Dear Father Robert,
The way Communion and Confession are practiced in your cathedral is obviously different from the way it is practiced in Russia or some other traditionally Orthodox lands (not that such practice is uniform throughout them). What are the origin and meaning of such practice? Doesn't the value of Communion decrease in the eyes of the parishioners, become trivial when it is something they do pretty much every time they come to church? What happens to the discipline of preparation for Communion when it is received every week? Last but not least, how do you define the boundary between the sins that do not preclude one from taking Communion and those that would necessitate a prior Confession?
Thank you for your important questions.
The frequency as well as the infrequency of receiving the Eucharist has a long history. I hope that my response, while by no means exhaustive, will show that the earlier practice for Christians was to receive the Eucharist frequently. But before getting to that specific question, a few words about the frequency of celebrating the Eucharistic Liturgy are in order.
Beginning with the New Testament there is no clear or definitive prescription on how often the Eucharist should be celebrated. However, there are texts in the N.T. that point to a regular Sunday Eucharist wherein one can presume that all present received holy communion.(Acts 20-7-12; 1 Corinthians 16:2) When we come to the mid second century things become a little clearer. In St. Justin Martyr's first Apology (lxv-lxvii) we read the following:
"And on the day which is called the day of the sun there is an assembly of all (emphasis mine) who live in the towns or in the country; and the memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits. then the reader ceases, and the president (i.e, the bishop or his designate)speaks, admonishing us and exhorting us to imitate these excellent examples. Then we arise all together an offer prayers; and, as we said before, when we have concluded our prayer, bread is brought, and wine an water, and the president in like manner offers up prayers and thanksgivings with all his might; and the people assent with Amen; and there is the distribution and partaking by all of the Eucharistic elements; and to them that are not present they are sent by the hand of the deacons."
Based on Justin's text it is clear that the Sunday Eucharist was the norm in Rome and that all present (i.e. all the baptized) received. In both East and West the frequency of celebrating the Eucharist respectively underwent its own developments. In Cappadocia, St. Basil recommended receiving the Eucharist daily. In his letter (xciii) to the Patrician Caesaria he writes;
"And also to commune every day, that is to say, to partake of the holy body and blood of Christ, is good and beneficial, since He himself clearly says; "He that eats My flesh and drinks My blood, has everlasting life." (Jn.6:54)... We for our part, however, commune four times each week -- on the Lord's day (Sun), on the Fourth day (Wednesday), on Friday and on Saturday -- and on the other days only when there is a commoration of a saint. (Saint Basil goes on to speak about those who receive the presanctified gifts.) For all who live the monastic life in the solitudes, where there is no priest, keep the communion at home and partake of it from their own hands. At Alexandria also and in Egypt, each person, even those belonging to the laity, as a rule keeps the communion in his own home, and partakes of it with his own hands when he so wishes."
In the canons attributed to the Apostles and compiled no later than the middle of the fourth century there are two canons which call for the excommunication of any clergy or laity who while attending the Liturgy do not receive the Eucharist with the rest of the faithful.
Canon viii: "If any bishop, presbyter or deacon, or any one on the sacerdotal list when the offering is made, does not partake of it, let him declare the cause: and if it be a reasonable one, let him be excused: but if he does not declare it, let him be exommunicated as being a cause of offence to the people and occasioning a suspicion against the offerer as if he had not made the offering properly."
Canon ix: "All the faithful who come in and hear the Scriptures, but do not stay for the prayers and the Holy Communion, are to be excommunicated as causing disorder in the Church."
As the liturgical cycle develops in both East and West it is clear that until the time of Constantine the frequent reception of the Eucharist was an established practice and that it was not uncommon for the faithful to commune themselves outside the context of the Divine Liturgy. It should also be kept in mind that confessing before each Eucharist was not a requirement. The Liturgy itself provides a super structure in which personal and corporate confession is made to God. The Liturgical cycle provides the prepatory context for receiving Holy Communion.
By the fourth century there already emerges a tendency to limit the frequency of receiving the Eucharist. Three reasons contributing to this phenomenon are 1) the Christianization of the empire and hence the fear of nominal Christians approaching the chalice; 2) the spread of the monastic movement and the emphasis on one's impurity which barred reception to the Eucharist and 3) the emphasis on fear and dread when approaching the Gifts. It is fear and dread that helped to establish a Eucharistic piety that gave rise to a polarity between the worthy and unworthy. Given this piety there developed a psychology in the Church that supported the idea that one could actually make himself/herself worthy to approach the chalice and consequently forgot that we can draw near to the Gifts only because Christ has invited us to do so. While archbishop of Constantinople, Saint John Chrysostom offers his flock the following;
What then? Do we not offer [the Eucharistic Sacrifice] every day...Many communicate in this sacrifice once in the entire year, others twice, still others frequently.... Which ones do we accept with approval? Those who [partake] once, those who [do so] frequently, or those who seldom [do so] ? Neither those who once, nor those who seldom [partake], but those [who do so] with a clean conscience, those with pure hearts, those with an irreproachable life. Let such ones approach [to receive communion] continually, but those who are not , not even once! Why so? Because they receive unto their own judgment and condemnation and punishment and retaliation.... These things I say not as forbidding you the once annual coming [to communion], but as wishing you to draw near continually. " (In Heb.hom 17:3-4, Quoted by Robert F. Taft S.J.)
Finally, we need to see that just as the frrequency/infrequency of receiving Holy Communion has a history so too does the frequency/infrequency of going to confession. Those sins that would preclude one from approaching the Chalice would include murder, apostacy, adultery, fornication and character assasination. It is also to be stressed that those approaching the chalice -- clergy and laity -- have a relationship with a confessor.
How should one pray? What should he pray for? I have heard many
different methods, such as verbal prayer and contemplative prayer.
Others mention constant prayer through repetition of words or sayings.
Should you say whatever is on your mind, or stay silent? Sometimes
it is hard to stay silent since the mind can wander easily with
nothing to fixate on. As an Orthodox Christian student what suggestions
would you suggest for me?
Thank you for your advice.
Prayer can be divided into two categories i.e. personal and corporate.
Both complement each other and both are necessary for each other.
Prayer, while a natural act, is also something that is learned.
This means that it requires effort, attention and regularity.
Personal prayer is more flexible than is often thought. It can take
place virtually anywhere and at any time. It can have a structured
form that is often dependent on the Prayer Book; it can also have
a less structured or fixed form that takes on a more extemporaneous
character. Given this flexibility it should be kept in mind that
using the Prayer Book helps to create a grounding and mindset for
extemporaneous prayer. This is so because written prayers and structured
rules of the Prayer Book touch upon virtually every facet of life.
Corporate prayer or liturgical prayer, while having fixed forms
and times, nevertheless depends on the quality of personal prayer.
The experience of corporate prayer - the coming together of God's
people to form the body of Christ particularly in the celebration
of the Divine Liturgy - is impacted by how one is immersed in personal
prayer. However, it is also true that corporate prayer impacts the
quality of personal prayer. The complement of personal and corporate
prayer is mutually beneficial and ultimately necessary for the one
who seeks to abide in the divine life.
An openness to receiving and being challenged by the Gospel, a desire
to enter God's kingdom and the recognition that all people regardless
of ethnic background are called into union and communion with the
living God provide a strong foundation for prayer both personal
When personal and corporate prayer are integrated a person becomes
more attuned to the self. Personal and corporate prayer lead to
the awareness of one's sins, the desire to repent, the yearning
to concelebrate the Divine Liturgy and to be a partaker of Holy
Communion - the bread of immortality: "For my flesh is food
indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks
my blood abides in me and I in him." (John 6:55-56)
Becoming aware of the self leads to a keener awareness and understanding
of others. Prayer liberates one from loneliness and isolation. It
overcomes the drive for self-preservation while exposing the loneliness
of a self centered life. Prayer - personal and corporate - heals
the universe divided by sin and mortality. Culminating in the celebration
of the Divine Liturgy, prayer nurtured by the Holy Spirit unites
the many into one new body - into one new creation which is the
Body of Christ: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it
not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break,
is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is
one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the
one bread". (1 Corinthians 10:16-17).
The dynamism of personal and corporate prayer inevitably cultivates
the desire to read the Holy Scriptures. Reading the Bible and reflecting
upon the word of God is in itself a type of prayer, since it brings
us into an ongoing dialog with Jesus Christ. From this dialog we
who are students/disciples of the Master are invited to enter into
the realm of silence
from which we encounter and follow the incarnate Word of God. In
this encounter all words, all feelings and all actions are purified.
From the realm of silence come the words of personal and corporate
prayer which express the desire to know and do the will of God.
Father bless +
Last fall my family and I came to your Cathedral for Sunday Liturgy. During the
anaphora the whole congregation made a full prostration, and I'm wondering the
reasons for this custom. I have never seen that before, and had been taught that
we don't make prostrations on Sundays except for the veneration of the Holy Cross
during Great Lent.
Thanks for your time,
Sincerely in Christ.
What you observed at the Cathedral was an established parish practice. Canon
20 of Nicea I (325 A.D.) and Canon 90 of the Council in Trullo (692 A.D.) forbid
kneeling on Sundays. However, one must discern when the law, i.e. Canon Law,
opens the mind and heart to the Spirit and when it doesn't.
What do the words, "Your own of your own we offer unto you
on behalf of all and for all" signify in the Divine Liturgy?
These words are said at the "Anaphora" (literally, "offering
up"). They conclude what is a single prayer divided into two
parts - the first being a "remembrance" of salvation history,
i.e. the saving works of God and the second part being a "remembrance"
of the mystical supper.
The words "your own of your own" express the offering
up of the entire creation to the Father. Every one and every thing
belongs to the Father. All of creation exists to ascend to the Father
in Christ by the Holy Spirit. Thus, not only are bread and wine
offered at the Divine Liturgy. In the context of the Liturgy - in
the context of the Eucharist - the entire creation is raised up
to the Father. This is stressed in the prayer for the departed and
the living said after the "epiclesis" (the prayer of the
descent of the Holy Spirit); "Again we offer to You this
reasonable worship, for the whole world..." [emphasis
Our ascent to the Father in Christ and through the Holy Spirit is
possible because Christ - the One High Priest - has destroyed the
tyranny of sin and death. He has renewed the creation and has opened
the way to the Father, enabling us, by the Holy Spirit, to become
concelebrants with Him.
United in baptism to the One High Priest we, together with Him,
offer every one and every thing to the Father for the life of the
world and its salvation.
Recently the Roman Catholic and Lutheran communions sighed an agreement regarding
salvation. They now agree that we are "saved by grace" but that
works are important as well. This agreement was seen as an important step
towards union. One important issue still separating Catholics and Lutherans
is their opposing views of the Eucharist. Consubstantiation, the Lutheran
view, states that the body and blood of Jesus coexist with the bread and
wine. Transubstantiation, the Catholic view, states that the bread and wine
become the body and blood of Jesus. How do the Orthodox view holy communion?
What is the sense of the Greek phrase used in the liturgy which is translated
as "making the change by thy holy spirit"? It is interesting to
note that the Hapgood translation uses the word "transmute" instead
In addition to the synoptic references of the Lord's supper there are
other references to the Eucharist in the New Testament. One that is especially
pertinent to your
question is John 6 vss. 47-60. It is interesting to note the response of the
many disciples who found Jesus' teaching about eating his flesh and drinking
his blood "a hard saying." Their words should remind us that there
are no exhaustive orthodox explanations of the Eucharist.
Clearly, from the tenor of the Divine Liturgy, receiving holy communion is indeed
the reception of the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The pre and post communion
prayers also attest to this. Though some Orthodox Christians have used the term "transubstantiation" its
usage with regards to the Eucharist is quite late. Even in the West "transubstantiation" as
a term connected with the Eucharist appears no earlier than the 12th century.
The earlier Fathers were primarily interested in teaching that the Eucharist:
1) enabled the communicant to become one with Christ [cf. S. Basil the Great,
Letter VIII,4], 2) was the very presence of Christ manifested on the altar [cf.
Chrysostom Homilies on 1 Cor. 24,1] and 3) the means of dwelling in immortality
and becoming deified [cf. St. Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, 37].
Thus in the celebration of the Eucharist the faithful gather to proclaim and
reveal God's inaugurated Kingdom. Through the Holy Spirit the body of believers
is "changed" into the living body of Christ. In this ecclesial context
the Holy Spirit changes the bread and wine of this world into the food of God's
Kingdom. The bread of this world is changed into the body of Christ who is the "bread
of life" and the "food of immortality." And it is this bread that
is imparted to the faithful. Here we must also emphasize the importance of hearing
and receiving the Word of God proclaimed through the Scriptures. It is often
forgotten that the Liturgy of the Word is also a sacramental event that imparts
Life to the listeners.
In the Divine Liturgy it is the Holy Spirit who is called to "change" bread
and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Why Hapgood uses "transmute" is
not clear since the term implies a change in form, appearance or nature which
go beyond "metabalon."
I have been reading extensively in Orthodox theology. I am an evangelical Christian
and am interested in the Orthodox understanding of the atonement. I have
not found a clear explanation of Christ's atoning death such as you find
in our emphasis on the substitutionary theory.
Also, as a unrelated question, I read somewhere that Francis Schaeffer (the father,
not his son) said that the greatest indictment against Eastern Orthodox was the
almost complete conversion of the Middle East to Islam? How would you respond?
Regarding the remark made by Francis A. Schaeffer: The remark is most unfortunate.
The emergence of Islam and the establishment of the millet system requires a
knowledge of history that goes beyond indictments.
As for your first question, I offer the words of Saint Gregory the Theologian:
The question is: to whom was offered the blood that was shed for us, and why
was it offered, this precious and glorious blood of our God, our high priest,
our sacrifice? We were held captive by the evil one, for we had been 'sold into
the bondage of sin' (Romans 7:14), and our wickedness was the price we paid for
our pleasure. Now, a ransom is normally paid only to the captor, and so the question
is: To whom was the ransom offered, and why? To the evil one? What an outrage!
If it is supposed not merely that the thief received a ransom from God, but that
the ransom is God himself - a payment for his act of arbitrary power so excessive
that it certainly justified releasing us! If it was paid to the Father, I ask
first, why? We were not held captive by him. Secondly, what reason can be given
why the blood of the Only-begotten should be pleasing to the Father? For He did
not accept even Isaac when he was offered by his father, but He gave a substitute
for the sacrifice, a lamb to take the place of the human victim. Is it not clear
that the Father accepts the sacrifice, not because He demanded or needed it,
but because this was the part of the divine plan, since man had to be sanctified
by the humanity of God; so that he might rescue us by overcoming the tyrant by
force, and bring us back to Himself through the mediation of the Son, who carried
out this divine plan to the honor of the Father, to whom he clearly delivers
up all things. We have said just so much about Christ. There are many more things
which must be passed over in silence...
(a7 45, 22)
The Bible says “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs
is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:3) We are naturally
inclined to admire people who demonstrated abundant spirit in their
lives, including people glorified as saints. But normally one would
associate being “poor” in spirit with a lack of well-recognized
spiritual virtues such as generosity, bravery, charity, etc. So
why does the Lord call the poor in spirit “blessed”?
It is interesting that the Contemporary English Version renders
this verse “God blesses those people who depend only on him.
They belong to the kingdom of heaven!” Perhaps the translator
wanted to avoid inconvenient inquiries such as mine above?
Saint Gregory of Nyssa provides a very good answer to your question.
In addressing this very beatitude he says, "It seems to me
that by poverty of spirit the Word understands voluntary humility
... But let no one imagine that humility can be achieved easily
and without labor. On the contrary, it needs more effort than the
practice of any other virtue." For Saint Gregory humility or
being poor in spirit enables us to be like Christ. In referring
to the kenosis of the Lord (cf. Philippians 2:5-7) Saint Gregory
writes, "What greater poverty is there for God than the form
of a servant?"
By becoming like Christ, one is able to acquire the virtues which
express both a love for the Lord and our neighbor. Conversely, without
being poor in spirit one cannot be in communion with Christ or neighbor.
Unless one is poor in spirit one risks being like the prideful Pharisee
who practices the virtues but excludes himself from God and neighbor.
(cf. Luke 18:9 ff).
Greetings in the name of Jesus. I am a Christian from the Baptist tradition
and I have had some discussion with my Orthodox friend regarding "communion" or
the "Eucharist". We of the Baptist tradition have what we call "open
communion". In other words, all who profess a belief in the saving knowledge
and lordship of Jesus Christ may participate in communion. My Orthodox friend
has invited me to your services on several occasions, but it was made clear
that unless I was an Orthodox Christian, I could not participate in your
observance of communion. As a fellow believer in our Lord Jesus Christ, I
find this to be exclusionary. I do not wish to debate the various doctrines
regarding the elements. Unfortunately, these have been debated for centuries.
The scriptures tell us to "continue to work out your salvation with
fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according
to His purpose." Philippians 2:12,13. I Cor. 11: 28 states that a man
ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.
It is not the church's place as I see it to judge who is worthy to eat and
Acts 2:44 states that "all" the believers were together and had
everything in common. They broke bread in their homes and ate together. It
seems in a world
fraught with division, the church of Jesus Christ, which goes beyond the walls
of Orthodox, Baptist, Roman Catholic, Lutheran etc. needs to focus more on being
inclusionary. To all be of one accord and not judge who is or is not worthy of
sharing in Christ's sacrifice and the remembrance thereof. Can I or can I not
as a fellow believer participate in the Orthodox observance of communion/Eucharist?
Throughout its official participation in the ecumenical movement the
Orthodox Church has insisted that the reception of holy communion is
the "sign" or "expression" of
unity and not the "way" towards unity.
Striving to live the Gospel, confessing the Apostolic faith, and belonging to
one local church visibly united under one canonical bishop are necessary pre-requisites
for inclusion into the body of Christ. Like baptism, the reception of holy communion
is not a private act but a communal event in which each person struggles to remain
faithful to the crucified and resurrected Savior.
Your reference to l Cor.1 1:28; "Let a man examine himself, and so eat of
the bread and drink of the cup" does not stand alone. It is followed by "For
any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment
upon himself"(vs.29). St. Paul is issuing a caveat that continues to be
made public in the Orthodox Church at every celebration of the Eucharist.
Reference to Acts2:24 has a specific context i.e. the community of disciples.
There was one Jerusalem community, and not groups of communities, which came
together at specific times. Acts 2:37-42 describes one community united in baptism,
the Apostolic teaching, and the breaking of bread.
The Orthodox Church longs for the day when all can draw near to the one bread
and cup. Until that time the issues dividing Christians i.e. Christology, triadology,
anthropology, cosmology and ecclesiology cannot be ignored. From an Orthodox
perspective there will be no authentic union and communion of Christians until
there is resolution of these issues.
In the cherubic hymn sung at every liturgy we sing "Let us who
mystically represent the cherubim." What does it mean for us
to mystically represent the cherubim? Does "us" refer to
all of us assembled together at the liturgy? or those ministering
at the altar only?
The oldest extant manuscript referring to the Cherubic Hymn dates
back to the 8th century (Codex Barberini 336, cf. Robert Taft, The
Great Entrance, Roma.)
To mystically represent the Cherubim refers to our "putting aside
all earthly cares so we may receive the King of all,…".
Representing the Cherubim points to those who concelebrate the Divine
Liturgy (i.e. all the faithful) and who are to maintain vigilance
while awaiting the Second Coming of the Lord. Thus, every celebration
of the Liturgy is a celebration of the Kingdom which is to come. In
the Chrysostom anaphora we give thanks to our heavenly Father "who
has endowed us with [his] kingdom which is to come." Being like
the Cherubim ranks us with those who now anticipate and participate
in the new creation.
Why do some people insist on ending the Lord's Prayer with "and deliver
us from THE EVIL ONE"?
If we define evil as nothingness, that is, evil doesn't exist by itself but
inside goodness, a negation, a mutilation, a defect, etc., then why would
we "hypostasize" evil
by referring to "the evil one"?
Thank you for your question.
That evil has no hypostasis of its own requires some explanation. First we need
to remember that creation is inherently good. There is nothing spiritual or material
that God created with an evil nature. This also means that since there is nothing
created that is evil by nature then there is no hypostasis that is created evil.
Yet we cannot deny that evil exists. And here we encounter a paradox. On the
one hand there is nothing created that is evil. On the other hand evil can only
exist and can only be manifested hypostatically, i.e., personally. This is so
because evil has no parallel existence with what is good. Evil has no existence
of its own but stems from the good. It exists because of the misuse of free will
which leads a person away from the source of goodness. What is good became distorted
and acts accordingly. Consequently, while evil has no existence of its own it
does exist hypostatically/personally. Thus we can refer to the evil one and we
can pray the Lord's Prayer asking that we be delivered from the evil one or,
as Vladimir Lossky points out, the evil doer.
Could you please explain why we leave the coffin open for the family to pay
their last respects to the dead relative and also why the congregation kiss
the coffin at the end of the burial ceremony.
Also why does our church not recognise cremation?
The casket is left open during the Orthodox burial service in order to
stress the sacredness of the body. All who are members of Christ are
members of his kingdom and therefore belong to the community of the
saints. For this reason it is not unusual to equate the body of the deceased,
who in life was immersed in the rhythm of the Church, with the relics of a
saint. Consequently, the veneration of the body at the end of the funeral
service signifies its sacredness.
There are at least two reasons why the Orthodox Church is averse to
cremation. 1) Cremation is associated with paganism. 2) Because the body is
considered to be sacred, cremation is perceived as a form of desecration.
However in countries such as Japan, where cremation is the law, the
Orthodox Church will first celebrate the funeral service with the body
present in the church. After the funeral service the body is cremated.
What is exactly the Church's position on the existence of death
and sufferings among animals in the pre-human world? Is there any
dogmatic basis for taking a certain position with regard to this
or similar questions? It is very often said that "Adam's sin led
to the death of creation" and that the whole creation is suffering
because of human sin. I always struggle with these words and try
(unsuccessfully) to understand what they really mean. Do they mean
that there was no death or animal sufferings in the pre-human world?
Some people suggest to contemplate the meaning of the word "death"
and point out that we should never project the uniquely human tragic
aspect of"death" onto the realm of animals and plants. After all,
animals were not created immortal. I agree with that and this thought
certainly gives me some comfort. However, even in nature we see
death not just as termination of being. We see violent death and
sufferings (among animals) of all sorts that seem to be an integral
part of the fabric of natural life. Is that how it was supposed
to be? What are your thoughts on that?
I will not be able to give an exhaustive answer to your multifaceted
and important question. Nevertheless, I do hope
that what follows can be used as a point of departure from which
to continue refining the answer. Basically your question zeroes
in on the existence of death and sufferings among animals
in the pre-human world.
All created life is by nature mortal. Only God is immortal for
his nature alone is uncreated. Prior to the creation of human
beings, plant and animal life came into existence by the
Spirit of God. This means that all of creation was and is bound
to the Creator. All of created existence is dependent upon the
This implies that God did not create in order to establish an
autonomous parallel to himself. God created so as to share
his life beyond
or outside of himself. Even the sin of Adam
could not totally sever the created order from having a relationship
Though bound to death by nature, the human person was created
to share in God's immortality. Yet, the sin of Adam introduced
to those created in the image and likeness of God. St. Athanasius
of Alexandria (4th c.) states this very clearly. In his "On
The Incarnation of the Word of God" - a classic of patristic
literature - he writes: "...for as I said before, though
they [human beings] were by nature subject to corruption, the
of their union with the Word made them capable of escaping from
the law of their own nature..." Strictly speaking this means
that immortality was a gift of the Creator to the human race. The
race was destined and set apart from the vegetative and animal
orders to share a unique union with God i.e. a relationship that
the very mortality of its created nature. For the human race mortality
and therefore a return to created nature is a consequence of the
ancestral sin i.e.the Fall of Adam. But what about death in the
animal (and vegetative) order(s)?
Though there is nothing explicit in the first two chapters of
Genesis regarding the death and suffering of animals, there is
reference to how all animals are to sustain themselves. "And
to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to
everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath
of life, I have given every green plant for food." (1:30)
This verse is an extension of vs. 29 which refers
to human beings living off "every plant yielding seed which
is upon the face of all the earth and every tree with seed in its
These two verses lend themselves to the idea that prior to the
sin of Adam there was universal harmony in the creation This
was characterized by peace and not violence. Within this peaceful
harmony human beings and animals maintained a symbiotic relationship
that was free of mutual fear.[nota bene: St. John Chrysostom
(4-5th c.) would not agree entirely with this approach though
he does tell
his congregation in Antioch that before sin entered the world
humans did not fear the animals.(cf. Homilies
on Genesis 9)] Within this state of harmony and peace humans
did not struggle among themselves for survival. Animals likewise
not driven to subdue their own kind in order to live. The survival
of the fittest was not yet an established principle or law of
Because the human being is considered by many Church Fathers
to be a microcosm, i.e. consisting of the material and immaterial
of creation, the sin of Adam had cosmic consequences. Created
to share in immortal life, the human being became a prisoner
mortal nature. Saint Gregory of Nyssa (4th c.) stresses how the
fall of Adam caused the human being to take on the characteristics
the animals, including
mortality. "Mortality, ... derived from the nature of irrational
creatures [i.e. the animals] provisionally clothed the nature created
for immortality." (Catechism 8) Elsewhere St. Gregory writes
about the self-preservation of human beings which is a consequence
of the Fall. Because of Adam's sin what was characteristic of the
irrational animals was acquired by the human being. "...for
those qualities with which dumb/brute life was
armed for self-preservation, when transferred to human life,
became passion." (On The Making of Man, chpt. 18) Here St.
Gregory perceives animal life before the Fall to be violent.
In contrast to the Genesis account of animals and humans being
sustained by vegetative life, St. Gregory’s understanding
of animal life before the sin of Adam is more in line with the
data gleaned from
the findings of paleontologists. For him self-preservation is
a natural characteristic of the animals. Yet, in spite of the
between Scripture and St. Gregory there is nevertheless agreement
with regards to human mortality. Sin made the human being like
the animals. It clothed the one created in the image and likeness
God in death. And it is death or rather the fear of death that
introduced (the negative) passions into human existence. Adam's
by the fear of death introduced among humans the instinct of
self-preservation and hence the struggle for the survival of
the fittest. Sin introduced
chaos, including suffering and misery, into human existence.
The Fall of Adam added suffering and misery to the mortal nature
The Fall of Adam resulted in cosmic death which is first and
foremost separation from God. This includes the separation of
God. Cosmic death is dis-integration. Creation, no longer harmonious,
is simultaneously in the process of self-preservation and self-destruction.
In his letter to the Romans, St. Paul writes, "For the creation
eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; for the creation
was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will
of him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself
set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty
of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been
groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation,
but we ourselves who have the first fruits
of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons,
the redemption of our bodies." (8:19-23)
For St. Paul all of creation will be set free from "its bondage
to decay." The Greek word phtora (vs. 21) is very rich. It
can mean corruption, decay, ruin, corruptibility and mortality.
not possible that liberation from decay refers to the eschatological
liberation of both humans and animals from mortality? With the
incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ everyone and everything
changed. Thus, even though animals were subject to mortality and
suffering before and during the reign of the first Adam, might
not this change during the reign of the second Adam?
Hi, I am a Lutheran who has questions about Orthodoxy, which I hope
you will be able to answer for me. Being a Lutheran, I naturally
have a problem with the Orthodox doctrine of invoking saints in
prayer. I can see no Scriptural backing for this doctrine. To that
you would probably say that Holy Tradition sustains such a doctrine.
I cannot find any record of a church father before the 4th or 5th
century supporting such a practice. All I can find are quotes like
this one from Epiphanius of Salamis "Although Mary is holy
and to be honored, nevertheless she is not meant to be adored."
If you could find some early church fathers supporting the invocation
of saints that would be great.
Also on that subject though I have a question about specific prayers
to saints. Orthodox claim that they only ask the saints to pray
on behalf of themselves and others and not to do anything else (i.e.
use their own power to help the situation). With this in mind I
do not see how "Theotokos save us" or St. Nectarios' "O
Virgin Pure" (http://www.serfes.org/spiritual/november1999.htm),.
They both seem to grant Mary (and in other prayers, other saints)
their own special powers. And I don't understand why they are repeatedly
invoked in rememberance at the end of prayers (remembering Mary
and all the saints, we...) because then you aren't even asking for
their prayers. It would seem to me that the only reason you would
say that would be to hope they have some sort of a special pull
with God; God owes them a favor or two.
If you could help me out with both of those things that would be
great (of primary importance is the first paragraph - I would really
like to see quotes by early church fathers about invoking the saints
in prayer). Thank you for your time.
Thank you for your questions.
Your claim that there is no scriptural evidence supporting intercessory
prayer is not convincing. Though there is no "official"
Dominical or Apostolic injunction to pray to the saints there nevertheless
are examples where one either seeks the prayers of others or one
entreats the Lord on behalf of others.
In his letters, St. Paul certainly asks for the prayers of particular
communities. In his first letter to the Thessalonians(5:25) the
Apostle asks the saints of the local Church to pray for him. In
Paul's second letter to the same Church, after he has spoken about
its current sufferings and the impending righteous judgement of
God upon its persecutors, he assures the faithful that he is always
praying for them (1:11). Saint James exhorts the presbyters to pray
over and to anoint the sick (5:14).
Among the most well known accounts of intercession in the Gospels
is the healing of the Centurion's slave (Lk.7:2ff). In this account
the Centurion, a Gentile, turns to the elders from among the Jews
to ask Jesus to heal his slave. In addition to asking these elders,
the Centurion also has his friends go to Jesus entreating him to
offer the word of healing for his slave. There is also the account
of the Syrophoenician woman, another Gentile, who courageously approaches
Jesus on behalf of her possessed daughter (Mk.7:24ff). And there
is also the father of the boy with an unclean spirit. The father,
whose faith is weak, draws near to Jesus asking him to deliever
his son from his torment (Mk.9:14ff). In these Gospel accounts those
drawing near to Jesus are seeking to save, by their prayers or entreaties,
those whom they love.
Regarding the Theotokos and all the saints... It is simply a misconception
to think that the holy ones of God have their own special powers.
All power and glory attributed to the saints comes from and belongs
to God. Nevertheless, God calls all to share in his power and glory.
Among the examples in the Acts of the Apostles there are two accounts
which help make this point. The shadow of St. Peter was able to
heal the sick and suffering (5:12-16). The "handkerchiefs or
aprons" carried away from the body of St. Paul and placed on
those who were sick or demon possessed also conveyed healing (19:11-12).
So too with relics of God's holy ones. Orthodox Christians recognize
that the bodies of God's saints, even after death, are to be venerated
and that they also possess miraculous healing powers.
Remembering the Theotokos and all the saints in the services signifies
that we and they make up the communio sanctorum. We are joined with
them in the body of Christ which is his Church. We remember them
because we love them and are one with them. We remember them because
we affirm that the birth, death and resurrection of Christ not only
saves but also sanctifies and transfigures us and all creation. With them we intercede for each
other and for the life and salvation of the world.
Many thanks about the Q+A service you are providing.
am Greek Orthodox and now work in medicine. As a teenager, I remember
asking an Orthodox theologian at school whether the theories of
the evolution of species were compatible with Orthodoxy. He responded
that yes, the theories could be compatible because the Old Testament
is more concerned about why God created the world, not so much how
he created it, and the description of the Creation should not be
taken literally but more like a metaphor, much like Christ's paraboles.
He added that as long as I understand that the evolution of organism,
including humans, still requires God's involvement and oversight,
then there was no problem in believing them as an explanation of
the physical origin of the world, but not the spiritual origin of
explanation made perfect sense to me. Recently, however, I heard
an interview on the radio of an Orthodox priest (unfortunately I
do not recall his
name) who was very dismissive of the idea of evolution saying he
could never accept our Orthodox beliefs to be in line with a theory
that suggests humans came from apes.
has been very confusing for me. As a scientist, I work with evolutionary
principles every day (e.g studying the evolution of viruses and
bacteria) and so far it has been very important for me to feel that
my religious beliefs were in harmony with my work. I would be most
grateful if you could let me know of your opinion in this matter.
you for your question.
you were told as a teenager regarding the compatibility of the Old
Testament and evolution is certainly an acceptable approach to be
taken by Orthodox Christians. I would just add the following: 1)
The Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, should not be used
as scientific text books. The primary purpose of the Scriptures
is to reveal not only the origin of creation, as is the case of
the first two chapters of Genesis, but to reveal the relationship
of God and all created existence culminating in the creation of
human beings. We should add that the very core of human salvation
and hence the renewal of all created existence is accomplished by
the incarnation, death and resurrection of the pre-eternal Word
and Son of God.2) Evolution is a theory with convincing supportive
data. Though there are still gaps in the evolutionary chain, Orthodox
Christians need to take the discoveries and theories of science
seriously. There is nothing in the theory of evolution which precludes
God's involvement in creating, sustaining, guiding and saving the
the Orthodox Church is to engage the world in the 21st century it
must not turn its back on science. Also, Orthodox scientists are
encouraged to study the faith. There is no reason why faith and
science should be at odds with each other. On the contrary, science
and theology should be synthesized into a clear and compeling proclamation
of the Gospel.
Dear Father Robert,
I would greatly appreciate if you could find time to recommend me a list of appropriate litterature regarding the symbolism of an Easter egg.
My questions are the following:
- Easter eggs are traditionally coloured red, which symbolizes the Blood of Jesus Christ, the Redeemer. Where can I find a reference to this tradition and its origins?
- The symbolism of an Easter egg and its theological meaning.
- It is traditional to crack the Easter eggs against each other, until the hard shell gets broken. Wherein, according to my knowledge, the hard shell does symbolize the tomb of Jesus, whilst the act of cracking it is a symbol of Jesus Resurrection from the dead and a hope for the believers for the Salvation and eternal life. If there is any mentioning of this tradition in any of philosophical or religious texts?
- Finally, are any of those traditions of a Byzantine origin, or did they appear during the development of Orthodoxy?
Thank you for your question.
I'm afraid I can not recommend any serious reading material regarding the origin, symbolism and theology of the pascal egg. It seems, however, that the egg in Christian and non Christian cultures symbolizes life. What you say about the egg and its red dye as well as its relationship to the tomb and resurrection does carry some cache.
It seems that we can surmise that the egg: 1) is a symbol of life, 2) that its red dye points to the crucifixion, 3) cracking the egg has a connection to the Lord's resurrection and destruction of death and finally, 4) the exchanging of eggs signifies the end of the fast.
In general, while symbolism plays an important role in the life of the Orthodox Church, it is imperative for us to remember that every symbol whether it be a word, act or object is always opened to the infinite. In other terms, if symbolic meaning or definition is exhaustible then the reality of eternity and the infinite is also exhaustible. This, of course, can not be the case.
As I read the Bible and the sayings of the desert fathers I understand that there is a strong emphasis against judging others. There are however Scriptural references that seem to indicate that judgement is sometimes proper. Matthew 18:15 would seem to involve a judgement upon someone who I perceived has wronged me. Galatians 6:1 would also seem to require a "judgement" to determine that a brother had been caught in sin. I understand that there is a difference between passing judgement upon an individual and judging what is right and wrong from a Christian point of reference, but I'm not certain that I always have a clear understanding of where those lines are drawn. Thank you in advance for your response.
Thank you for your question.
When our Lord exhorts us not to judge (Matt. 7:1ff) he is not telling us to be indifferent or apathetic. Making a judgement is a response to someone or something. In fact, every time we give an "answer" we are judging or assessing. It's interesting that in Greek the compound verb apokrinomai/to answer literally means "from making a judgement." The word discernment/diakrisis likewise implies arriving at an understanding or insight that is "derived from judging." Indeed, falsehood, injustice, prejudice, abuse etc. must be recognized as such and exposed. Yet, in exposing someones fault or sin, our judgement must be constructive and not destructive. Our judging must be for the healing and overall welfare of the person or persons who have severed communion with us and with others. Both Matt. 18:15 and Gal. 6:1 see judging as that which restores communion and therefore edifies, heals and ultimately saves. Even when true judgement is rejected (Matt. 18:17), the one offering judgement is to continue striving for communion with the separated.
Unfortunately, the act of judging often takes on another dynamic. Rather than healing it seeks to harm. Rather that restoring it seeks to destroy. Rather than saving it seeks to damn. All of this is due either to self-righteous pride or to a vengeful spirit caused by personal trauma. In either case, the judge assumes the place of Christ and therefore becomes numbered with the separated.
I am a cradle Orthodox Christian as they call it. I've studied the Scriptures and am also studying the early and later Fathers in the faith. I accept Orthodoxy and believe Christ was the atoning sacrifice for the believers. However I disagree on one thing with the Church: I dont believe a true believer can lose his or her salvation (i.e. via free will). I believe that nothing will separate the true believer in Christ from the salvation in Christ. Some call this 'eternal security' or 'perseverance of the saints' but I dont care for the labels neither do I consider myself a Calvinist. I have gotten into arguments with Pentecostals who agree with the Orthodox Church that you can lose your salvation and they point out cases where people turned away from the faith. To me such people were not real believers converted in the heart in the first place. I believe with James that a real faith is a living faith (one where the believer shows his faith by his works, not without them) but I think that if you are truly converted with His Spirit within you you will never want to leave Him and that yes you must grow in Christ (divinisation) but if I am growing and feeling my salvation is not a 'done deal' so to speak I do not feel peace when I live my life (for this life is not forever but eternity is!). But when I turn my heart to the trust that Jesus has already saved me I feel freedom, breath a sigh of relief and this gives me a peace and love and power to go out and do good, study the Scriptures, fast, pray. In other words when I feel that my eternity is secure it is then I feel awakened in joy and power to live as a Christian. Is this wrong?
One Orthodox brother said that if I dont agree with the Church on this point then I am not a true Orthodox and angrily said I should "go join the Protestants" . Does believing in the perseverance of the saints mean I cannot be truly Orthodox?
To best answer your question I quote the words we sing at the end of every celebration of the Divine Liturgy:
"We have seen the true light, we have received the heavenly Spirit, we have found the true faith worshipping the undivided Trinity who has saved us." Indeed, in and through and by Christ we are endowed with salvation. It is lost when we decide to ignore it or to forfeit it.
My understanding has been that part of the rationale for iconography is that God became man and dwelt among us, therefore he had an appearance that we could observe and it is therefore appropriate to depict Him in an Icon. It is also my understanding that since humans are icons of God, being made in His image, it is appropriate to venerate icons of the Saints. My question is about icons of angels which are often referred to as the "bodiless ones" in Orthodoxy and especially the icon of the Trinity which portrays God as a threefold form of man. In addition, I am confused by the fact that none of the human forms in the Trinity Icon resembles Christ. Any explanation would be appreciated. Thank you.
You seem to have a good general understanding regarding the existence of the icon. The invisible pre-eternal Son and Word of God became visible by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. He who cannot be contained is contained in the flesh. Saint John of Damascus says this about the existence and veneration of the icon: "In former times God, who is without form or body, could never be depicted. But now when God is seen in the flesh conversing with men, I make an image of the God whom I see. I do not worship matter; I worship the Creator of matter who became matter for my sake, who willed to take His abode in matter; who worked out my salvation in matter which wrought my salvation! I honor it, but not as God." ( Apology I,16)
As for the depiction of angels, though they are bodiless they can be depicted. Here we need to keep in mind that though angels are bodiless or immaterial they nevertheless are circumscribable. Paradoxically, while angels are characterized as bodiless, because they are created they have form and therefore parameters that can be delineated. This is attested to by the various manifestations of angels in both the Old and New Testaments. Depictions of Cherubim are referred to in Exodus 25:18; 26:31. Only God, because he is uncreated, is without form and therefore is not circumscribable and cannot be depicted before the incarnation.
The icon of the Trinity simultaneously has a hierarchical and conciliar order that is revealed from left to right of the image. There is perfect harmony and unity among the three persons (hypostases). If you have a copy of the famous Trinity icon by St. Andrei Rublev you will notice that this harmony and unity are further expressed in a communion of persons by the inner lines of the figures on the left and right which form a chalice. The center angel wears the garments of Christ as he is depicted as an adult. The inner garment is purple and the cloak is blue.
I come from a Evangelical background and I am very interested in becoming a part of the Orthodox Church, however, I was wondering how the Church interprets Ecclesiastes 9:5 where it says "The dead know nothing." Doesn't this contradict the Orthodox view of Prayers to Saints or the departed? Thank you.
Thanks for your question. To help appreciate the verse you refer to in the Book of Ecclesiastes (9:5) there is need to go back to the beginning of the text, "Vanity of vanities... all is vanity." From the outset the author conveys to his audience the passing and therefore fading away of every one and every thing.
More philosophical than theological, Ecclesiastes (see chapter 3) focuses on the various aspects of life and the inevitable return of all existence to dust (vs. 20). It is from this perspective that 9:5 should be read i.e. that based on the author's meditation of life there is death and the ceasing of existence. Yet, given this harsh reality the author is also aware of the permanence of God and that his ways are inscrutable: " As you do not know how the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything." (11:5) Given this, 9:5 can be read from two perspectives. On the one hand all ceases after death and indeed "the dead know nothing." On the other hand death is a mystery fathomed only by God who "will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil." (12:14) Even if the author tended towards the former, the Orthodox Church interprets 9:5 and all other biblical texts that refer to the permanence of death and subsequent non-existence in light of Christ's death and resurrection. The death of the Godman has conquered death and has freed all the captives of hell beginning with Adam and Eve. Because the death and resurrection of Christ have universal consequences all of humanity - past, present and future - is embraced by divine love and care.
Therefore we pray for the dead and to the dead (God's holy ones) since God, before the ages, chose all of humanity to be in Christ so "that we should be holy and blameless before him. He destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will... as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him (Christ), things in heaven and things on earth." (Ephesians 1:4-10) In Christ and with the sealing of the Holy Spirit (1:13 and 4:30) all the children of God, those who precede the incarnation and those who come after it, are drawn into a new and more intimate relationship with the Father. In Christ the relationship of persons - the living and the dead - continues.
I was wondering about the Orthodox belief regarding the doctrine of predestination - as in "election," God "choosing," etc. I guess this is primarily a Calvinist doctrine. I've never believed in predestination in this sense, but frequently I am confused about it when I read the Scriptures.
As you indicate in your email, the teaching of John Calvin regarding predestination is not accepted by the Orthodox Church. As for biblical texts that point to "election" or "(pre)destination," they can be interpreted in a broader sense. For example, in St. Paul's letter to the Ephesians we read, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in every spiritual blessing, in the heavenly places, in Christ, just as he elected (chosen) us in him before the foundation of the world... He predestined us to be his adopted sons through Jesus Christ according to the intention of his will..." (1:4-5).
Clearly "election and predestination" are key terms in this verse. Yet, they point to the fact that God desires, before the foundation of the world, all to be his sons and daughters. God desires, St. Paul continues, in the fullness of time, " to unite in Christ or, more literally, to re-capitulate in Christ, "things in heaven and things on earth. " (vs. 10)
The re-capitulation in Christ of every one and every thing (this is the thrust of verse 10) can be understood in two ways: 1) when the fullness of time is reached all will be saved, all will be united in Christ and 2) though God desires every one and every thing to be united under the headship of Christ, it will be up to all reasonable and understanding beings to choose to accept or reject God's plan."God desires all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth." (1Tim.2:4) Yet, in either case, human will is not canceled or rendered neutral. Some patristic writings stress that even in hell the human will can change.
I live in Russia, but right now I attend Boston University, and
I was wondering if there is any difference between your church's
and Russian Orthodox church's beliefs, and if there is, could that
prevent me from attending your parish?
There is no difference in doctrine between the Orthodox Church in
America and the Orthodox Church in Russia. In fact, the original
Orthodox missionaries to North America came from Russia. Of the
eight monks and two novices of the original mission most came from
Valaamo Monastery on Lake Ladoga. Among the Valaamo missionaries
was the monk Herman who on August 7, 1970 became the first saint
of North America. I suggest that you read my response to the question
on the origin of the autocephalous Orthodox Church in America found
in this section of the Cathedral website. This historical outline
will help to describe the relationship between our two Churches
over the past century.
I don't understand the origin or the legitimacy of the O.C.A. Weren't
all of these parishes once part of other national Churches, e.g.
wasn't your parish once Russian Orthodox?
The Orthodox Church in America (OCA) traces its origin to the Russian
mission established in Kodiak, Alaska in 1794.
Many Orthodox living in America are not aware that until the Russian
revolution (1917-1918) there was one canonical archdiocese in North
America. This archdiocese, also known as the “Russian Orthodox
Greek Catholic Church in North America” (later known as the
“Russian Metropolia”), was the outcome of a growing
mission extending from Alaska to New York. The ethnic make-up of
the North American Archdiocese was heterogeneous. Indigenous Americans,
Russians, Arabs, Greeks, Serbs, Albanians and converts from other
Christian Churches created the multi-cultural profile of the Archdiocese.
In fact, the first bishop consecrated in North America was the newly
glorified (canonized) Raphael Hawaweeny – an Arab from Damascus,
Due to the outbreak of the Russian revolution, ecclesiastical disintegration
quickly followed in North America. Cut off from the mother church,
the North American Archdiocese was unable to prevent the establishment
of parallel jurisdictions. Immigrants from Eastern Europe, Greece,
the Middle East and the Balkans sought canonical legitimacy for
the creation of ethnic jurisdictions from their respective mother
Because of the internal chaos that the Church in Russia had to contend
with, and due to the attempts made by the “Living Church”
(a Bolshevik-supported institution) to gain control of ecclesiastical
property in North America, the America mission capitulated to jurisdictional
pluralism. Yet, in spite of losing its multi-ethnic and multi-cultural
profile, what remained as the North American Archdiocese of the
Russian Orthodox Church declared itself to be autonomous in 1924
at its fourth All-American Council convened in Detroit, Michigan.
This declaration of autonomy was in fact an affirmation of what
had been the case since 1917.
It was always the intent of the North American Archdiocese to maintain
its spiritual ties with the Church in Russia. However, this was
not to be. In 1933, under pressure by the state, the Church in Russia
was requiring the American clergy to take an oath of allegiance
to the Soviet government. Needless to say, this was impossible.
Consequently the Moscow Patriarchate set up its own jurisdiction
in North America. Subsequently relations between the two churches
were strained to the point that sacramental communion was dissolved.
The autocephaly of 1970 was a way to restore full communion between
the Moscow Patriarchate and the North American Metropolia. In addition,
the tomos recognized that the Metropolia was a canonically self-governing
The Orthodox Church in America has been one of the strongest voices
in the United States and Canada calling for the establishment of
one local and canonical Church in America and the end to jurisdictional
What is the canonical and theological justification of "autocephaly"?
It seems to me that it helps foster the kind of ethnicism and nationalism
that is antithetical to the Church's mission and impedes the Orthodox
churches from speaking in one, catholic voice.
The Church is a local phenomenon in which the Christian community
gathers around its bishop and makes present in time and space the
living body of Christ. History reveals that as the Church spread
and the diocesan structure - corresponding to the territorial divisions
of the empire - developed, it was the "one" bishop in
"one" city who manifested the unity of the Christian community.
History also teaches us, by way of the canons, that one bishop in
one city was essential for the life of the Church. The reason is
obvious since two (or more) bishops in one city would divide the
body of Christ. Canon 8 of first Nicea (325) makes this point when
referring to the reception of non-Orthodox i.e. Novatian bishops.
The canon maintains that the repentant Novatian clergy were to be
ordained by Orthodox hierarchs and integrated into the clergy of
the universal Church. In the case of a repentant Novatian hierarch
living where there was already present an Orthodox bishop, the former
received the rank of priest. However, the canon continues, if the
ruling bishop is so disposed the repentant bishop could keep his
title as an honorary distinction or become a chorepiscopus. Of utmost
importance was the insistence that there be only "one"
ruling or functioning local bishop. [cf. also canon 50 of first
Nicea which stresses one bishop in one city]
Rather than contributing to ethnic or national divisions, an autocephalous
church would insure that by having one bishop in one city parallel
churches or jurisdictions such as we find in America could not exist.
Therefore autocephaly speaks of a local/territorial Church that
is self governing. That autocephalous Churches throughout the world
identify themselves as ethnic communities not only undermines the
canons but weakens - if not totally ignores - the missionary mandate
of the Gospel. For this reason the Council of Constantinople (1872)
condemned the creation of two Churches (Greek and Bulgarian) in
one territory. This council denounced "phyletism" - the
heresy of racism - which would have allowed for a plurality of ecclesial
administrations in one location to minister to their respective
An autocephalous Church in America would put an end to the plurality
of ethnic jurisdictions. It would provide the way to restoring the
integrity of Orthodox ecclesiology that teaches that the one body
of Christ embraces in one place all people, all nations. An autocephalous
Church would provide the context in which the Gospel could be concretely
proclaimed with one mouth and one heart.
Father, Please forgive my obscure question, but what is the etymology
of stavropighial? It apparently means outside the diocesan
structure, pertaining to the primate. I know the Greek stauros
is cross, but the rest escapes me. The word appears in the phrase
"...actual reported adult membership...from all the diocesan
and stavropighial parishes of the OCA..." at the top of the
last page of the Pre All-American Council Report Fair Share Resolution
Thanks for your time.
G. W. H. Lampes’ Greek Patristic Lexicon defines
“to’ stauropighion” as “a fixture
of a Cross by a bishop on the site of a new Church”. In his
very useful and well-documented book, The Church of the Ancient
Councils (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press), Archbishop Peter
L’Huillier traces the adjective “stauropighiakos”
to the verb “pighnimi”. This verb means “to
attach with nails”.
From an historical perspective, “Patriarchal stauropighia”
appear after the last phase of iconoclasm in the ninth century.
These monasteries were not under the direct jurisdiction of the
local bishop but under the Patriarch. Archbishop Peter states that
“these monasteries are thus designated [stauropighial]
because at their foundation the patriarchal Cross was attached to
them, marking the direct jurisdiction of the patriarch.” (p.
311) Thus since Metropolitan Herman is the primate of the Orthodox
Church in America, all stauropighial communities are under his jurisdiction.
I was wondering why we don't celebrate Passover. Jesus was holding
a seder the night of the Last Supper so where along the line did
that become something that we did not consider part of our religion?
For Christians the death and resurrection of Christ form the “new”
Passover. The Greek word Pascha is derived from the Hebrew Pesah,
which means “Passover”. For Israel, Passover marked
its liberation from Egypt. From a Christian perspective, the Jewish
Passover was a prefiguration of Christ’s “passover”
from death to life. And while Christians do not hold a seder, we
cannot disassociate the “Passover” of Israel from the
“Passover” of the Lord. In the Gospel according to Saint
Matthew, Jesus is presented as the new Moses who leads not only
Israel but also the Gentiles from death to life.
Thank you for providing this service. I am writing to you from the
United Arab Emirates. My question is: Who was the first bishop of
Jerusalem? He would be the first leader of the Christians after
the ascension of Jesus. Is this correct?
I don't like to take a lot of your time. I would appreciate a short
answer and any Biblical references.
Though the term “bishop” is not used in the Acts of
the Apostles, it is clear that James was the first leader of the
Church in Jerusalem, cf. Acts 15:13ff. In the Ecclesiastical History
of Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (4th century), James, the brother
of the Lord, is referred to as the first bishop of Jerusalem (E.H.,
Book IV, Chapter 5).
My son is reading the New Testament in his high school religion
class (he attends a Roman Catholic school) and was distressed to
find that two of the Apostles blame the death of Jesus Christ directly
on the Jews. He is worried that then by definition as a Christian
one has to be anti-semitic if one believes that the Bible is the
word of God. Please help him with this.
Do you know which texts and apostles your son is referring to? You
need to keep stressing that Christians are not to hate anyone.
The roots of Christianity are Jewish. The first Christians were
Jewish and did not break their ties with Judaism. The Gospel of
Saint Luke tells us that after the Ascension of the Lord his disciples
"returned to Jerusalem with great joy and were continually
in the temple blessing God." (24:52-53)
The Gospel accounts make it very clear that the death of the Lord
involved both Jews and Gentiles. Jesus is tried by both the Sanhedrin
presided over by Caiaphas (Mt. 26) and by the Gentiles led by governor
Pilate. According to the Luken text, Pilate and Herod did not find
Jesus guilty of the charges brought against him. (23:13-16) Yet
it is Pilate who caved into the wishes of the angry crowd which
demanded the release of Barabbas.
Finally, it is important for all Christians to remember that Jesus'
passion and death are voluntary. Jesus wills to be delivered into
the hands of sinful men. (Mk. 9:30-32) He wills to offer Himself
for the life of the world.
I read and hear Protestants say that the longer
canon was not accepted or fixed until the western Council of Trent.
Yet the East obviously accepted the deuterocanonical books apart
from the western decision. When did the Eastern churches fix their
evidently even longer canon (3 & 4 Macabees?) as including the
deuterocanonical books? And if the decision was not at an ecumenical
council, how could it be considered authoritative?
You raise an important question regarding the formation of the biblical
canon. A simple answer cannot be given since the history of the
Canon, both East and West, is long and complicated.
In the West, at the Council of Trent (which spread over a period
of 18 years, 1545-63) it was affirmed that the books of the Apocrypha
i.e. those books of the Old Testament which were not included in
the Hebrew collection were to be included with the canon. In other
terms, Trent declared that the Apocrypha were inspired texts. In
fact it was St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430) who placed these books,
oringinally written in Greek, on equal footing with the Hebrew books.
The Council of Trent was for all intents and purposes catching up
with St. Augustine's "expanded" canon.
As for the development of the Canon in the East, the deuterocanonical
or Apocryphal books were not accepted as part of the Canon. This
was so because the East adhered to the Hebrew Canon. Hence these
books were not on an equal footing with the Hebrew books. As for
the Septuagint (LXX) i.e. the Greek translation of the Hebrew Canon,
the East placed the deuterocanonical books in a category of their
own. In his Festal Letter (#39) St. Athanasius of Alexandria lists
the following books of the Old Testament: "...Genesis, Exodus,
Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books
of Kings, among which 1 and 2 are considered one book, as are 3
and 4. After this we find the Chronicles, takes as one book. Then
the book of Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs and
Job. Then the 12 prophets, as one book. Then Isaiah, Jeremiah with
Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle (of Jeremiah) then Ezekiel,
and Daniel... But to be more precise, I find it necessary to say
that in addition to these there are also other works not included
but which have been decreed by the Fathers to be read by those who
will soon be accepted (i.e. the catechumens), or by those who want
to learn the word of piety: The Wisdom of Solomon, Esther, Judith,
Tobit, The teaching said to be of the Apostles (i.e. the Didache)
and the Pastor (i.e. The Shepherd of Hermes)." [N.B. these
last two texts were at various times included in the New Testament
Canon.] St. Athanasius goes on to say that the texts comprising
the Canon and those which are for reading and edifying the listener
are not to be referred to as Apocryphal. For St. Athanasius the
Apocryphal texts were simply "the inventions of the heretics."
There are other texts which make similar distinctions. One such
text is the "Synopsis of Holy Scripture" (4th or 5th c.)
wrongly attributed to St. Athanasius. It refers to three categories
of books: 1) those which are canonized, 2) those which are disputed
- antilegomena, and 3) those which are apocryphal. The antilegomena
correspond to the deuterocanonical books that are used to edify
catechumens and the baptized. As for the Apocrypha, these books
were forbidden to be read in or outside the eucharistic gathering.
(See also Canon 59 of Laodicea, 4th c. )
While not all the lists of canonical books agree there is a consistent
attempt in the East to remain within the number of books found in
the Hebrew Canon. Compare for example the letter of Miletos of Sardis
(Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, Book IV,26), the lists of St.
Athanasius, Canon 60 of Laodicea (a later insertion) and Apostolic
Canon 85 (4th. c.). [N.B.- In the list of Miletos Esther, Nehemiah
and Lamentations are omitted. This is so because Nehemiah was included
with Ezra, Lamentations with Jeremiah. Esther is omitted perhaps
because of a scribal error.]
That no ecumenical council drew up the list of canonical books should
not be unsettling. Local councils as well as certain letters became
recognized as expressing the life and faith of the universal Church
e.g. the local councils of Constantinople in the 14th century which
defended the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas regarding the distinctions
between essence and energies. From a dogmatic perspective these
councils are just as important as any of the 7 Ecumenical Councils.