I've seen the following quote attributed to St. John Chrysostom : >The road to hell is paved with the bones of priests and monks, and the skulls of bishops are the lampposts that light the path. Where did he say this?

I am looking for the quotes of early Church Fathers describing the ability of the law. **Did they believe the law was never meant & able to justify or give life?** In other words, it did not justify anyone before the coming of the promise (Christ). I am sure about the views of Augustine and Jerome that they didn't believe the law could ever give life, but I need some more quotes. I didn't see that view being shown clearly from John Chrysostom's Homily on Galatians 3:21. It would be great if you can share the views of early fathers with unambiguous quotes, and if possible, do share the Greek text as well. I suspect Jerome and Augustine along with Marcion might have been the first known leaders who taught that the law was never able to justify, rather than its temporal end due to the coming of Christ. Christ being the end of the law-righteousness. (Rom 10:4). John Chrysostom quote from the Homilies of Chrysostom: > [\[Commentary - Galatians 3:21\]][1] Ver. 21. "For if there had been a law given which could make alive verily righteousness would have been of the Law." > >His meaning is as follows; If we had our hope of life in the Law, and our salvation depended on it, the objection might be valid. But if it save you, by means of Faith, though it brings you under the curse, you suffer nothing from it, gain no harm, in that Faith comes and sets all right. Had the promise been by the Law, you had reasonably feared lest, separating from the Law, you should separate from righteousness, but if it was given in order to shut up all, that is, to convince all and expose their individual sins, far from excluding you from the promises, it now aids you in obtaining them. This is shown by the words,

Did St. John Chrysostom believe in papal papacy—i.e., that the pope has supreme power and primacy over the entire Church?

We have an astonishing number of extant writings by St. John Chrysostom. One source says: > Chrysostom is among the most prolific of the Fathers: 17 treatises, more than 700 authentic homilies, commentaries on Matthew and on Paul (Letters to the Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians and Hebrews) and 241 letters are extant. He was not a speculative theologian. And I don't think I've ever encountered uncertainty about attribution. We're talking about someone who lived in the second half of the 4th century! How in the world do so many of his writings survive? Were they kept in a monastery/cathedral/library/etc.?

John Chrysostom (AD 347-407), while commenting on 2 Thessalonians 2:7, writes about how some in his day thought the prevalence of the full range of charismatic gifts functioned to restrain the coming of the man of lawlessness. He writes: > Some indeed say, the grace of the Spirit, but others the Roman empire, > to whom I most of all accede. Wherefore? Because if he meant to say > the Spirit, he would not have spoken obscurely, but plainly, that even > now the grace of the Spirit, that is the gifts, withhold him. And > otherwise he ought now to have come, if he was about to come when the > gifts ceased; for they have long since ceased. But because he said > this of the Roman empire, he naturally glanced at it, and speaks > covertly and darkly. For he did not wish to bring upon himself > superfluous enmities, and useless dangers. (Homily 4 on Second > Thessalonians) In examining the patristic record , his observation seems to be in error at least for the first three centuries. However, is it possible that a full range distribution of charismatic gifts ceased sometime in the late fourth century? If so, what are the different theories accounting for such a decline?

I stumbled upon the following quotations from St. Alphonsus' book "The History of Heresies and their Refutation": >Gratia Dei semper in beneficiis priores sibi partes vindicat. (St. Chrysos. Hom. 13, in Jean) >Quia in nostra voluntate totum post Gratiam Dei relictum est, ideo et peccantibus supplicia proposita sunt, et bene operantibus retributiones. (Idem, Hom. 22, in Gen.) >Igitur quod accepisti, habes, ncque hoc tantum, aut illud, sed quidquid habes; non enim merita tua hæc sunt, sod Dei Gratia; quamvis fidem adducas, quamvis dona, quamvis doctrinæ sermonem, quamvis virtutem, omnia tibi inde provenerunt. Quid igitur habes quæso, quod acceptum non habeas? Num ipse perte recte operatus es? Non sane, sed accepisti...Propterea cohibearis oportet, non enim tuum ad munus est, sed largieutis. (St. Chrysos. Hom, in cap. 4, 1, ad Cor.) The problem is that I can't find those in the works cited by Alphonsus. Any experts here on St. John Chrysostom or that have read some of his works that can help me out?

In this answer about Pelagianism (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/48621/did-pelagius-believe-in-faith-alone/52958#52958) the author makes a sort of apology for Pelagianism and claims that St. John Chrysostom was Pelagian himself. The author says in the comments: "early synergist fathers implicitly believed same that man can be saved without grace ... Chrysostom was a Pelagian". I haven't yet dug into the works of this St. John, but found a good article about the topic: St John Chrysostom on Grace and Free Will In which there is the following paragraph: > Chrysostom then raises as a possible objection the famous statement of St. Paul in Romans, “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy” (9:16). His reply is that St. Paul here uses the common idiomatic device in which one who is the author of the greater part of a work is said to be its sole cause, as when a house is said to be an architect’s doing even though in fact he only designed it. Paul’s purpose, he says, is “that we should not be lifted up …Even though you run (he would say), even though you excel, do not consider the well-doing your own; for if you do not obtain the impulse from above, all is to no purpose.” The footnote cites the source as: > Chrysostom, Homilies on Hebrews 12.3 (PG 63 100); tr. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series (= NPNF) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983 [reprint]), vol. 14. I have modified translations from NPNF for the sake of style and to bring out important features of the Greek. I think the author of the aforementioned post is conflating patristic synergism with Pelagianism and therefore teaching what mainline Christianity has considered heresy since the Pelagian controversies. However, I don't have a larger perspective on the views of St. John Chrysostom. Is the referenced article correct and does St. John Chrysostom indisputably teach synergism and that man cannot be saved without grace?

In Book 3, Section 6, he wrote, >οἱ μὲν γὰρ εἰς ταύτην, οἱ δὲ εἰς ἐκείνην γεννῶσι. Κἀκεῖνοι μὲν οὐδὲ τὸν σωματικὸν αὐτοῖς δύναιντ' ἂν ἀμύνασθαι θάνατον, οὐ νόσον ἐπενεχθεῖσαν ἀποκρούσασθαι· οὗτοι δὲ καὶ κάμνουσαν καὶ ἀπόλλυσθαι μέλλουσαν τὴν ψυχὴν πολλάκις ἔσωσαν, τοῖς μὲν πραοτέραν τὴν κόλασιν ἐργασάμενοι, τοὺς δὲ οὐδὲ παρὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀφέντες ἐμπεσεῖν, οὐ τῷ διδάσκειν μόνον καὶ νουθετεῖν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ δι' εὐχῶν βοηθεῖν. Οὐ γὰρ ὅταν ἡμᾶς ἀναγεννῶσι μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ μετὰ ταῦτα συγχωρεῖν ἔχουσιν ἐξουσίαν ἁμαρτήματα. «Ἀσθενεῖ γάρ τις, φησίν, ἐν ὑμῖν; Προσκαλεσάσθω τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, καὶ προσευξάσθωσαν ἐπ' αὐτόν, ἀλείψαντες αὐτὸν ἐλαίῳ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Κυρίου· καὶ ἡ εὐχὴ τῆς πίστεως σώσει τὸν κάμνοντα καὶ ἐγερεῖ αὐτὸν ὁ Κύριος, κἂν ἁμαρτίας ᾖ πεποιηκώς, ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ.» The phrase in question is «οὗτοι δὲ καὶ κάμνουσαν καὶ ἀπόλλυσθαι μέλλουσαν τὴν ψυχὴν πολλάκις ἔσωσαν». W.R.W. Stephens (link ) translates the clause as, >but these others have often saved a sick soul, or one which was on the point of perishing According to the Greek text, is the soul that is saved "sick **or** on the point of perishing"? It seems to me that the soul is "**both** sick **and** about to perish." Which translation is more in accordance with the Greek text? **References** John Chrysostom. *On the Priesthood. * Trans. Stephens, W. R. W. *Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series.* Vol. 9. Ed. Schaff, Philip. Buffalo: Christian Literature, 1889. John Chrysostom. *Regarding the Accusation because He Hid from the Priesthood* (Πρὸς τὸν Ἐγκαλοῦντα ἐπὶ τῷ Διαφυγεῖν τὴν Ἱερωσύνην). *Patrologiæ Græcæ Migne.* Book 3, Ch. 6. Ed. Migne, Jacques Paul. Vol. 48. Petit-Montrouge: Imprimerie Catholique, 1862. (646)

> "You greatly delude yourself and err, if you think that one thing is > demanded from the layman and another from the monk; since the > difference between them is in that whether one is married or not, > while in everything else they have the same responsibilities... > Because all must rise to the same height; and what has turned the > world upside down is that we think only the monk must live rigorously, > while the rest are allowed to live a life of indolence" + St. John Chrysostom What is St. John Chrysostom trying to say here about the lifestyle of the laity? It's apparent that not everyone is called to the life of St. Anthony the Great to live in a cave in the desert (even among monastics). So what is the commonality, here? How does one find their path in adopting the correct lifestyle for themselves that leads to salvation? Most people, even Orthodox I know, would say that wearing sackcloth under your clothes and keeping a rigorous fast is extreme and meant for the monastics, but then I often read in the lives of the Saints of laity that were commended (though not mentioned by name) for doing just that. So, what is it that is expected in lifestyle that St. John Chrysostom is saying is the same for laity and monastics? I ask because my intuition tells me, this must be the thing that helps you discern, with the help of a spiritual father, the measure of asceticism that is appropriate for each person, individually.