

26. Immaculate Conception 

MLR believes the apostate Latin heresy that the Mother of God was preserved from Original Sin, as well as Actual Sin; that this "Immaculate Conception" took place at the moment God created Mary's soul in the womb of St. Anne:

Mary, God's Masterpiece, Ibranyi

p. 11:  Mary Immaculate, Without Sin  ...Mary was made pure, perfect, and undefiled in every way. Satan never possessed her in any way. Never could Satan have had the least power or claim over her at any time. For God to enter Mary’s womb and take on her flesh, that very flesh of Mary could never have been under the dominion of Satan. If so Satan would then have had possession over that flesh before God did, and thus God would have been second choice to Satan, and in possession of a flesh that was once under the power of Satan. This would indicate a lack of power and wisdom on God’s part. God, the very font of holiness, purity, and unspotted perfection, would never take on flesh that was at any time under the dominion of Satan and loaded down with concupiscence.

This whole concept is a product of the western scholasticism that MLR claims to abhor.  It was the result of intellectual exercises, bereft of the Holy Tradition of the Church, and promulgated through false zeal and false piety.  The true immaculate conception is Jesus Christ born of a Virgin.  That is the whole point of the Virgin Birth!

Isaiah 7:14  Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and His name shall be called Emmanuel.

As Ibranyi points out, Original Sin is passed from generation to generation through the seed of Adam, so with the Virgin Birth, there was no need for the Blessed Virgin to have been immaculately conceived.  Realizing this destroys the argument for the necessity of Mary's "immaculate conception"; therefore, stubbornly, MLR will not concede that Original Sin passes through Adam's seed, even though Ibranyi admits it is clearly stated by the scriptures:

“Miracle of the Immaculate Conception”, Ibranyi, pp. 8-9:  ...it may be that the venom [of Original Sin] is only in the male seed and not the female egg or in the female egg but not in the male seed. It is most probable that the male seed only has the venom of original sin for three reasons: 1. Whenever the Bible speaks of the passing on of original sin, it says that it is from Adam: “For by a man came death, and by a man the resurrection of the dead. And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.” (1 Cor. 15:21-22) “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned…. But death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of him who was to come.” (Rom. 5:12, 14) Catholic Commentary on Rom. 5: “Ver. 12. By one man…Adam, from whom we all contracted original sin.”

MLR clings to the conclusions of apostate Rome.  But Holy Tradition, many things being recorded in the Protoevangelium of St. James, tells us what was believed from the beginning.  Here is a summary of some points:  

• Holy Mary's birth, from parents old and barren, was a miraculous sign to the Jews; a sign of the coming Messiah.
• Dedicated to God by her parents, she entered the Temple, the Holy of Holies, at age three, being miraculously nourished, protected, and prepared by Angels and the Holy Spirit.
• At age twelve, she was required to leave the Temple, since menstruation was ritually impure.  Lots were cast, and Mary's uncle, the aged widower St. Joseph, was chosen to be her husband.  He was not a virgin, but had sons from his first marriage, one being St. James, the brother of the Lord.
• The blessed Virgin was sanctified by Jesus Christ the moment He entered her womb. (Unity with Christ is what makes all men holy.)
• The prophecy of St. Simeon, when the child Jesus was Presented in the Temple, was made, partly because the aged High-Priest "Simeon the Righteous" already knew Holy Mary personally, and how she had been raised in the Holy of Holies.
• The Jews knew of Mary's history, and they considered the Isaiah (Is.7:14) prophecy to be messianic:  “Behold, a virgin shall conceive.”  They knew Jesus Christ was the Messiah, but they didn't like Him; they wanted to be exalted in a worldly kingdom, as zionists still do today.
• The Holy Virgin truly died, and was placed in a tomb.  Three days later, as St. Thomas was being miraculously transported through the air to meet with the Apostles at her tomb, he saw her being taken bodily to heaven, and as proof, the Mother of God passed her cincture to him.  So, the naturally doubting Thomas, was made witness, presenting her belt to the other Apostles at the Blessed Mother's empty tomb.

MLR denies Mary entered the Temple at age three, though the Feast was established in Jerusalem in the year 543, with the new Basilica dedicated to the Mother of God.  Latins say St. Joseph was always a virgin, which isn't true.  They also replace the Feast of the Dormition, with the Assumption, and the innovative theory (heresy) that Holy Mary was assumed bodily into heaven because she was "immaculately conceived"!  Though MLR denies the validity of Pius XII, it keeps the feast he established through his 1950 encyclical:

Munificentissumus Deus, Pius XII, 1950
3.  ...it is in our own age that the privilege of the bodily Assumption into heaven of Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, has certainly shone forth more clearly.
4. That privilege has shone forth in new radiance since our predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, solemnly proclaimed the dogma of the loving Mother of God's Immaculate Conception. These two privileges are most closely bound to one another. Christ overcame sin and death by his own death, and one who through Baptism has been born again in a supernatural way has conquered sin and death through the same Christ. Yet, according to the general rule, God does not will to grant to the just the full effect of the victory over death until the end of time has come. And so it is that the bodies of even the just are corrupted after death, and only on the last day will they be joined, each to its own glorious soul.
5. Now God has willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be exempted from this general rule. She, by an entirely unique privilege, completely overcame sin by her Immaculate Conception, and as a result she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, and she did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body.

In this encyclical, the Mother of God is ill used.  The bodily Assumption of Mary, a truth everyone in the Church always believed in anyway, and one Latins would obviously be pleased to accept and exult in, is used to promote, not only the immaculate conception heresy, but also the heresy of papal infallibility!  Pius XII goes on:

15.  ...The innumerable temples which have been dedicated to the Virgin Mary assumed into heaven clearly attest this faith. So do those sacred images, exposed therein for the veneration of the faithful, which bring this unique triumph of the Blessed Virgin before the eyes of all men. Moreover, cities, dioceses, and individual regions have been placed under the special patronage and guardianship of the Virgin Mother of God assumed into heaven.
16.  ...since ancient times, there have been both in the East and in the West solemn liturgical offices commemorating this privilege. 
18.  ...in the Byzantine liturgy, not only is the Virgin Mary's bodily Assumption connected time and time again with the dignity of the Mother of God, but also with the other privileges, and in particular with the virginal motherhood granted her by a singular decree of God's Providence. "God, the King of the universe, has granted you favors that surpass nature. As he kept you a virgin in childbirth, thus he has kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb."
21.  ...St. John Damascene, an outstanding herald of this traditional truth, spoke out with powerful eloquence when he compared the bodily Assumption of the loving Mother of God with her other prerogatives and privileges. "It was fitting that she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. It was fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a child at her breast, should dwell in the divine tabernacles. It was fitting that the spouse, whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine mansions. It was fitting that she, who had seen her Son upon the cross and who had thereby received into her heart the sword of sorrow which she had escaped in the act of giving birth to him, should look upon him as he sits with the Father. It was fitting that God's Mother should possess what belongs to her Son, and that she should be honored by every creature as the Mother and as the handmaid of God."(Encomium in Dormitionem Dei Genetricis Semperque Virginis Mariae, Hom. II, n. 14)

So, Pius XII himself declares the constant teaching of the Church about why Holy Mary was assumed bodily into heaven.  It was not because of the made-up immaculate conception heresy, but because it was a fitting honor.  Much a to do is made over the "Incorruptibles", meaning those Latin "saints" whose bodies have not decomposed.  Besides the fact that some of these are fraudulent, and all of these who are heretics are preserved through satanic deception, incorruptibility is more commonplace among Orthodox Saints.  My point is that it cannot be said that incorruptibility is caused by being preserved from Original Sin.

Unlike the Latins, including MLR, the Orthodox Church, being one, holy, catholic and apostolic, has always given proper honor to the Holy Mother of God:

Orthodox Veneration of the Mother of God, Maximovitch
https://churchmotherofgod.org/articles/orthodox-veneration-of-the-mother-of-god/6/

Ch. 1  The Veneration of the Mother of God During Her Earthly Life.

...The Apostles gave Her most pure body over to burial with sacred hymns, and on the third day they opened the tomb so as once more to venerate the remains of the Mother of God together with the Apostle Thomas, who had arrived then in Jerusalem. But they did not find the body in the tomb and in perplexity they returned to their own place; and then, during their meal, the Mother of God Herself appeared to them in the air, shining with heavenly light, and informed them that Her Son had glorified Her body also, and She, resurrected, stood before His Throne. At the same time She promised to be with them always.

The Apostles greeted the Mother of God with great joy and began to venerate Her not only as the Mother of their beloved Teacher and Lord, but also as their heavenly helper, as a protector of Christians and intercessor for the whole human race before the Righteous Judge. And everywhere the Gospel of Christ was preached, His Most Pure Mother also began to be glorified.

Ch. 6  “Zeal Not According to Knowledge” (Rom. 10:2)

...The proclamation of the new dogma [of the Immaculate Conception] satisfied the broad masses of people who belonged to the Roman church, who in simplicity of heart thought that the proclamation of the new teaching in the church would serve for the greater glory of the Mother of God, to Whom by this they were making a gift, as it were. There was also satisfied the vainglory of the Western theologians who had defended and worked it out. But most of all the proclamation of the new dogma was profitable for the Roman throne itself, since, having proclaimed the new dogma by his own authority, even though he did listen to the opinions of the bishops of the Catholic church, the Roman Pope by this very fact openly appropriated to himself the right to change the teaching of the Roman church and placed his own voice above the testimony of Sacred Scripture and Tradition. A direct deduction from this was the fact that the Roman Popes were infallible in matters of faith, which indeed this very same Pope Pius IX likewise proclaimed as a dogma of the Catholic church in 1870.

...in the very definition of the new dogma it is said that a new teaching is not being established, but that there is only being proclaimed as the church’s that which always existed in the church and which has been held by many Holy Fathers, excerpts from whose writings are cited. However, all the cited references speak only of the exalted sanctity of the Virgin Mary and of Her immaculateness, and give Her various names which define Her purity and spiritual might; but nowhere is there any word of the immaculateness of Her conception. Meanwhile, these same Holy Fathers in other places say that only Jesus Christ is completely pure of every sin, while all men, being born of Adam, have borne a flesh subject to the law of sin.

None of the ancient Holy Fathers say that God, in miraculous fashion, purified the Virgin Mary while yet in the womb; and many directly indicate that the Virgin Mary, just as all men, endured a battle with sinfulness, but was victorious over temptations and was saved by Her Divine Son.

...The Virgin Mary, according to their [Latin] teaching, received in advance, as it were, the gift which Christ brought to men by His sufferings and death on the Cross. Moreover, speaking of the torments of the Mother of God which She endured standing at the Cross of Her Beloved Son, and in general of the sorrows with which the life of the Mother of God was filled, they consider them an addition to the sufferings of Christ and consider Mary to be our Co-Redemptress. According to the commentary of the Latin theologians, “Mary is an associate with our Redeemer as Co-Redemptress”. “In the act of Redemption, She, in a certain way, helped Christ”. “The Mother of God...bore the burden of Her martyrdom not merely courageously, but also joyfully, even though with a broken heart”. For this reason, She is “a complement of the Holy Trinity,” and “just as Her Son is the only Intermediary chosen by God between His offended majesty and sinful men, so also, precisely, the chief Mediatress placed by Him between His Son and us is the Blessed Virgin.” “In three respects – as Daughter, as Mother, and as Spouse of God –the Holy Virgin is exalted to a certain equality with the Father, to a certain superiority over the Son, to a certain nearness to the Holy Spirit” (“The Immaculate Conception,” Malou, Bishop of Brouges).

Thus, according to the teaching of the representatives of Latin theology, the Virgin Mary in the work of Redemption is placed side by side with Christ Himself...

...Speaking of Her preparedness to die together with her Son and to suffer together with Him for the sake of the salvation of all, the renowned Father of the Western Church, Saint Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, adds:  “But the sufferings of Christ did not need any help, as the Lord Himself prophesied concerning this long before: I looked about, and there was none to help; I sought and there was none to give aid (Is. 63:5)” (St. Ambrose, “Concerning the Upbringing of the Virgin and the Ever-Virginity of Holy Mary,” ch. 7).

The same Holy Father teaches concerning the universality of original sin, from which Christ alone is an exception. “Of all those born of women, there is not a single one who is perfectly holy, apart from the Lord Jesus Christ, Who in a special new way of immaculate birth-giving, did not experience earthly taint”(St. Ambrose, Commentary on Luke, ch. 2). “God alone is without sin. All born in the usual manner of woman and man, that is, of fleshly union, become guilty of sin. Consequently, He Who does not have sin was not conceived in this manner” (St. Ambrose, Ap. Aug. “Concerning Marriage and Conception”). “One Man alone, the Intermediary between God and man, is free from the bonds of sinful birth, because He was born of a Virgin, and because in being born He did not experience the touch of sin”(St. Ambrose, Against Julian, Book 2).

Another of the Church, Augustine, writes: “As for other men, excluding Him Who is the cornerstone, I do not see for them any other means to become temples of God and to be dwellings for God apart from spiritual rebirth, which must absolutely be preceded by fleshly birth. Thus, no matter how much we might think about children who are in the womb of the mother, and even though the word of the holy Evangelist who says of John the Baptist that he leaped for joy in the womb of his mother (which occurred not otherwise than by the action of the Holy Spirit), or the word of the Lord Himself spoken to Jeremiah: I have sanctified thee before thou didst leave the womb of thy mother – no matter how much these might or might not give us a basis for thinking that children in this condition are capable of a certain sanctification, still in any case it cannot be doubted that the sanctification by which all of us together and each of us separately become the temple of God is possibly only for those who are reborn, and rebirth always presupposes birth. Only those who have already been born can be united with Christ and be in union with this Divine Body which makes His Church the living temple of the majesty of God” (Augustine, Letter 187).

The above-cited words of the ancient teachers of the Church testify that in the West’ itself the teaching which is now spread there was earlier rejected there.

The teaching of-the complete sinlessness of the Mother of God:

2. This teaching contradicts also Sacred Tradition, which is contained in numerous Patristic writings, where there is mentioned the exalted sanctity of the Virgin Mary from Her very birth, as well as Her cleansing by the Holy Spirit at Her conception of Christ, but not at Her own conception by Anna. “There is none without stain before Thee, even though his life be but a day, save Thou alone, Jesus Christ our God, Who didst appear on earth without sin, and through Whom we all trust to obtain mercy and the remission of sins.”(St. Basil the Great, Third Prayer of Vespers of Pentecost.)“But when Christ came through a pure, virginal, unwedded, God-fearing, undefiled Mother without wedlock and without father, and inasmuch as it befitted Him to be born, He purified the female nature, rejected the bitter Eve and overthrew the laws of the flesh”(St. Gregory the Theologian, “In Praise of Virginity”). However, even then, as Sts. Basil the Great and John Chrysostom speak of this, She was not placed in the state of being unable to sin, but continued to take care of Her salvation and overcame all temptations (St. John Chrysostom, Commentary on John, Homily 85; St. Basil the Great, Epistle-160)..

3. The teaching that the Mother of God was purified before Her birth, so that from Her might be born the Pure Christ, is meaningless; because if the Pure Christ could be born only if the Virgin might be born pure, it would be necessary that Her parents also should be pure of original sin, and they again would have to be born of purified parents, and going further in this way, one would have to come to the conclusion that Christ could not have become incarnate unless all His ancestors in the flesh, right up to Adam inclusive, had been purified beforehand of original sin. But then there would not have been any need for the very Incarnation of Christ, since Christ came down to earth in order to annihilate sin.

MLR's faulty reasoning is revealed in point 3 above.  Even if, as they say, Mary was immaculately conceived by "the venom of the seed of Adam" being prevented from touching her, her body was still made from the fallen substance of Anna and Joachim; from both bodies which were subject to Original Sin.  The chapter continues:

The righteousness and sanctity of the Virgin Mary were manifested in the fact that she...so loved God and gave Herself over to Him, that by her purity she was exalted high above the rest of the human race. For this, having been foreknown and fore chosen, she was vouchsafed to be purified by the Holy Spirit Who came upon her, and to conceive of Him the very Saviour of the world. The teaching of the grace-given sinlessness of the Virgin Mary denies her victory over temptations; from a victor who is worthy to be crowned with crowns of glory, this makes her a blind instrument of God’s Providence.

It is not an exaltation and greater glory, but a belittlement of her, this “gift” which was given her by Pope Pius IX and all the rest who think they can glorify the Mother of God by seeking out new truths. The Most Holy Mary has been so much glorified by God Himself, so exalted is her life on earth and her glory in heaven, that human inventions cannot add anything to her honor and glory. That which people themselves invent only obscures her Face from their eyes. Brethren, take heed lest there shall be anyone that maketh spoil of you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ, wrote the Apostle Paul by the Holy Spirit (Col. 2:18).

The fact that there had been a scholastic controversy over the "Immaculate Conception" in the west for the past 1,000 years shows that it was not an Apostolic teaching.  The only discussion early theologians had was whether the Blessed Virgin was sanctified in the womb, as was St. John the Baptist, or when Christ entered her womb at the Incarnation.  St. Ambrose's opinion was that the Virgin was filled with grace when overshadowed by the Holy Spirit at the Annunciation:

St. Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit, Book I, Ch7, #85  ...Gabriel himself, when sent to Mary, said: Hail, full of grace (Luke 1:28), plainly declaring the grace of the Spirit which was in her, because the Holy Spirit had come upon her, and she was about to have her womb full of grace with the heavenly Word.

Many Fathers liken her sanctification to the sanctification of the Ark of the covenant, which was glorious, not so much because of its materials, but because of the Presence of God:

Ex. 40:29  And Moses was not able to enter into the tabernacle of testimony, because the cloud overshadowed (ἐπεσκίαζεν) it, and the tabernacle was filled with the glory of the Lord. 

Luke 1:35  And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow (ἐπισκιάσει) you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.” 

MLR, in an effort to defend the heresy of Immaculate Conception, falls into additional heresies, just like all the other contemporary Marian groups.  In his book Mary, God’s Masterpiece, and Lucifer’s Fall, Ibranyi teaches that God primarily created the cosmos for Mary; Ibranyi’s novel interpretation of Proverbs 8 attributes to Mary verses that the Holy Fathers almost unanimously apply to Jesus Christ (His eternal begottenness, and His Incarnation): 

Mary, God’s Masterpiece, and Lucifer’s Fall, Ibranyi, 2016, pp. 19-20:  Let us listen to Mary converse with God before she was created, before she actually existed. This conversion takes place in the mind of God. Mary speaks of being God’s primary thought, as existing before anything else created. She says that she was conceived in the mind of God before any other created thing.

“The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he made any thing from the beginning. I was set up from eternity, and of old, before the earth was made. The depths were not as yet, and I was already conceived, neither had the fountains of waters as yet sprung out. The mountains, with their huge bulk, had not as yet been established: before the hills, I was brought forth: He had not yet made the earth, nor the rivers, nor the poles of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was present: when with a certain law, and compass, he enclosed the depths: When he established the sky above, and poised the fountains of waters: When he compassed the sea with its bounds, and set a law to the waters that they should not pass their limits: when he balanced the foundations of the earth. (Prv. 8:22-29)

God created everything primarily for Mary. Everything was formed by God with Mary in mind. All things were formed with her as the template, the master form. “I was with him forming all things: and was delighted every day, playing before him at all times” (Prv. 8:30) And, Mary was destined to be created and dwell among men. “Playing in the world: and my delights were to be with the children of men.” (Prv. 8:31)

All the Fathers apply these verses to Jesus Christ, not Mary; the one exception is  St. Irenaeus, who applies these verses to the Holy Spirit:

St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies: “I have also largely demonstrated, that the Word, namely the Son, was always with the Father; and that Wisdom also, which is the Spirit, was present with Him, anterior to all creation. He declares by Solomon:  ..."The Lord made me the beginning of His ways in His work: He set me up from everlasting, in the beginning, before He made the earth, before He established the depths, and before the fountains of waters gushed forth; before the mountains were made strong, and before all the hills, He brought me forth [Septuagint: begets; present tense][Lat. genuit]."  And again: "When He prepared the heaven, I was with Him, and when He established the fountains of the deep; when He made the foundations of the earth strong, I was with Him preparing [them]. I was He in whom He rejoiced, and throughout all time I was daily glad before His face, when He rejoiced at the completion of the world, and was delighted in the sons of men."

On page 24, Ibranyi attributes to Mary what belongs to Christ’s Incarnation:

Mary, God’s Masterpiece, Ibranyi, p. 24:

Mary is the template for all houses, angels and humans

The Blessed Virgin Mary, who would be elevated as the crowning jewel of God's creation, is the highest elevated creature that has and will ever exist. She is the Queen of angels and saints, and of heaven and earth. Her thoughts were always with God before any consideration of other creatures. The Blessed Virgin Mary is God's primary thought. All other creatures were created for her. She is the template of perfection for angels and men. This primary perfect mansion will then serve as the template for all other mansions. The Blessed Virgin Mary is the most perfect mansion that must be imitated by angels in order to remain perfect and by fallen men if they want to become perfect.

The goal of man is to become exactly like Mary and not exactly like God, like Jesus

Christ, because man is not God. Man can be like God and the spirit of God can dwell in him, but he cannot become God. “He hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature…” (2 Pt. 1:4) However, Mary is a creature as is man, and therefore, man can become just like Mary. Mary is the hope of men.

But Jesus Christ is also fully man!  MLR is denying the full meaning of the Incarnation.  This faulty reasoning comes from accepting the scholastic heresies of Absolute Divine Simplicity, and Created Grace, which denies man's real union with God in heaven.  Men join themselves to Christ's Body, and receive His life-giving Sacraments, in order to become like Him, not Mary!  MLR's reasoning is blasphemous.

Matt. 5:48  Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.

An additional heresy is found on page 28, where Ibranyi says:

“If Adam and Eve did not commit the original sin God wouldn’t have had to suffer, be crucified, and die in His humanity.”

But God, Jesus Christ in union with the Father and Holy Spirit, CHOSE to die, He didn’t have to.  To understand the proper veneration of the Most Blessed Virgin, see the rest of the book:

The Orthodox Veneration of the Mother of God, Maximovich
https://churchmotherofgod.org/articles/orthodox-veneration-of-the-mother-of-god/

27. Against Baptism 

All Roman Catholic baptisms lack grace because they are outside the true Church.   In addition to this, MLR accepts the invalid form of Baptism that the counterfeit Roman church has implemented since the Council of Ravenna in 1311.  "To baptize" means "to immerse; to dip".  Except for emergency situations, aspersion, rather than triple-immersion, is invalid.  It's contrary to the 50th Apostolic Canon:

Apostolic Canons, Canon 50: If any Bishop or Presbyter does not perform three immersions (literally, "three baptisms") in making one baptism (literally, "one initiation"), but (sc. only) a single immersion (literally, "a single baptism"), that given into the death of the Lord, let him be deposed (sc. from office). For the Lord did not say, "Baptize ye into my death," but, "Go ye and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19).

The Rudder, Interpretation of Apostolic Canon 50:  There are three things quite necessary and in any case altogether indispensable in the mystery (i.e., sacrament) of Holy Baptism: holy water; trine immersion and emersion in the water; and an invocation of each of the three Supergod Substances. In the foregoing 49th Canon the divine Apostles ordered and taught concerning the three invocations, what names we are to say, and in what order. In the present, or 50th, Canon they proceed to ordain concerning the three immersions and emersions. This means, as we have said, that these are necessary as regards what is simply called necessary, and are constituents of the true and orthodox baptism. Accordingly, without them not only is a baptism incomplete, but it cannot even be called a baptism at all. For, if to baptize means in more familiar language to dip, then speaking of immersions in the water is the same thing as speaking of three dips or baptisms; a dip is also called a baptism, and is not so called because of anything else. But let us see what the Apostles decree in regard to the word. Whatever bishop or presbyter in the single mystery of baptism fails to perform three baptisms, or three immersions, but instead performs only one immersion carried out as though into the one death of the Lord, let him be deposed from office. (See this Apostolical Canon refuting Eunomius — a Roman Catholic bishop deposed A.D. 361 — the first to substitute a single immersion in baptism, as we said before, though other heretics may have been doing this even in the time of the holy Apostles). Since the Lord did not tell us, His Apostles, when He was sending us forth to preach, "Baptize ye in my death," but instead He told us, "Go ye and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" — which means, of course, baptize ye them with three immersions and emersions, and with each immersion add ye aloud each single name of the Holy Trinity. For in a single immersion and emersion neither is the three days’ death of the Savior perspicuously represented nor are the mystery and the theognosy (i.e., knowledge of God) of the Holy Trinity at all indicated. Hence any such baptism, being destitute of theology, and of the incarnate economy, is most impious and cacodoxical. But with three immersions and emersions both faith in the Holy Trinity is clearly affirmed and the three days’ death and burial and resurrection of the Savior are at the same time symbolized. Thence it consequently follows that our baptism comprises the two foremost dogmas of our expression of the orthodox faith — that, I mean, of the theology of the vivifying Trinity, and that of the incarnate economy of the God Logos.

Also, MLR believes anyone, Christian, pagan or atheist, may baptize in case of emergency.  But this is only the practice of the counterfeit church.  In such cases, only members of the Body of Christ are able to baptize:

Synod of Jerusalem, 1672, Decree XVI:  ...Now the matter of Baptism is pure water, and no other liquid.  And it is performed by the Priest only, or in a case of unavoidable necessity, by another man, provided he be Orthodox, and have the intention proper to Divine Baptism.  

28. Condemned Disciplines  

Besides MLR's acceptance of the addition to the Creed, and the changes to the Sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion, as well as its abuse of epikeia (such as making changes in the names of months and days, which the Church has considered unnecessary), it accepts other forbidden changes made by Rome, such as the abrogation of the Church's fasts, the imposition of priestly celibacy, the use of imagination in prayer, devotion to the Lady of Guadalupe, and the imposition of the Gregorian Calendar.

Fasts

Wednesday and Friday fasts were not simply an eastern custom; it was the also the long-standing discipline of the west, until Rome changed the Wednesday fast to Saturday.  (For brevity, I will not address the change in types of food permitted.):

Apostolic Canon 69 (universally approved by the 7th Ecumenical Council):  If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or reader, or singer, does not fast the holy Quadragesimal fast of Easter, or the fourth day [Wednesday], or the day of Preparation [Friday], let him be deposed, unless he be hindered by some bodily infirmity. If he be a layman, let him be excommunicated.

Apostolic Constitutions, Book V, XV:  Of the Great Week, and on What Account They Enjoin Us to Fast on Wednesday and Friday. XV. ...He [Christ] commanded us to fast on the fourth and sixth days of the week; the former on account of His being betrayed, and the latter on account of His passion. But He appointed us to break our fast on the seventh day at the cock-crowing, but to fast on the Sabbath day. Not that the Sabbath day is a day of fasting, being the rest from the creation, but because we ought to fast on this one Sabbath only [Holy Saturday], while on this day the Creator was under the earth. 

St. Athanasius:  Do not neglect the fast of the Lord—Wednesdays and Fridays—unless prevented by illness...

St. Ignatius of Antioch:  Do not despise the fasts, and do not neglect the fast of Wednesdays and Fridays. 

St. Augustine:  Do not despise the fasts, and do not neglect the fast of Wednesdays and Fridays. 

St. Jerome (who repented of his errors, btw MLR): It is not permissible to break the fast on Wednesdays and Fridays without necessary cause.

Rule of St. Benedict, Ch. 41:  ...But from Pentecost throughout the summer...let them fast on Wednesdays and Fridays until the ninth hour.

Also see:

"The Fast of the Holy Apostles", Orthodox Christianity

https://orthochristian.com/62493.html

Priestly Celibacy 

In union with the counterfeit church, MLR advocates the violation of the universal canon on priestly celibacy:

Council of Trullo (universally approved by the 7th Ecumenical Council), 692, Canon XIII:  Since we know it to be handed down as a rule of the Roman Church that those who are deemed worthy to be advanced to the diaconate or presbyterate should promise no longer to cohabit with their wives, we, preserving the ancient rule and apostolic perfection and order, will that the lawful marriages of men who are in holy orders be from this time forward firm, by no means dissolving their union with their wives nor depriving them of their mutual intercourse at a convenient time. Wherefore, if anyone shall have been found worthy to be ordained subdeacon, or deacon, or presbyter, he is by no means to be prohibited from admittance to such a rank, even if he shall live with a lawful wife. Nor shall it be demanded of him at the time of his ordination that he promise to abstain from lawful intercourse with his wife: lest we should affect injuriously marriage constituted by God and blessed by His presence, as the Gospel saith: "What God hath joined together let no man put asunder;" and the Apostle saith, "Marriage is honorable and the bed undefiled;" and again, "Art thou bound to a wife? Seek not to be loosed." But we know, as they who assembled at Carthage (with a care for the honest life of the clergy) said, that subdeacons, who handle the Holy Mysteries, and deacons, and presbyters should abstain from their consorts according to their own course [of ministration]. So that what has been handed down through the Apostles and preserved by ancient custom, we too likewise maintain, knowing that there is a time for all things and especially for fasting and prayer. For it is meet that they who assist at the divine altar should be absolutely continent when they are handling holy things, in order that they may be able to obtain from God what they ask in sincerity.

If therefore anyone shall have dared, contrary to the Apostolic Canons, to deprive any of those who are in holy orders, presbyter, or deacon, or subdeacon of cohabitation and intercourse with his lawful wife, let him be deposed. In like manner also if any presbyter or deacon on pretense of piety has dismissed his wife, let him be excluded from communion; and if he persevere in this let him be deposed.

So, how did Rome generally accept this canon, yet maintain the Roman discipline of priestly celibacy?  This canon is found in the original Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars I., Dist. XXXI., c. xiii.  The note which Gratian appends explains: "This however must be understood as of local application; for the Eastern Church, to which the VI. Synod prescribed this rule, did not receive a vow of chastity from the ministers of the altar."  So, it is the opinion of Gratian, as well as Latin theologians, that the celibacy of the Roman clergy rests upon the vow and not upon any binding law of the Church.  

One can only conclude, then, that the 11th century imposition of mandatory celibacy among married clergy was a power-play, especially since Rome tolerates married priests among the Uniates, even to this day. 

Under Pope Benedict VIII (1012-1024), decrees were issued against married priests, including the permission for secular rulers to enslave their children.  This secular minded Pope was accustomed to violate the canons in other ways, as well, such as his involvement in military expeditions, and his encouragement of Norman attacks on fellow Christians in southern Italy. 

Then we have Pope Leo IX who, in 1054, anathematized the Patriarch of Constantinople and his followers because they permitted married priests to serve at their altars.  This was clearly in violation of the universally accepted canon.  The Orthodox response was to follow the Church's canons:

Synod of Gangra (4th century), Canon 4:  If any one shall maintain, concerning a married presbyter, that is not lawful to partake of the oblation when he offers it, let him be anathema.

Finally, Antipope Gregory VII codified priestly celibacy when, at the Lenten Synod of 1074, he unilaterally (and unlawfully) decreed the mysteries of married clergy invalid!  Following in his footsteps, Antipope Urban II decreed: 

Urban II, Council of Melfi, 1089:  We expel from every sacred order those who from the subdiaconate upward wish to have leisure for wives, and we decree that they be without office and benefice of the Church. But, if warned by the bishop, they fail to correct themselves, we give permission to princes that they may subject their women to servitude. 

So, through the acceptance of the deposed Gregory VII and his Reforms, MLR approves of the enslavement of innocent wives and children.  

Imagination in Prayer  

It is good to contemplate the realities of God.  However, MLR is devoted to some second millennial meditative prayers, such as the Dominican Rosary (which is different from the original Celtic Rosary, and confirms people in the counterfeit church).  The modern Rosary encourages the use of the imagination, which is condemned by the Church Fathers, since it leads to demonic deception and prelest.  

St. John Climacus, The Ladder of Divine Ascent, Step 28, #19:  "The beginning of prayer consists of chasing away invading thoughts.  The mind is to be free from all thoughts and images, and focused on the words of the prayer."

Bp. Ignati Bryanchaninov (1807-1867), Works 1:160-1:  The most dangerous of the incorrect types of prayer consists of the person creating imaginary pictures, seemingly borrowing them from the Holy Scripture, but in reality—from his own state of fall and self-pride; and with these pictures he flatters his own self-opinion, his fall, his sinfulness, deceives himself. Obviously, everything which is created by the imagination of our fallen nature, does not exist in reality, is make-belief and false…  The one who imagines, with the first step on the path of prayer leaves the area of truth and enters the area of deceit, passions, sin, Satan.]

St. Simeon the New Theologian:   During this type of prayer, little by little, he starts to puff up in his heart, not understanding this himself; it seems to him that what he is doing is from God's grace [given] for his comfort, and he asks God to let him be always in this state. But this is a sign of great deception...even if...he does not go insane, he, nonetheless, will not be able to acquire virtues...

See:

"Refuting the Usage of Imagination in Prayer". Erhan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bksIbBKk_gQ

For proper devotions to the Blessed Virgin, see: 

"Irish Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary"

https://thecatholiccottage.blogspot.com/2022/04/irish-litany-of-blessed-virgin-mary.html

Akathist to the Holy Virgin

https://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/m_akathist_e.htm

Akathist to the Most Holy Theotokos, Nurturer of Children

https://www.akathists.com/the-most-holy-theotokos/nurturer-of-children/

Canon to the Most Holy Mother of God

https://web.archive.org/web/20001204003900/http:/pages.prodigy.net/frjohnwhiteford/mpthn_canon.htm

The devotion most similar to the western Rosary (without encouraging imagination or heretical ideas), is this:

The Prayer Rule of the Theotokos: As Prayed by Saint Seraphim of Sarov, $12

https://www.amazon.com/Prayer-Rule-Theotokos-Prayed-Seraphim/dp/1492155853

Guadalupe  

Another devotion accepted by MLR is to the Lady of Guadalupe.  For a group that is so adamantly opposed to blasphemous art, it is surprisingly accepting of this apparition.  The most glaring cause for alarm is that the real Blessed Virgin, who was assumed bodily into heaven, is Jewish, yet the Guadalupe woman appears as a native of Mexico.  The 7th Ecumenical Council forbids depicting Jesus and the Saints other than they actually are:

7th Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II), 787, Session II, Epistle of Pope Hadrian to Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople:  ...we found in the above-mentioned synodical epistle of your Holiness, after the fulness of your faith in, and confession of, the sacred Symbol and the six holy Ecumenic Councils, a paragraph concerning holy and venerable images worthy of the highest praise and reception.  For you there say, "I receive also all that was determined by the six holy Ecumenical Councils, with all the Canons, legitimately and by divine inspiration enacted therein, among which is the  following - In certain sacred pictures, the Lamb, as pointed out by the finger of the forerunner (John the Baptist) is represented which was a type of grace, and under the law prefigured the True Lamb, Christ our God.  But while we duly value the ancient types and shadows, as types and prefigurations of the truth, we value more highly the grace and truth itself, receiving the same as the completion of the law.  In order therefore, that the perfect image may by presented to the contemplation of all, we decree that in all pictures from henceforth, the figure of our Lord Jesus Christ, the true Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world (John I.29), should be portrayed in His human form, instead of the Lamb as heretofore; that we being stirred up by the sight thereof, may be led to meditate upon the depth of the humiliation of God the Word, as to the remembrance of His conversation in the flesh; and of His passion, and of His saving death, and of the redemption thereby accomplished in behalf of the world."

7th Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II), 787, Decree of the Holy, Great, Ecumenical Synod, the Second of Nice:  ...we keep unchanged all the ecclesiastical traditions handed down to us, whether in writing or verbally, one of which is the making of pictorial representations, agreeable to the history of the preaching of the Gospel, a tradition useful in many respects, but especially in this, that so the incarnation of the Word of God is shown forth as real and not merely fantastic, for these have mutual indications and without doubt have also mutual significations.

We...define with all certitude and accuracy that just as the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross, so also the venerable and holy images, as well in painting and mosaic as of other fit materials, should be set forth in the holy churches of God, and on the sacred vessels and on the vestments and on hangings and in pictures both in houses and by the wayside, to wit, the figure of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, of our spotless Lady, the Mother of God, of the honorable Angels, of all Saints and of all pious people. For by so much more frequently as they are seen in artistic representation, by so much more readily are men lifted up to the memory of their prototypes, and to a longing after them; and to these should be given due salutation and honorable reverence, not indeed that true worship of faith (latreian) which pertains alone to the divine nature; but to these, as to the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross and to the Book of the Gospels and to the other holy objects, incense and lights may be offered according to ancient pious custom. For the honour which is paid to the image passes on to that which the image represents, and he who reveres the image reveres in it the subject represented...

Iconography is not devoid of symbolism; it not only depicts external truth, but also internal and spiritual truths of the real person or thing.  The important point is that it represents what is true.  Icons are said to be the windows of heaven.  Therefore, knowing that the Blessed Mother of God, was assumed bodily into heaven, why would we venerate , not only an image, but an apparition that doesn't have the likeness of the Blessed Virgin?  This denies belief in the Dormition and subsequent Assumption.

Though human sacrifices ended in 1521 with the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs, was such a culture, that had been so wickedly against the natural law, likely to receive such an extraordinary grace as a visit from the most pure Mother of God just ten years later in 1531?  And what was the religion that the apparition drew the Mexicans to follow?  It was a counterfeit Roman Catholicism.

Gal. 1:8  But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

For more information, see:

"Guadalupe, Mexico's Pachamama"

https://thecatholiccottage.blogspot.com/2025/05/guadalupe-mexicos-pachamama.html

The Guadalupe apparition presaged the new astronomer's calendar of Gregory XIII by fifty years.  The research of Fr. Mario Rojas Sánchez and Dr. Juan Homero Hernández Illescas of Mexico (published in 1983) shows that the stars on image of the woman's mantle are exactly as the stars of the winter solstice [yet] appeared before dawn on the morning of December 12, 1531.  Thus, the vision was already following the new calendar, which leads us to the next condemned discipline...

The Gregorian Calendar  of 1582 was anathematized by Pan-Orthodox Councils for violating the 1st Ecumenical Council which forbids celebrating Pascha before the Jewish Passover. (See #19 below.)  For a greater understanding of the significance of the Ecclesiastical calendar and how it affects dogma, read:

The Calendar Question, Sakkas

https://www.gocinna.com/_files/ugd/cf7db8_c46bb7a8c8ba471088140a6723279acd.pdf

29.  Judaizing commemoration of Old Testament Feasts

MLR wants to bring back the Old Testament feasts:

MLR, “Catholic” Calendar, 2024, "Old Testament Feast Days":  While the Old Testament rituals and ceremonies ended and were replaced by the New Covenant rituals and ceremonies as instituted by the Catholic Church, the Old Testament festival days should still be remembered and commemorated, just as the Old Testament saints, such as (Abraham, Moses, Job, and the Machabees) should be remembered and commemorated. Hence I added three Old Testament Feast Days to the calendar... 

1. In honor of Queen Esther’s Saving of the Jews from Aman (Purim) on 2/3; 

2. Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkoth) The 4th 5th weekday in the 11th month: 

3. Rededication of the Temple by the Machabees (Hanukkah) on 12/14  

"On Mary’s Little Remnant Catholic Calendar":  "In emergency situations, epikeia allows exemptions from non-dogmatic laws without the need of confirmation or a dispensation from a competent authority.”

But Christ fulfilled all Old Testament Feasts, therefore the Church forbids celebrating them:

Apostolic Canon 70. If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon, or anyone at all who is on the list of clergymen, fasts together with Jews, or celebrates a holiday together with them, or accepts from them holiday gifts or favors, such as unleavened wafers, or anything of the like, let him be deposed from office. If a layman do likewise, however, let him be excommunicated.

Again, this is another matter that touches upon dogma, and not merely discipline, so epikeia cannot apply.  It is dogmatically true that Jesus Christ's coming fulfilled all Old Testament (OT) feasts, "precepts and symbols" (St. Aug.). The Church honors the Old Testament feasts through her own Feasts, pointing out how they are all are fulfilled in Christ.

Council of Laodicea [confirmed by Ec. Councils 1 & 4],  Canon 37:  That one must not accept holiday tokens sent by Jews or heretics, nor celebrate any holiday along with them.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Magnesians 10:2-3:  Throw out the bad yeast, which has become stale and sour, and reach for the new yeast, which is Jesus Christ…It is utterly absurd to profess Jesus Christ and to practice Judaism. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity.

St. Augustine, Writings in Connection with the Manichaean Controversy, Book XXII, Reply to Faustus the Manichæan, #6:  ...We have repeatedly shown at great length, that the precepts and symbols of the Old Testament contained both what was to be fulfilled in obedience through the grace bestowed in the New Testament, and what was to be set aside as a proof of its having been fulfilled in the truth now made manifest.  For in the love of God and of our neighbor is secured the accomplishment of the precepts of the law, while the accomplishment of its promises is shown in the abolition of circumcision, and of other typical observances formerly practised.  By the precept men were led, through a sense of guilt to desire salvation; by the promise they were led to find in the typical observances the assurance that the Saviour would come.  The salvation desired was to be obtained through the grace bestowed on the appearance of the New Testament; and the fulfillment of the expectation rendered the types no longer necessary.  The same law that was given by Moses became grace and truth in Jesus Christ.  By the grace in the pardon of sin, the precept is kept in force in the case of those supported by divine help.  By the truth the symbolic rites are set aside, that the promise might, in those who trust in the divine faithfulness, be brought to pass.

Even modern apostate Catholics and Protestants point out the obvious regarding the fulfillment of these OT feasts: 

Purim is fulfilled: 

(Feasts:  Purification; Annunciation; Dormition; remembrance of the wedding at Cana)

A Practical Commentary on Holy Scripture, "Bp." Knecht, 1910, p. 356:  "...expounded upon the powerful Marian typology found in the book of Esther:  Esther is a type of the ever Blessed Virgin Mary. Esther, on account of her beauty, was raised from her low estate to be queen: Mary, on account of the beauty of her pure and humble heart, was raised to be the Mother of the Redeemer, and afterward, Queen of Heaven...Esther, adorned in splendid garments, went before the king, prayed for her people, and was heard: Mary, the Queen of Heaven, radiant with virtues and merits, goes before the throne of God to intercede for her people."

Sukkoth is fulfilled:

(Feasts:  Holy Baptism; 40 day Nativity Fast; Great Lent)

"What Does the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot) Mean to Christians?", Fairchild  

Feast of Tabernacles:

• Sukkot is one of the three major pilgrimage festivals of Israel, commemorating the 40 years of wilderness wanderings as well as the completion of the harvest or agricultural year.

• The Feast of Tabernacles lasts one week, beginning on the fifteenth day of the month of Tishri (September or October), five days after the Day of Atonement, at the end of the harvest.

• The Jewish people built temporary shelters for the feast to remember their deliverance from Egypt by the hand of God.

Jesus and the Feast of Tabernacles:  

   During the Feast of Tabernacles in the Bible, two important ceremonies took place. The Hebrew people carried torches around the temple, illuminating bright candelabrum along the walls of the temple to demonstrate that the Messiah would be a light to the Gentiles. Also, the priest drew water from the pool of Siloam and carried it to the temple where it was poured into a silver basin beside the altar.

    The priest called upon the Lord to provide heavenly water in the form of rain for their supply. Also during this ceremony, the people looked forward to the pouring out of the Holy Spirit. Some records reference the day spoken of by the prophet Joel.

     In the New Testament, Jesus attended the Feast of Tabernacles and spoke these remarkable words on the last and greatest day of the Feast:

"If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him." (John 7:37-38, NIV)

The next morning, while the torches were still burning Jesus said:

"I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." (John 8:12, NIV)"

Hanukkah is fulfilled (Feast:  The Nativity of the Light of the World):

"Feast of Dedication: How Jesus Fulfills Hanukkah", Cook, 2022:   

"...In John 10:22–42, the apostle shows us how Jesus fulfills three key elements of this Jewish feast—the hero, the temple, and the lights... 

Jesus and Hanukkah’s Lights

     The imagery of light plays an important role in Hanukkah because the light of the temple was extinguished during the Syrian desecration and then was restored by Judas Maccabeus. But John wants us to see that Jesus is the light who shines brighter than Hanukkah’s lights. In John 8:12, Jesus said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

     This is something Judas Maccabeus could never say. The darkness that engulfed the Jewish nation under the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes wasn’t fully removed by the victory of Judas, but only by the victory of Jesus. And Jesus continues to shine in the darkness, and the forces of darkness will never overpower him (1:5)...

     The temple which meant so much to the Jewish people was merely a temporary fixture until the coming of this true temple.

     Jesus is our greater hero. Jesus is our greater temple. Jesus is our greater light. Jesus fulfills Hanukkah!"

30. Judaizing Bible revision

MLR’s unauthorized, erroneous and heretical Bible revision confirms the fact its leader is a heretical, false prophet, not inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Ibranyi's bible revision uses the corrupted Masoretic genealogy dates in Genesis 11, thus inadvertently promoting Jewish apostasy.

Epistle for the Feast of Feb. 2

Hebrews 7:7-17

7 (316) ** And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.

8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.

10 For he [Levi] was yet in the loins of his father [Abraham], when Melchisedec met him.

11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,

16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

As heretic Nathan Hoffman points out in his video, "Were the Pyramids Built before the Flood?", Jews altered the genealogy of Sem to make it appear that he lived to the time of Abraham, in order to discredit Jesus' Messianic Priesthood.

"Were the Pyramids Built Before the Flood? (Masoretic Text vs. Original Hebrew)" https://vimeo.com/219396064

Rabbi Asher Meza:  "Unlike Christianity, our tradition tells us who was Melchizedeck. He wasn't an angel, or God, Himself, like the Christians teach.  But, was actually Sem the son of Noe, who transferred the title of priest over to Abraham.  And then on through Isaac, Jacob, Levi, and ultimately Aaron."

According to rabbinic teaching, Jesus would need to be of the Tribe of Levi. Ibranyi claims to be called to convert the Jews, but this falsification of dates is a hindrance to their conversion.  Hoffman also points out that the altered genealogy dates make historical events impossible.  The Masoretic text in Genesis 11 has become cannon fodder for atheists, since as a consequence, it places the building of the Egyptian pyramids before the great flood.

The Holy Catholic Bible, revised by RJMI, p. 56:  
Genesis 11:12-26
12 And Arphaxad lived thirty-five years and begot Sale.
13 And Arphaxad lived after he begot Sale three hundred and three years and begot sons and daughters.
14 Sale also lived thirty years and begot Heber.
15 And Sale lived after he begot Heber four hundred and three years, and begot sons and daughters.
16 And Heber lived thirty-four years and begot Phaleg.
17 And Heber lived after he begot Phaleg four hundred and thirty years, and begot sons and daughters.
18 Phaleg also lived thirty years and begot Reu.
19 And Phaleg lived after he begot Reu two hundred and nine years, and begot sons and daughters.
20 And Reu lived thirty-two years and begot Sarug.
21 And Reu lived after he begot Sarug two hundred and seven years, and begot sons and daughters.
22 And Sarug lived thirty years, and begot Nachor.
23 And Sarug lived after he begot Nachor two hundred years: and begot sons and daughters.
24 And Nachor lived nine and twenty years and begot Thare.
25 And Nachor lived after he begot Thare a hundred and nineteen years, and begot sons and daughters.
26 And Thare lived seventy years and begot Abram, and Nachor, and Aran. 

Compare the incorrect dates above, inserted by the Jews, to the correct dates from the inspired Septuagint, found in the English translation: 

The Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible, English, Brenton, 1851, 

Genesis 11:12-26

12 And Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirty-five years, and begot Cainan.

13 And Arphaxad lived after he had begotten Cainan, four hundred years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. [...] 

14 And Sala lived an hundred and thirty years, and begot Heber.

15 And Sala lived after he had begotten Heber, three hundred and thirty years, and begot sons and daughters, and died.

16 And Heber lived an hundred and thirty-four years, and begot Phaleg.

17 And Heber lived after he had begotten Phaleg two hundred and seventy years, and begot sons and daughters, and died.

18 And Phaleg lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot Ragau.

19 And Phaleg lived after he had begotten Ragau, two hundred and nine years, and begot sons and daughters, and died.

20 And Ragau lived a hundred thirty and two years, and begot Seruch.

21 And Raau lived after he had begotten Seruch, two hundred and seven years, and begot sons and daughters, and died.

22 And Seruch lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot Nachor.

23 And Seruch lived after he had begotten Nachor, two hundred years, and begot sons and daughters, and died.

24 And Nachor lived a hundred and seventy-nine years, and begot Tharrha.

25 And Nachor lived after he had begotten Tharrha, an hundred and twenty-five years, and begot sons and daughters, and he died.

26 And Tharrha lived seventy years, and begot Abram, and Nachor, and Arrhan.

"Priest Messiah (of Levi) and King Messiah (of Judah)", Jewish apostate Neil Godfrey

https://vridar.org/2017/04/16/the-priestly-messiah-and-the-royal-messiah/

...I quote a summary of the various references by K.G. Kuhn:  So we see, side by side in Test. Rub. 67-12 the Anointed High Priest of Levi 19 and the Eternal King of Judah. Levi has the highest rank, while Judah is subordinated to him. Especially interesting is the fact that it is the high priest title, already familiar to us from Lev. 4 which appears here in the same Greek translation as the Septuagint used in Lev. 45,16, 615, cf. 43. In Test. Levi 172, 3 the high priest of Levi is called the Anointed One (ho chriomenos = ha-mashiah). 20  According to Test. Sim. 72, God will cause a high priest to arise from Levi and a King from Judah. 21 It is from these that the salvation of God will come upon Israel (Test. Sim. 71; likewise Test. Levi 211; Dan 510; Gad 81; Jos. 1911).

Pope St. Leo the Great, Sermon 3, #I. The honor of being raised to the episcopate must be referred solely to the Divine Head of the Church [Jesus Christ]:  ...For it is He [Christ] of whom it is prophetically written, You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedeck, that is, not after the order of Aaron, whose priesthood descending along his own line of offspring was a temporal ministry, and ceased with the law of the Old Testament, but after the order of Melchizedeck, in whom was prefigured the eternal High Priest.  And no reference is made to his parentage because in him it is understood that He was portrayed, whose generation cannot be declared.  And finally, now that the mystery of this Divine priesthood has descended to human agency, it runs not by the line of birth, nor is that which flesh and blood created, chosen, but without regard to the privilege of paternity and succession by inheritance, those men are received by the Church as its rulers whom the Holy Ghost prepares: so that in the people of God's adoption, the whole body of which is priestly and royal, it is not the prerogative of earthly origin which obtains the unction, but the condescension of Divine grace which creates the bishop.

Note that Pope St. Leo the Great associates Christ's High Priesthood in the Church with "the bishop", not with the modern idea of the papacy which is above bishops.  

Christ's true Church has always had Bishops to guide the faithful.  "Orthodox" simply means true praise and true belief.  Roman Catholics, as I used to be, are taught the lie that it's a mortal sin to read Orthodox theological materials. They (even those who realize the great extent of Rome's apostasy) are so completely conditioned to believe "the papacy" was established by Jesus Christ, that they are more willing to listen to the ramblings of  MLR, than to consider what the Orthodox Church has taught from the beginning.  This, in spite of the fact that Rome and the four eastern Patriarchates formed one Church for a thousand years!  They hold onto a false memory, and a paper church.