To ask a question, click here

Liturgy and Life, Theology

How should one pray?... Liturgical life... Interfaith relations...

History and Ecclesiology

Orthodox History...Autocephaly...

Pastoral Concerns - NEW!

Baptism, conversion and churching... Marriage & betrothal... Interfaith marriage...

Liturgy and Life

Question
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.

Answer
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 and corporate.
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.

Question
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.

Answer
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.

Question
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?

Answer
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 added]
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.

Question
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 of "change".

Answer
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."

Question
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?

Answer
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...
(Oration 45, 22)

Question
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?

Answer
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).

Question
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 drink.
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?

Answer
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.

Question
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"?

Answer
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.

Question
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?

Answer
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.

Question
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? Probably not.

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?

Answer
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 creative Word and Spirit of God. This means that all of creation was and is bound to the Creator. All of created existence is dependent upon the Creator. 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 with God.
Though bound to death by nature, the human person was created to share in God's immortality. Yet, the sin of Adam introduced death 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 grace 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 human race was destined and set apart from the vegetative and animal orders to share a unique union with God i.e. a relationship that would overcome 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 an interesting 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 fruit..."

These two verses lend themselves to the idea that prior to the sin of Adam there was universal harmony in the creation This harmony 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 were 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 nature.

Because the human being is considered by many Church Fathers to be a microcosm, i.e. consisting of the material and immaterial elements of creation, the sin of Adam had cosmic consequences. Created to share in immortal life, the human being became a prisoner of his mortal nature. Saint Gregory of Nyssa (4th c.) stresses how the fall of Adam caused the human being to take on the characteristics of 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 incongruity 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 of God in death. And it is death or rather the fear of death that introduced (the negative) passions into human existence. Adam's sin followed 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 of humans.

The Fall of Adam resulted in cosmic death which is first and foremost separation from God. This includes the separation of animals from 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 waits with 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 will be 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. Is it 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 is being 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?

Question
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.

Answer
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.

back to top

History and Ecclesiology

Question
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?
Thank you.

Answer
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.

Question
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?

Answer
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, Syria.

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 churches.

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 church.
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 pluralism.

Question
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.

Answer
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 ethnic groups.

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.

Question
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 at <http://aac.oca.org/documents/fairsharereport.pdf>
Thanks for your time.

Answer
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.

Question
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?

Answer
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.

Question
Dear Father,
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.
Thank you.

Answer
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).

Question
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.

Answer
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.

Question
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?

Answer
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.

back to top