ATTENTION: Visitors looking for the Royal Eagle restaurant website, click here
Showing posts with label Church Fathers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Church Fathers. Show all posts

20090531

First Ecumenical Council

On the seventh Sunday of Pascha, we commemorate the holy God-bearing Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council.

The Commemoration of the First Ecumenical Council has been celebrated by the Church of Christ from ancient times. The Lord Jesus Christ left the Church a great promise, "I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Mt. 16:18). Although the Church of Christ on earth will pass through difficult struggles with the Enemy of salvation, it will emerge victorious. The holy martyrs bore witness to the truth of the Savior's words, enduring suffering and death for confessing Christ, but the persecutor's sword is shattered by the Cross of Christ.

Persecution of Christians ceased during the fourth century, but heresies arose within the Church itself. One of the most pernicious of these heresies was Arianism. Arius, a priest of Alexandria, was a man of immense pride and ambition. In denying the divine nature of Jesus Christ and His equality with God the Father, Arius falsely taught that the Savior is not consubstantial with the Father, but is only a created being.

A local Council, convened with Patriarch Alexander of Alexandria presiding, condemned the false teachings of Arius. However, Arius would not submit to the authority of the Church. He wrote to many bishops, denouncing the decrees of the local Council. He spread his false teaching throughout the East, receiving support from certain Eastern bishops.

Investigating these dissentions, the holy emperor Constantine (May 21) consulted Bishop Hosius of Cordova (Aug. 27), who assured him that the heresy of Arius was directed against the most fundamental dogma of Christ's Church, and so he decided to convene an Ecumenical Council. In 325, 318 bishops representing Christian Churches from various lands gathered together at Nicea.

Among the assembled bishops were many confessors who had suffered during the persecutions, and who bore the marks of torture upon their bodies. Also participating in the Council were several great luminaries of the Church: St Nicholas, Archbishop of Myra in Lycia (December 6 and May 9), St Spyridon, Bishop of Tremithos (December 12), and others venerated by the Church as holy Fathers.

With Patriarch Alexander of Alexandria came his deacon, Athanasius (who later became Patriarch of Alexandria (May 2 and January 18). He is called "the Great," for he was a zealous champion for the purity of Orthodoxy. In the Sixth Ode of the Canon for today's Feast, he is referred to as "the thirteenth Apostle."

The emperor Constantine presided over the sessions of the Council. In his speech, responding to the welcome by Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, he said, "God has helped me cast down the impious might of the persecutors, but more distressful for me than any blood spilled in battle is for a soldier, is the internal strife in the Church of God, for it is more ruinous."

Arius, with seventeen bishops among his supporters, remained arrogant, but his teaching was repudiated and he was excommunicated from the Church. In his speech, the holy deacon Athanasius conclusively refuted the blasphemous opinions of Arius. The heresiarch Arius is depicted in iconography sitting on Satan's knees, or in the mouth of the Beast of the Deep (Rev. 13).

The Fathers of the Council declined to accept a Symbol of Faith (Creed) proposed by the Arians. Instead, they affirmed the Orthodox Symbol of Faith. St Constantine asked the Council to insert into the text of the Symbol of Faith the word "consubstantial," which he had heard in the speeches of the bishops. The Fathers of the Council unanimously accepted this suggestion.

In the Nicean Creed, the holy Fathers set forth and confirmed the Apostolic teachings about Christ's divine nature. The heresy of Arius was exposed and repudiated as an error of haughty reason. After resolving this chief dogmatic question, the Council also issued Twelve Canons on questions of churchly administration and discipline. Also decided was the date for the celebration of Holy Pascha. By decision of the Council, Holy Pascha should not be celebrated by Christians on the same day with the Jewish Passover, but on the first Sunday after the first full moon of the vernal equinox (which occured on March 22 in 325).

(from oca.org)

20090311

Monasticism

Question: What do you call a person who answers the call to forsake sin and worldly influence, who renounces selfishness, pride, corruption, vanity, and greed, who strives for union with Christ through prayer and fasting, who is dedicated to a life of repentance, sobriety, frugality, obedience, and who vows to deny himself and take up his cross daily?

Answer: a Christian.

All Christians, not just monastics, are called to an ascetical lifestyle. Asceticism (from the Greek word ἄσκησις, meaning "athlete") is "the crucifixion of the desires of the flesh, through a life of prayer, fasting, and self-denial." Asceticism is the constant struggle to stay focused on Christ, and often requires denying ourselves of things that are otherwise morally neutral, like food or comfort.

All Christians are obliged to keep the Lord's commandments, but this requires efforts. Fallen human nature, enslaved by its passions is reluctant to fulfill this obligation. It seeks pleasure and avoids the pain involved in fighting the passions and selfishness. The monastic life is so arranged as to facilitate this work. On the other hand the worldly life, particularly in our secular society, makes it harder to be an ascetic. The problem for the Christian in the world is that he is called upon to reach the same goal under adverse conditions (Georgios I. Mantzarides).

Monasticism (from the Greek μοναχός, meaning "alone") has been with the Church in one form or another since the very beginning. In fact, I have heard that Christian monasticism traces its roots all the way back to the Nazarite tradition of the ancient Hebrews (see Num 6.1-21). Nazarites made an ascetical vow to abstain from liquor, wine, grapes, and raisins, and to perform other acts of obedience. John the Baptist was apparently a Nazarite (Lk 1.13-15), as was James, the brother of Christ, according to the church historians Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, II, xxiii, vv.5-6), and Epiphanius:

For James was Joseph's son by Joseph's (first) wife, not Mary, as I have said, and discussed with greater clarity in many other places. And moreover I find that he was of Davidic descent because he was Joseph's son, (and) he was born a nazirite--for he was Joseph's first-born, and hence consecrated. (Panarion, 29.4)

During the Roman persecutions, every Christian was a potential martyr. The Christian lifestyle demanded much of its adherents, and only the most dedicated were likely to tough it out and risk exile, torture, or death for the Faith. When Christianity was legalized in the fourth century, it became very easy to be a Christian. Christianity was suddenly fashionable. Christians were no longer being slaughtered for their beliefs, and the church began to take on a more worldly character. Many devout Christians retreated to the deserts or the mountains to escape the corrupting influence of modern society on the Church. There, they formed communities of fellow ascetics. Three important figures in the establishment of organized Christian monasticism are Saints Anthony, Pachomius, and Theodore.

Christian monasticism spread widely through Europe with the work of such figures as Martin of Tours, John Cassian, Honoratus of Arles, and Benedict of Nursia, who is regarded as the founder of western monasticism. It eventually made its way to the British Isles, where Sts Brigid, Columba, St Davis of Wales, St Augustine of Canterbury and others founded monasteries in Ireland, Ionia (pictured above), Northumbria, England, and Wales.

By the sixteenth century, nearly every town in England had at least one monastery or convent. However, following his break from the Roman Church in 1534, King Henry VIII brought English monasticism to an abrupt and unceremonious end, closing England's monasteries and confiscating their lands and assets.

During the Reformation, the entire Protestant west abandoned monasticism on the grounds that it was an attempt to work one's way to heaven, and therefore was contrary to St Paul's writings, which Protestant scholars felt condemned any reliance on works.

But, according to Father George Florovsky, "to misunderstand St. Paul’s critique of 'works,' to think that St. Paul is speaking of the 'works' commanded by our Lord rather than the Judaic understanding of the works of the 'law' is a misreading of a fundamental nature." In other words, Paul is not saying that good works have no role in our salvation, only that we cannot attain righteousness through works alone.

Father Florovsky goes on to say that, "Luther had a point in considering the specific direction in which the Roman Catholic merit-system had gone as a reference point similar to the Judaic legal system." However, the goal of monasticism, despite whatever the Reformers may have thought, is not the accumulation of points for heaven, but, according to Bishop Hilarion Alfayev of Vienna, is "the imitation of Christ whose way of life as described in the Gospel was altogether monastic. He was not married, was free from earthly bonds, had no roof over His head, travelled from place to place, lived in poverty, fasted, and spent nights in prayer. Monasticism is an attempt to come as close as possible to this ideal. It is the quest for sanctity, a search for God as the ultimate goal, the rejection of everything that binds one to earth and prevents one from ascending to heaven."

But aren't we commanded—I have heard asked—to go and make disciples of all nations? How does one make disciples when one is cloistered in a monastery somewhere in the desert or on an island away from civilization?

It occurred to me recently as I considered this question that, throughout history, the majority of Christian writers, historians, theologians, hymnographers and scholars have, in fact, been monks. When someone reads the Patristic writings, more often than not, one is reading the works of Orthodox monastics: John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, John Climacus, John of Damascus (pictured), Pope Gregory the Great (whose writings, ironically, were very instrumental in steering me away from Roman Catholicism and toward Orthodoxy), Maximus the Confessor, Simeon the New Theologian, Gregory Palamas. These men, through their witness and insight, have made countless disciples through the centuries. As have monastic missionaries such as Sts Cyril and Methodius, apostles to the Slavs; Sts Juvenal and Innocent, apostles to North America; and St Patrick, apostle to the Irish. These and other monks introduced, and in some cases actually created, a written language for the people they evangelized. Monastic scholars through the centuries preserved, maintained, and meticulously copied and recopied by hand every page of the Scriptures that we take for granted. Theologians and spiritual fathers of modern times, Silouan the Athonite, John Maximovitch, Seraphim Rose have been monastics, and every single Orthodox bishop is a monk first.

Not everyone is called to be an apostle (1Cor 12.27-31). Some are prophets, some are teachers, and some are miracle workers. Historically, monastics have been all of these, and have worked together, as members of the Body, toward "the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ."

I have said before—and firmly believe—that there is a difference between making disciples and simply winning converts. Those churches with no history of monasticism are highly successful at filling seats. But are they making disciples? Are they preaching the Gospel unsullied, undiminished, and undistorted?

Let's face it: monastics are simply closer to God than are most ordinary Christians (if you doubt this, spend an hour sometime with a monk and listen carefully to what he has to say), certainly much closer than those of us who are constantly bombarded with worldly influences. Without the input of monastics, I'm not certain the rest of us would have any idea what a disciple even looks like, let alone how to make one. Without every member of the body, including (especially?) monastics, we are "children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive."

So, yes, monastics to in fact make disciples. But they do so by more than simply their spiritual guidance. Monasteries are often buzzing with activity. Some Orthodox monasteries—like St. Paisius Monastery in Arizona and St Isaac Skete in Wisconsin—operate schools. Several have publishing operations, including Dormition Monastery in Michigan and St. Herman of Alaska Monastery in California. Some monastics record and sell liturgical music, some operate gift shops and bookstores. And nearly every monastery has one or more workshops in which they produce iconography, liturgical vestments, wood carvings, candles, mosaics or incense. Every one of these services contributes to the making of disciples.

But what about community? So often the Orthodox Church presses on the need for our active participation in the church community. What about these hermits and recluses that we hear about? This seclusion, more often than not, is temporary (consider St Paul, who spent three years in isolation in Arabia before beginning his ministry: Gal 1.17-18), and in any case is the exception rather than the norm. But even these hermit saints are effective at making disciples. Consider St Seraphim of Sarov, who lived in near complete seclusion in the forest for fifteen years, and St Mary of Egypt, who spent forty-seven years alone in the desert outside Jerusalem. These are but two of many examples of ascetics who, by their example of humility, repentance, patience, obedience, and through their prayers, are making disciples even to this day! Read the lives of these Saints, and you'll know what I mean.

Are monastics perfect? Certainly not! Nor are monasteries without their share of problems. But according to one nun, "monasteries are not meant to be Utopias. They are arenas where men, having accepted the fact of their fallen state, work to be healed of the evil in their own hearts." They are also places where people are committed, and more able than anywhere else, to accept and follow Christ's call to asceticism:

Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (Mt. 6:31)

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? (Mt. 16:24-26)

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it (Mt 19.12).

Jesus said unto him, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me" (Mt 19.21).

And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life (Mt. 19:29).

And Jesus answering said unto them, "The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection" (Lk. 20:34-36; cf. 1Co 7.8-9, 32-35, 39-40).


Recommended reading:
Orthodox Christian Monasticism
The Ascetic Ideal and the New Testament
Orthodox Christian Monasticism
Prayer and monasticism in orthodox tradition (Alfeyev)
The Gospel Call to Monasticism
Monasticism
The Development of Monasticism
St. Seraphim of Sarov's Conversation With Nicholas Motovilov

20090131

"The Ancient Church" documentary

The following is a short documentary on the history of the ancient Orthodox Church. For more information on the people, places, and events mentioned in the videos, click on the links below.


5:16 Ecumenical Councils
6:20 Papal Supremacy
6:23 The Filioque
6:28 The Great Schism of 1054 (also here)


00:13 Luther & 95 Theses, Protestant Reformation
2:00 Patriarch Ignatius IV
2:18 St Ignatius
3:11 Churches of Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria & Georgia
3:19 Churches of Cyprus, Greece, Poland & Albania
3:25 Churches of Sinai, Czech Republic, Finland, Japan & China
4:36 Metropolitan Philip
5:49 Fr Peter Gillquist
6:03 Fr Gordon Walker


00:31 Mysteries
00:42 Fr. Jon Braun

20090102

St Ignatius of Antioch

From oca.org:

The Hieromartyr Ignatius the God-Bearer, was a disciple of the holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian, as was also St Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna (February 23). St Ignatius was the second bishop of Antioch, and successor to Bishop Euodius, Apostle of the Seventy (September 7).

Tradition suggests that when St Ignatius was a little boy, the Savior hugged him and said: "Unless you turn and become as little children, you shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven" (Mt. 18:3).

As Bishop of Antioch, St Ignatius was zealous and spared no effort to build up the church of Christ. To him is attributed the practice of antiphonal singing (by two choirs) during church services. He had seen a vision of the angels in heaven alternately singing praises to God, and divided his church choir to follow this example. In the time of persecution he was a source of strength to the souls of his flock, and was eager to suffer for Christ.

In the year 106 the emperor Trajan (98-117), after his victory over the Scythians, ordered everyone to give thanks to the pagan gods, and to put to death any Christians who refused to worship the idols. In the year 107, Trajan happened to pass through Antioch. Here they told him that Bishop Ignatius openly confessed Christ, and taught people to scorn riches, to lead a virtuous life, and preserve their virginity. St Ignatius came voluntarily before the emperor, so as to avert persecution of the Christians in Antioch. St Ignatius rejected the persistent requests of the emperor Trajan to sacrifice to the idols. The emperor then decided to send him to Rome to be thrown to the wild beasts. St Ignatius joyfully accepted the sentence imposed upon him.

On the way to Rome St Ignatius visited several churches, teaching and guiding the Christians there. He also wrote seven epistles: to the churches of Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Rome, Philadelphia, and Smyrna. He also addressed a letter to St Polycarp, who mentions a collection of the letters of St Ignatius in his letter to the Philippians (Ch. 13). St Irenaeus of Lyons quotes from St Ignatius's letter to the Romans (AGAINST HERESIES 5:28:4). All these letters have survived to the present day.

The Roman Christians met St Ignatius with great joy and profound sorrow. Some of them hoped to prevent his execution, but St Ignatius implored them not to do this. Kneeling down, he prayed together with the believers for the Church, for love between the brethren, and for an end to the persecution against Christians.

On December 20, the day of a pagan festival, they led St Ignatius into the arena, and he turned to the people: "Men of Rome, you know that I am sentenced to death, not because of any crime, but because of my love for God, by Whose love I am embraced. I long to be with Him, and offer myself to him as a pure loaf, made of fine wheat ground fine by the teeth of wild beasts."

After this the lions were released and tore him to pieces...

After his execution St Ignatius appeared to many of the faithful in their sleep to comfort them, and some saw him at prayer for the city of Rome. Hearing of the saint's great courage, Trajan thought well of him and stopped the persecution against the Christians. The relics of St Ignatius were transferred to Antioch (January 29), and on February 1, 637 were returned to Rome and placed in the church of San Clemente.

20081217

St Sabbas the Sanctified



St Sabbas (also Saba, Sava, Sawa, Savas) is remembered tomorrow according to the old calendar. The following biography is from oca.org:

Saint Sava the Sanctified [whose tomb is pictured above] was born in the fifth century at Cappadocia of pious Christian parents, John and Sophia. His father was a military commander. Journeying to Alexandria on military matters, his wife went with him, but they left their five-year-old son in the care of an uncle. When the boy reached eight years of age, he entered the monastery of St Flavian located nearby. The gifted child quickly learned to read and became an expert on the Holy Scriptures. In vain did his parents urge St Sava to return to the world and enter into marriage.

When he was seventeen years old he received monastic tonsure, and attained such perfection in fasting and prayer that he was given the gift of wonderworking. After spending ten years at the monastery of St Flavian, he went to Jerusalem, and from there to the monastery of St Euthymius the Great (January 20). But St Euthymius sent St Sava to Abba Theoctistus, the head of a nearby monastery with a strict cenobitic rule. St Sava lived in obedience at this monastery until the age of thirty.

After the death of the Elder Theoctistus, his successor blessed St Sava to seclude himself in a cave. On Saturdays, however, he left his hermitage and came to the monastery, where he participated in divine services and ate with the brethren. After a certain time St Sava received permission not to leave his hermitage at all, and he struggled in the cave for five years.

St Euthymius attentively directed the life of the young monk, and seeing his spiritual maturity, he began to take him to the Rouba wilderness with him. They set out on January 14, and remained there until Palm Sunday. St Euthymius called St Sava a child-elder, and encouraged him to grow in the monastic virtues.

When St Euthymius fell asleep in the Lord (+ 473), St Sava withdrew from the Lavra and moved to a cave near the monastery of St Gerasimus of Jordan (March 4). After several years, disciples began to gather around St Sava, seeking the monastic life. As the number of monks increased, a lavra sprang up. When a pillar of fire appeared before St Sava as he was walking, he found a spacious cave in the form of a church.

St Sava founded several more monasteries. Many miracles took place through the prayers of St Sava: at the Lavra a spring of water welled up, during a time of drought there was abundant rain, and there were also healings of the sick and the demoniacs. St Sava composed the first monastic Rule of church services, the so-called "Jerusalem Typikon", accepted by all the Palestine monasteries. The saint surrendered his soul to God in the year 532.

For more information:
St. Sabbas Orthodox Monastery
Sabbas the Sanctified (OrthodoxWiki)
Saint Sabbas

20081126

St John Chrysostom

St John Chrysostom, whose life and work are celebrated today, was a colossal figure in early Christianity. His surname Χρυσόστομος, which means "golden mouthed" in Greek, was given to him posthumously because of his legendary oration skills.

In his early years he became a monk and a hermit, during which time he committed the Bible to memory and fasted so severely that he permanently damaged his digestive system.

Eventually he returned to his hometown of Antioch, where he served as a deacon and a priest before being installed--despite his adamant protest--as Archbishop of Constantinople. He refused the lavish trappings that came with the office and continued to live in extreme austerity. His piety and holiness aroused the jealousy of religious and political leaders, as a result of whose scheming St John was exiled to the mountains of Armenia where he died of exposure in 407.

St John's sermons and letters have had an enormous influence on Christians throughout history. But he is probably best remembered for the Liturgy which bears his name and is celebrated daily in Orthodox churches worldwide.

For further information please see the following:

OCA biography
Website dedicated to the life and writings of St John Chrysostom
Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom
Homilies on First Corinthians
Homilies on Second Corinthians
Biography on Ecumenical Patriarch website
The Martyrdom of Saint John Chrysostom

20080921

The Eucharist, Part 1 - The Real Presence

Note: "Eucharist" comes from the Greek word εὐχαριστία, which means “thanksgiving.” It is one of several names the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches give to Holy Communion.

One of the things that most troubled me as I moved away from the Baptist faith was coming to terms with the idea that the bread and wine (actually Baptists use grape juice) are not just symbols, but are, in fact, the Body and Blood of Christ.

Virgin birth? Fine. Death and Resurrection? No problem. But please, I would say, don’t try to tell me that those elements are actually Christ’s Body and Blood. That’s simply more than I can accept.

Well, as it turns out, it was more than some others could accept as well. St John records that, after Christ astonished His disciples by dividing five loaves of bread and two fish into food enough for a crowd of five thousand to eat their fill, He hit them with this:

“Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him” (Jn 6.53-56).

To which, after witnessing what was arguably Christ’s most staggering miracle to date, His disciples said “This is a hard saying; who can hear it?” (v.61) It was at this point that many of his followers turned their backs “and walked no more with Him” (v.66). In fact, I have heard it said that this is when He lost Judas: “For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him” (v.64)

So, after thinning the crowd of those who didn’t have the stomach for His teachings, Christ turned to His Twelve and asked, “Will ye also go away?” (v.67)

This was a question I was suddenly forced to confront several years ago when I began attending Lutheran worship, and again as I began the move toward Orthodoxy. Was this teaching too hard for me as well? Could I stand the idea of taking Christ at His word?

I didn't like it. I wasn't comfortable with it. It didn't sit well with me. I had always understood that Communion was symbolic, that the bread and "wine" were just that. I had always understood that when Christ said "this is my body" (Mt 26.26; Mk 14.22; Lk 22.19), He was speaking metaphorically like He did when He called Himself the “true vine” (Jn 15.1), or the “door” (Jn 10.9).

But, how could it be, I wondered, that we can “eat or drink damnation on” ourselves by not discerning…a symbol? (1Cor 11.29) Were many of the Corinthian Christians sick or dead because they didn’t recognize the symbolic nature of the bread and wine? (v.30) Did the men and women who had previously followed Christ walk away from Him because they thought he was speaking metaphorically?

“How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” they asked (Jn 6.52). At this point, Christ might have said “Calm down, people; I’m speaking metaphorically.” He had cleared up confusion at other times (Mt 16.5–12), so if this was simply an honest misunderstanding by His listeners, He could certainly have said so. But He didn’t. Instead He turned up the heat: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.”

The New American Standard Bible translates this as “Truly, Truly.”

The Message says “Jesus didn't give an inch.”

The Amplified Bible: “I assure you, most solemnly I tell you.”

New Living Translation: “I tell you the truth.”

No matter how you look at it, there is simply no way to infer from Christ’s own words that He meant this symbolically. In today’s language, He may as well have been saying “I kid you not, folks. This is the real deal.”

If St Paul’s warnings were correct, then any confusion here would have had grave consequences. Jesus knew that. But He didn’t back down. Rather, He turned up the heat even further:

“My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed” (v.55).

By my count, Christ told His disciples twelve times that He is the bread from Heaven, and four times that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Not once did He back away from this.

So maybe I’m reading it wrong, I thought. Maybe the Greek text is nuanced in a way that I can’t get a hold of. Perhaps I should find out what others have to say on the subject.

St Ignatius was the Bishop of Antioch during the first century. He was a disciple of John. Yes, that John! The very author of the Gospel I’ve been citing. Also known as John the Theologian. If anyone can shed some light on this doctrine, surely St Ignatius can:

“I have no taste for corruptible food,” he wrote to the Christians in Rome, “nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7.3).

Okay, but that doesn’t quite say that the bread and wine are really and truly the Body and Blood of Christ. However…

He later warned the Smyrneans to “take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6.2–7.1).

And while I was at it, I found these:

Justin Martyr, a second-century theologian explained thus in a letter to a Roman pagan: “We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e. has been baptized] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66).

Origen, a third-century Christian scholar and theologian wrote, “You know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence” (Homilies on Exodus 13.3).

Cyril of Jerusalem, a fourth-century bishop and theologian: “Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ" (Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic 4.22.9).

Theodore of Mopsuestia, a fifth-century bishop: “When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood,’ for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements], after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit, not according to their nature, but to receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord” (Catechetical Homilies 5.1).

In fact, I was unable to find a single dissenting voice among the Early Church Fathers. They all believed that Christ truly did mean what He said.

What, then, could I do, but echo St Peter’s answer when Christ asked the Twelve if they planned to leave Him, too:

“Lord, to whom shall [I] go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And [I] believe and [am] sure that Thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God” (Jn 6.68-69).

St Peter and the Twelve didn’t understand what this was all about; they didn’t realize at the time that Christ’s Body and Blood would come to them in the Eucharist. All they heard was: You have to eat My flesh and drink My blood. That must have sounded like insanity to them. But they trusted Christ. Even if it didn’t make sense to them at first, they trusted Him. I knew I had to do the same.

20080914

The Scriptures, Part 3

The following is taken from an article entitled "There was Never a Bible in the Orthodox Church?" (emphases are my own)

Strictly speaking, there never was a Bible in the Orthodox Church, at least not as we commonly think of the Bible as a single volume book we can hold in our hand. Since the beginning of the Church, from the start of our liturgical tradition, there has never been a single book in an Orthodox church we could point to as the Bible. Instead, the various Books of the Bible are found scattered throughout several service books located either on the Holy Altar itself, or at the chanter’s stand. The Gospels (or their pericopes) are complied into a single volume — usually bound in precious metal and richly decorated — placed on the Holy Altar.

The Epistles (or, again, their pericopes) are bound together in another book, called the Apostolos, which is normally found at the chanter’s stand. Usually located next to the Apostolos on the chanter’s shelf are the twelve volumes of the Menaion, as well as the books called the Triodion and Pentekostarion, containing various segments of the Old and the New Testaments.

The fact that there is no Bible in the church should not surprise us, since our liturgical tradition is a continuation of the practices of the early Church, when the Gospels and the letters from the Apostles (the Epistles) had been freshly written and copied for distribution to the Christian communities. The Hebrew Scriptures, what we now call the Old Testament, comprising the Law (the first five books) and the Prophets, were likewise written on various scrolls, just as they were found in the Jewish synagogues.

The Church is not based on the Bible. Rather, the Bible is a product of the Church. For the first few centuries of the Christian era, no one could have put his hands on a single volume called The Bible. In fact, there was no agreement regarding which books of Scripture were to be considered accurate and correct, or canonical. Looking back over history, there were various lists of the canonical books comprising the Bible:

The Muratorian Canon (130 AD) cites all the books we considered as parts of the Bible today, except for Hebrews, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation/Apocalypse; Canon 60 of the local Council of Laodicea (364 AD) cited Revelation/Apocalypse; A festal Epistle by Saint Athanasius (369 AD) lists all of them.

Even so, there was no official, authoritative canon listing all the books until the Sixth Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople in AD 680. Canon II of that Council ratifies the First through the Fifth Ecumenical Councils, as well as the local councils at Carthage (AD 255), Ancyra (AD 315), Neocaesaria (AD 315), Gangra (AD 340), Antioch (AD 341), Laodicea (AD 364), Sardica (AD 347), Constantinople (AD 394), and Carthage (AD 419). When the Council at Laodicea specified the content of the Bible as we know it — 39 years after the First Ecumenical Council (AD 325) and 17 years before the second Ecumenical Council (AD 381) — the Liturgy was pretty much well-defined and established and had been canonized by common usage — the reading from these books. It was not until the invention of the printing press in Western Europe, coinciding with the period of the Protestant Reformation of Western Christianity that the Bible was widely disseminated as a single volume.

20080817

The Scriptures, Part 2

It is interesting and ironic that the Christian faith traditions that hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura are the very same ones that use a truncated version of the Bible.

The Bible that Protestants use—and the one I used growing up—excludes seven books from the Old Testament, and parts of two others.

Those books are:

Tobit
Judith
Wisdom of Solomon
Sirach
Baruch
1 & 2 Maccabees

and portions of:

Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4-16:24), and
Daniel (Vulgate Daniel 3:24-90; Vulgate Daniel 13; Vulgate Daniel 14).

Protestants call these books "Apocrypha" (from the Greek word ἀπόκρυφα, meaning "those having been hidden away"). Orthodox and Roman Catholics call them "Deuterocanon" (from δεύτερος, meaning "second" and κανών, meaning "rule" or "standard," because they were written after the "Protocanon."). When Orthodox and Roman Catholics refer to the apocrypha, what they have in mind are the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Revelation of Paul, and other books that were never accepted by the Church.

There was certainly controversy in the past surrounding the books of the Old Testament deuterocanon, because they were written after the Hellenization of the Middle East by Alexander the Great, and were therefore never written in Hebrew, but in Greek. Thus, the Jews rejected these books at the Council of Jamnia in A.D. 90 in an attempt to rid their culture of everything they felt was not entirely Jewish.

For this reason and others, certain members of the early Church (including St. Jerome, who first translated the Bible into Latin) felt that these books should not be included in the Biblical Canon. The Church, however, ultimately decided in favor of these books (as well as certain other controversial books, like Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation).

The deuterocanonical Old Testament books were included in the Septuagint,* which is the version of Scripture that Jesus and the Apostles used and quoted, and have been part of the liturgical life of the Church since the very beginning. They were part of the canon approved by the Council of Rome in 382, the Synod of Hippo in 393, and the Council of Carthage in 397. They were in the fifth-century Latin Vulgate (St Jerome's translation), in the Middle English translation by John Wycliffe in 1382, and in the Bibles that Gutenberg printed in the mid 1400’s.

However, LCMS.org says that "neither Luther nor the Lutheran church has ever regarded these writings as canonical--i.e., as part of the inspired and inerrant Word of God--since they do not meet the criteria discernible from the Scriptures themselves regarding what constitutes those books belonging to the canon of Scripture." I have not yet been able to find where they detail what these criteria are.

If it's true that Christ and the Apostles accepted the Septuagint as Scripture, and that Christians for over a thousand years accepted a canon that was ratified by multiple church councils (and which included the 7 books in question), what “criteria” could possibly exclude these books from the Biblical canon; and why is it that Protestants (specifically Lutherans in this case) "hold to the 66 [rather than 73] books of the Bible that historically authenticated themselves to the church as God's inspired Word" if indeed "all Scripture is God-breathed"? (2 Ti 3:16) Did the Holy Spirit forget to guide the Church in “all truth” (Jn 16.13) for the first fifteen hundred years until the Reformers came along?

Objections to the use of the Deuterocanon:
From the Christian Research Institute (CRI): "They contain teachings that are clearly unbiblical."

Well the thing is, any teaching is unbiblical… if you remove it from the Bible!
Excising chunks of the long-accepted Canon because it doesn't conform with what you think is proper doctrine is no different from
removing a few sentences from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke and claiming that the virgin birth of Christ is unbiblical! This argument is silly at best, blasphemous at worst. And besides, since when is it the practice of Protestants to tailor the content of the Scriptures to match their beliefs?

Also from CRI: "There have been a number of authoritative testimonies against the acceptance of these books, including those from the Jewish scholars of Jamnia, as well as many of the church fathers and scholars, like Athanasius and Jerome."

1. The scholars of Jamnia also rejected the Gospels. And Christ. And when have Christians ever been subject to the decisions of a post-Christian Jewish council anyway? And why are Protestants using the Old Testament given to them by the Masoretes—medieval Hebrew translators—rather than the one used and handed down by Christ, His Apostles, and His Church?

2. There was also much scholarly objection to the inclusion of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation, but the Church ultimately accepted them as it accepted the books of the deuterocanon. Why accept this New Testament deuterocanon and reject the Old Testament deuterocanon? There is much we can learn from the Church Fathers, like Sts. Athanasius and Jerome (who, by the way, ultimately did include the deuterocanon in his copy of the Scriptures), but as pious and knowledgeable as they were, they were not the "pillar and foundation of truth"—the Church is.

Also from CRI: "These books were never directly quoted by Jesus or by any of the New Testament writers."

This argument assumes that quotation or citation qualifies a book for canonicity. There are at least two problems with this assertion:

1. Several non-canonical books actually are quoted or cited in the New Testament:

Jude 1:14–15 quotes from the Book of Enoch 1:9.
Hebrews 11:37 alludes to the Ascension of Isaiah 5.1-14
Acts 17:28 quotes Cretica by Epimenides and Phaenomena by Aratus.
Titus 1:12 also quotes Cretica.
1 Corinthians 15:33 quotes Thaïs by Menander.
2 Timothy 3:8 references either the Gospel of Nicodemus, Ch. 5 or the Book of Jashar 79.27.**

If quotation equals canonicity, then why aren't these writings among the canon of Scripture?

2. There are several other Old Testament books—accepted by Protestants—that are also not quoted or cited in the New Testament:

Song of Songs
Ecclesiastes
Esther
Obadiah
Zephaniah
Judges
1 Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Lamentations and
Nahum

Not one of these Old Testament books is ever quoted or alluded to by Christ or the Apostles in the New Testament. But the fact of the matter is that we really don't know for sure Christ didn't quote from all of the books of the proto- and deuterocanon, because the Gospels don't record everything Jesus said and did (Jn 21.25). He may have quoted from the deuterocanon daily; we just don’t know.

From CRI: "The Catholic church itself didn’t canonize them until the Council of Trent, after the Reformation began."

Let me make something perfectly clear: at no point did either the Roman Catholic or Orthodox Churches add these books to a preexisting canon. The Church had used the deuterocanonical books for many centuries prior to the Council of Trent. It was only in response to the Reformers' rejection of these books and adoption of the Hebrew canon that the Roman Catholic Church reaffirmed their use.

"These books don't claim to be inspired."

Neither do most of the other books of the Bible. However, the Qur’an, the Book of Mormon, the Mahābhārata, and the Watchtower all claim divine inspiration. Does this claim prove anything?

"They contain historical inaccuracies and contradictions. For example, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places."

In fact, the same is true of the death of King Saul in the Protestant-accepted Old Testament:
Saul killed himself by falling on his sword (1 Sam 31.4-6)
The Philistines killed Saul on Gilboa (2 Sam 21.12)
The Lord put Saul to death (1 Ch 10.13-14)

I have found a list of more than two hundred apparent contradictions and inaccuracies in the same Bible that is accepted by every single Protestant. It is not my intention to demonstrate biblical fallacy, so I won’t post the list here. My point is simply that a case against the inclusion of the books of the Deuterocanon on the grounds of alleged inaccuracy or inconsistency is not to be made by anyone who accepts the rest of the Bible.

"These books teach immoral and ungodly things like lying, suicide, etc."

The deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament do not so much teach these actions as record them. Likewise, the Old Testament accepted by Protestants records—and in some cases actually seems to condone—acts of:
incest (Gn 19.30-36; 2 Sam 13.1-14),
rape (Gn 34.1-2; ),
infanticide (Ex 12.29-30; Nm 31.1-18),
human sacrifice (Jdg 11.29-40),
murder (2 Sam 11.14-17),
adultery (2 Sam 11.2-4), and
slavery (Ex 21.2-6; Lv 25.44-46)

How we are supposed to regard such passages is a subject for someone with much more theological knowledge than I have, but the point is that the recording of immoral acts is not a disqualification for canonicity.

"These books don’t rise to the same level of literary and rhetorical excellence evident in the rest of the Old Testament."

If “inspirational” equaled “inspired,” then the book of Numbers would have been stricken from the Canon millennia ago. However, the Church that determined that the book of Numbers—much of which is as electrifying as its title suggests—was to be included in the Biblical canon is the same Church that has for two thousand years also accepted the books of the deuterocanon.

The suggestion that the books of the deuterocanon lack something of the beauty and eloquence of the rest of the Old Testament is of course highly subjective and one that is likely to be made by someone who has not actually read them. My personal experience has found in the deuterocanon no deficiency whatsoever of the qualities that make the protocanon great.
Here’s a challenge for my readers: Identify which of the following passages is from the deuterocanon? (the answers are below)

1) I will sing a new song to my God;
Great are You, O Lord, and glorious,
Marvelous in power and unsurpassable.
Let all Your creation serve You.
For You spoke, and they were created;
You sent Your Spirit, and He formed them.
There is nothing that can resist Your voice.
For the mountains with the waters shall be shaken at their foundations.
And at Your presence, the rocks shall be melted as beeswax.
And yet You are merciful to those who fear You.

2) My son, accomplish your works with gentleness,
And you will be loved by people the LORD accepts.
The greater you are, the more humble you must be,
And you will find grace before the LORD.

3) So when they had collected their arms and stripped the spoils from their enemy, they kept the Sabbath, greatly blessing and giving thanks to the LORD, who had brought them safely through the day and appointed it for them as a beginning of mercy.

4) Take courage, O Jerusalem, for He who named you will comfort you. Wretched are those who mistreated you and rejoiced at your fall. Wretched are the cities in which your children served as slaves. Wretched is she who took your sons. For just as she took pleasure in your ruin and rejoiced over your fall, so shall she be grieved at her own desolation.

5) Your all-powerful Word leaped from heaven, from the royal throne,
Into the midst of a doomed land,
A relentless warrior carrying the sharp sword
Of Your irrevocable command,
And He stood and filled all things with death
And touched the heaven while standing on the earth.

Bottom Line:
Look, the Church never added the books of the Old Testament Deuterocanon to the Bible as some claim, but has recognized them as part of Sacred Scripture since the beginning; even since before it recognized the New Testament! The Church that compiled the rest of the Bible is the very same Church that has always included these seven books in question. Why accept that the Church was right on the one hand and wrong on the other? If you accept the books of the Protestant Bible as Scripture, then you have no reason not to accept the Deuterocanon; but if you reject the Deuterocanon, then what reason could you possibly have not to reject the rest of the Bible?
Is the Church the “Pillar and Foundation of Truth” or isn’t it?

*You will often see the Septuagint abbreviated as "LXX," which is the Latin numeration for "70." This refers to the number of scholars who transcribed these Scriptures into Greek.

You will also notice that in the early versions of the Bible, some books have different names than you're used to. For example, 1 Samuel is called 1 Kingdoms, and 2 Samuel is called 2 Kingdoms. Also, 1 & 2 Kings are called 3 & 4 Kingdoms respectively. Some modern Roman Catholic and Orthodox Bibles reflect this early naming system. The order of the books in the Septuagint is also different from that of most modern Bibles.

**Several books of the protocanonical Old Testament also cite or quote non-canonical sources:
Joshua 10.13 and 2 Samuel 1.18 both refer to the Book of Jashar.
Numbers 21.14 quotes from Book of the Wars of the Lord.
2 Chronicles 12.14-15 refers to the Book of Shemaiah the Prophet, and of Iddo the Seer.
Exodus 24:7 refers to the Book of the Covenant.
1Kings 11:41 mentions the Acts of Solomon.
1Chronicles 27:24 refers to the Chronicles of King David.
Esther 10:2 mentions the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Media and Persia.


ANSWERS: You knew right away that my quiz was a trick, didn’t you? All five passages are from books that the Protestant world has deleted from their Old Testament canon.
1) Judith 16.13-15
2) Wisdom of Sirach 3.17-18
3) 2 Maccabees 8.27
4) Baruch 4.30-33
5) Wisdom of Solomon 18.15-16
(These passages are taken from the Orthodox Study Bible)

20080814

Early Church Fathers, Pt 2

The following is lifted directly from a blog entitled "From Protestant to Orthodox." It reflects one particular blogger's conversion experience; not necessarily mine. But it does give you something to think about. Enjoy.


I found the first group of documents I’d need, conveniently, in one little volume. The title of this quick, easy read is usually just The Apostolic Fathers and is available through many bookstores (or online here). There were several things that any good Baptist would take issue with within these men’s writings:

Baptism was seen as the moment when a believer is fully and truly born again

Infants were admitted to baptism

Worship was seen as liturgical and directly connected to Jewish ritual worship; spontaneous worship was nowhere to be seen

Obedience to one’s bishop and/or priest was seen as a direct measure of whether one was an obedient Christian

Salvation was seen as something that was a process and which the believer could, after having started it, forfeit through later unbelief

Fasting was outlined specifically before the end of the first century, and the way it was to be done was expected churchwide, not individually

The departed saints, as well as the angels, were seen as and sought as intercessors in prayer for those still in the flesh

The Church was seen as a single, visible body of believers that was guided by the Holy Spirit and protected from error; one of its chief characteristics was that its bishops (and, by extension, priests) could trace their ordination through the laying on of hands back to one of the apostles themselves

Salvation was never discussed in terms of Christ paying a debt to God the Father, but rather in terms of His defeating death by His Incarnation, transfiguration, death, and resurrection

The Eucharist was, time and again, referred to as the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Himself

My journey into the first century and a half of Christianity had left me, then, not with comforting answers of Evangelicalism’s fidelity to the New Testament Church, but with many more issues to confront. The second century, with the insistence of Irenaeus and others on an intermediate state of the dead between the end of this life and the final Judgement, along with affirmation of the beliefs of the Fathers of the first century, offered little promise to aligning itself with my current beliefs. Either the Church had slipped dangerously “off the rails” immediately after the death of the last apostle, or my reading of Scripture—and that of Evangelicals everywhere—was dangerously off-base!

20080803

Early Church Fathers

Throughout most of my life as an Evangelical Protestant I was familiar with the church writings through the New Testament era, as well as the writings of Christians since the start of the Reformation. But, aside from the work of Thomas Aquinas, if there was a instance between the years 100 and 1517 in which a Christian had put pen to paper, I was not aware of it.

Then while I was investigating church history last year, I became aware of the vast collection of writings by theologians and scholars and leaders of the early Church. These men were direct, and in some cases immediate, successors of the Apostles. They lived, taught, defended, suffered and died for the Faith handed down to them from Christ through the Apostles.

All my Christian life I had read the works of men like Martin Luther, John Calvin, C.S. Lewis, Rick Warren, Max Lucado, Josh McDowell and other gifted and insightful theologians who nonetheless were centuries or millennia removed from the New Testament Church. And while these men may have good things to offer, how much more can we learn from those with firsthand knowledge of the early Church? If there is any question or doubt as to how the Early Church acted, believed, worshipped, was structured, or what its attitude was toward baptism, the Eucharist, the Incarnation, the Saints, or a multitude of other doctrines, what better source to consult than the men who actually lived in and studied and led that Early Church; the men to whom the Apostles themselves entrusted the Faith? (2 Ti 2.2)

It really should come as no surprise that there is a church today whose doctrine and practice match those described by the Christian church leaders and theologians of the first few centuries after Pentecost. What is shocking, though, is that there is only one.

The discovery of these Early Church Fathers was a profoundly meaningful event in my spiritual journey. It pretty much sealed the deal for me. I once heard a Roman Catholic apologist say that to be familiar with the writings of the Early Church Fathers is to cease to be Protestant. I would agree with him, but I would go even further and question how it is possible for someone to know the Fathers and be anything but Orthodox.

Here are some of the writings that have had the greatest impact on me:

Note: The men below marked with a cross (†) are known as Apostolic Fathers. That is, they were the students of and immediate successors to the Twelve Apostles. They were personally instructed by the Apostles themselves in the same way that the Gospel writers Mark and Luke were.

Ambrose of Milan (340-397): Bishop of Milan and strong opponent of Arianism.
On the Faith
On the Mysteries (Sacraments)

Athanasius (c. 297-373): Patriarch of Alexandria; also a strong opponent of Arianism; first person to identify the same 27 books recognized today as the New Testament.
On the Incarnation

†Barnabas: One of the Seventy Apostles chosen by Christ (Acts 4.36; 9.27; 11-15; 1 Co 9.6; Gal 2.1,9,13); cousin of Mark the Evangelist (Col 4.10); childhood friend and missionary companion of St Paul; tortured and stoned c. 62
Epistle of Barnabas*

Basil the Great (c. 330-379): Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia; opponent of Arius and Apollinarius; he and Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory Naziansus are known as the Cappadocian Fathers.
On the Holy Spirit
Liturgy of St. Basil

†Clement of Rome: Baptized by the Apostle Peter; one of the Seventy mentioned in the New Testament (Php 4.3); Fourth Bishop of Rome; exiled to Crimea; martyred c. 99 by drowning.
First Epistle to the Corinthians
Second Epistle of Clement

Cyprian (200-258): Bishop of Carthage; convert to Christianity; martyred by beheading.
On the Unity of the Church

Cyril of Alexandria (378 – 444): Patriarch of Alexandria, Egypt; opponent of Nestorius; presided at Third Ecumenical Council in 441.
Second Epistle to Nestorius
Third Epistle to Nestorius, including the Twelve Anathemas

Eusebius (c.260-341): Bishop of Caesarea; Historian.
History of the Church

Gregory of Nyssa (c.335-394): Bishop of Nyssa in Cappadocia; brother of Basil the Great; one of the Cappadocian Fathers; defender of Trinitarian doctrine.
Against Eunomius

†Hermas: One of the Seventy (Rom 16.14); bishop of Philippoplis in Thrace; martyred in the first century.
The Shepherd

†Ignatius of Antioch (c. 30-110) Believed to be the child in Matthew 18.1-4, he was a disciple of John the Evangelist; Succeeded Euodias of the Seventy (Php 4.2) as Bishop of Antioch; penned seven letters during his journey to Rome to be executed.
Epistle to the Ephesians
Epistle to the Magnesians
Epistle to the Trallians
Epistle to the Romans
Epistle to the Philadelphians
Epistle to the Smyrnaeans
Epistle to Polycarp

Irenaeus of Lyon (130-202): Bishop of Lugdunum (Lyon) in Gaul; Student of Polycarp.
Against Heresies
Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching

John of Damascus (680-780; pictured above): Theologian and hymnographer;
Exposition of the Orthodox Faith

John Chrysostom (c. 347-407): Bishop of Constantinople; theologian an teacher renowned for his eloquence (was given the surname Chrysostomos, which in Greek is Χρυσόστομος meaning “golden mouthed”); died en route to his exile.
Homilies on First Corinthians
Homilies on Second Corintians
Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom

Justin Martyr (c. 100-165): Second-century theologian, philosopher, and missionary; tortured and executed in Rome.
First Apology
Second Apology
Dialogue with Trypho the Jew
The Discourse to the Greeks

†
Polycarp of Smyrna (c. 69-155): Disciple of John the Evangelist; friend of Ignatius of Antioch; bishop of the Greek city of Smyrna in Asia Minor; burned alive and stabbed to death c. 155
Epistle to the Philippians


*There is some discussion among scholars as to whether the author of this letter is actually the Apostle Barnabas or another Barnabas. Either way, it's worth reading.

20080725

Church History

I recently read about a daytime talk-show host—a professed Christian—who informed her audience that the ancient Greeks were the ones tossing Christians to the lions and that the Christians predated the Greeks and Romans. Needless to say, this talk-show host has been the target of ridicule since then. And rightly so: not knowing when Christians came onto the scene or who persecuted them is the Christian equivalent of Americans not being able to name the first U.S. president: it's not something you need to know in order to be an American, but it sure helps you understand what being an American is about; and you look like and idiot if you don't know.

Therefore, in order to spare my readers the shame of not knowing their Crusades from their Reformation, I have compiled this brief summary of the otherwise very long, dramatic, complicated, and brutally violent history of the Christian Church:

After Pentecost, sometime around the year A.D. 33, the Apostles disbursed throughout the Roman Empire, establishing churches, appointing church leaders, and baptizing converts, covering a territory that stretched from India to Spain, Britain to Ethiopia. In time, four churches emerged as centers of Christian leadership: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem (Constantinople would later be included in this "Pentarchy" and given a rank second behind Rome).

In the aftermath of a devastating fire in Rome in A.D. 64, persecution of Christians became the state policy of the Empire, and remained so for the next 249 years, during which time thousands of Christians were put to death, including all but one of the Twelve Apostles, every single bishop of Rome, and such Christian luminaries as Ignatius of Antioch, Justin of Caesarea, Perpetua and Felicity, Polycarp, and Irenaeus.

When the Romans destroyed the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70, Antioch became the center of Christianity. Twenty-five years later, St John the Evangelist completed his book of Revelation, the last canonical book of the New Testament.

In 301, Armenia became the first nation ever to adopt Christianity as the state religion. Ten years later, the Emperor Galerius, formerly an adversary of Christianity, issued a deathbed statute suspending the state policy of persecution against Christians. Then, in 313, the Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity and issued the Edict of Milan, legalizing Christianity in the Empire; he then relocated his capital to Byzantium, renaming it Constantinople. In 391, the emperor Theodosius made Christianity the official religion of the empire. As Christianity spread, many false teachings, or heresies, sprang up. In response to these heresies, the Church held a number of Ecumenical Councils, affirming the "faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3) and defending and confirming doctrines related to the Incarnation of Christ and the nature of the Holy Trinity. One of the better-known results of these Councils is the Nicene Creed, which to this day is affirmed by Christians as the fundamental statement of Christian faith.

A series of local councils during the 4th and 5th centuries ratified and confirmed the canon of Scripture, rejecting many books and epistles thought to be uninspired or of questionable doctrinal integrity.

In 589, a local synod of bishops in Toledo, Spain, in an attempt to fight Arianism, inserted the filioque clause (Latin: filius “son” and -que “and the”) into the Nicene Creed. This addition, although initially rejected by the Eastern and Western churches alike, was gradually adopted by Rome and is generally regarded as the first in a long succession of events that eventually led to the rupture between the Eastern and Western Churches.

An Arabian merchant and self-proclaimed prophet named Muhammad began in 632 to preach a new faith (الإسلام al-'islām, meaning “submission”), which spread rapidly throughout the Middle East and North Africa, beginning what would up to the present day be a major threat to Christianity in the region.

Pope Leo III, in 800, further set the east and west at odds when, despite the fact that the Roman Empire was still alive and well in Constantinople, he crowned the Frankish king Charlemagne Holy Roman Emperor in the west.

In 862, two brothers from Thessalonika, Greece, named Cyril and Methodius, set out to evangelize the Slavs. Their evangelization efforts eventually led to the conversion of Prince Vladimir I of Kiev, who in 988 adopted Christianity as the state religion of Kievan Rus’ (Russia). During his missionary work, St Cyril created a new alphabet into which he translated the Bible. This system of writing, called the Cyrillic alphabet, is still in use today in the languages of Russia, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Macedonia, Serbia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Mongolia.

The Roman church, after centuries of debate and equivocation, formally confirmed the use of the filioque in 1009 by inserting it into the Mass, and Constantinople in response, removed the name of the Roman pope from their diptychs (the prayers venerating and recognizing Orthodox bishops). For the next forty-five years, the popes of Rome attempted to be reinstalled in the diptychs, which the Patriarch of Constantinople refused unless Rome dropped the filioque. Then in 1054, a delegation from Pope Leo IX walked into the Church of the Holy Wisdom (Άγία Σοφία) in Constantinople during the Liturgy and laid a bull of excommunication from the pope upon the altar, making official the break in communion between the churches of Rome and Constantinople.

In 1066, William the Conqueror of Normandy invaded England and defeated the Orthodox king Harold II at the Battle of Hastings. Pope Alexander II of Rome crowned William of Normandy king of England and Orthodox English bishops where then systematically deposed, imprisoned, or executed (or all three!), and replaced with Norman bishops loyal to Rome.

In early 1095, the Byzantine Emperor Alexius I sent to Rome for help defending his empire against the invading Islamic Seljuk Turks. Later that year, Pope Urban II, at the Council of Clermont, called on all Christians to join in a holy war against the Turks and the recovery of the Holy Land from the Muslims, promising immediate remission of sins to those who died in the cause. Thus began the Crusades, which led to the breaking off of communion between Rome and the other Patriarchs—Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem—and the sacking of Constantinople in 1204, further widening the break between East and West. The slaughter of eastern Christians and the desecration of their churches by the participants of the fourth Crusade were regarded by the East as the ultimate outrage, and by this time, neither East nor West recognized the other as belonging to the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.”*

The Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus recaptured Constantinople from Latin rule in 1261.

At the Council of Florence in 1439, an attempt was made at reconciliation and reunification between the Eastern and Western churches. A few eastern churches submitted to Rome, but the majority felt that the filioque and papal supremacy represented an impasse to East/West reunion.

The Church of Russia became autocephalous in 1448, and Moscow came to be regarded as the Third Rome (after Constantinople), hence the use of the title “tsar” (from “Caesar”) for Russian leaders. Not long after tons of priceless church art treasures were relocated to Moscow from Constantinople, the latter fell to the Islamic Ottoman Empire in 1453. Thus ended the millennium-old Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire.

Two years later, the German inventor Johann Gutenberg printed the Bible for the first time ever.

Then in 1478 Pope Sixtus IV granted Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile permission to launch the Spanish Inquisition, a church tribunal targeting recent Jewish converts to Christianity, and later Protestants. The tribunal was officially abolished in 1834 by Isabella II.

During the 16th century, various Christian groups began parting ways with the Roman church because of disagreements regarding theology, practice, hierarchy, etc. In 1517 Martin Luther touched off the Protestant Reformation with the publication of his 95 Theses, and in 1534 King Henry VIII rejected papal authority and named himself supreme head of the Church of England. Soon dozens—and later hundreds—of groups also split with Rome, and then with each other.

Tsar Peter the Great of Russia began reforms of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1700, altering the church government and restricting entry into monasteries. These reforms essentially made the Church a department of state, severely weakening it and placing it in a poor position to take on the challenges it would face centuries later.

In September 1794, eight Russian monks, including St Juvenal, the first Orthodox martyr of the New World, arrived in Alaska, introducing Orthodox Christianity to the indigenous peoples of America and initiating an evangelization mission that would reach as far south as California.

During the nineteenth century, the Roman Catholic Church introduced new doctrines to the faith, including the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and papal infallibility in 1870.

In 1917, the largest Christian nation in the world fell into Communist control. From that time until the fall of Communism in 1990, the Russian Church suffered persecution on a scale never before realized as nearly fifty million Russian Christians were martyred for their faith.

After the fall of the Iron Curtain, Eastern Europe experienced an explosion of Christian activity that continues to this day.

On 25 July 2008, Ukraine celebrated the 1020th anniversary of St Vladimir's baptism and the conversion of Kievan Rus'.

Today, there are approximately 2 billion self-professed Christians in the world who belong to over thirty-thousand confessional bodies.

Here is a graphical timeline of Church history.

For a fascinating account of the early Church through the middle of the fourth century, read Eusebius' Church History



*While each side believed—and still believes—that they alone were catholic (i.e. “universal and complete”) and orthodox (i.e. “theologically correct”), over the centuries the western Church came to be known as the “Catholic” or “Roman Catholic” church, while the eastern Church came to be known as the “Orthodox” or “Eastern Orthodox” church.